# US Debt Ceiling



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 21, 2011)

This is going to affect us all, if the debt ceiling is not raised, that is. Can anyone justify to me why the GOP would choose to still take this weekend off, just because it's been planned that way? Isn't this a very serious (inter)national emergency???


----------



## windshore (Jul 21, 2011)

Senator Mitchell said his number one political priority was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. The interviewer asked again, "That's your number one priority?" Mitchell said yes. 

So that would explain the GOP strategy. Priority is on the presidency in 2012, not on fixing problems in the country.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

The Republicans (as opposed to the GOP, which doesn't exist anymore!) are the ones who are creating the crisis in the first place. Nobody seems to point out that they are threatening to blow up the world economy if the Democrats don't subscribe to their vision a country that only a sociopathic freak would endorse.

That's number one.

Number two is that I don't care that they're going home for the weekend, I care that a) they have been allowed to shift the national debate from the real emergency - unemployment - to *pretending* to deal with a complicated problem that's at least five years down the line; b) our president is helping make their despicable argument (basically that we need to fire teachers and low-level public employees this instant in order to give businesses the confidence to invest in hiring people to produce goods for people who don't have the money to buy the goods they're already producing), and c) that whatever deal they come up with is only going to make our problems much worse.

And d) that this is a mockery of democracy, in which a bunch of stupid morons with pitchforks instead of teeth hold sway over our federal government.

It's really, really frustrating watching the Democrats act like eunuchs.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 21, 2011)

It's obvious that there will be a deal. But the brinksmanship puts the credit rating at risk, which would increase interest costs, and would increase the debt.

A sane person would either:
1) Just raise it, or
2) Raise the limit while increasing taxes (the Dem ask) and decreasing spending (the Rep ask).

To demand that spending be cut without raising taxes is fine as the starting position in a negotiation, but it won't be the result at the end of a negotiation. 

Not even the most spoiled children get everything they want.

BTW, I'll take #2 above, please. If reducing the deficit is truly important, hitting it from both the revenue and the spending sides is the fastest way to reduce it.

The truth is that the Republicans WANT a high deficit. The debt grew under Reagan, Bush, and Bush. It leaves the Dems with no money to work with. And it provides good yields on bonds. 

Obama has offered #2 - including $3T of spending cuts for $1T of revenue. Because of Republican intransigence, we will end up with option #1 - the most debt laden solution.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

Interesting.....

What would you tell a friend who makes $58,000 a year, spends $75,000 a year, and has $327,000 in credit card debt?

These figures are the exact ratios of our National Debt.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 21, 2011)

The Fed and it's board memebers run the show, not these temporary occupants who struggle reading the scripts they're handed.
Bernancke announced back in May that they had a back up plan for any failed talks yet the media couldn't spread fear if they ran that CSPAN session.
When the Chinese Premier announced that they were stopping production of all combustible engines last year, the market trends reflected that statement and now we see fracking on a widespread basis.
When Bernancke announced the possibility of a QE3 a shift in capital to less volatile stocks reflected that statement.

When Obama, Reid or Boehner read the scripts their handed, only MSNBC and FOX news relfect those statements.
The market pays no attention to these clowns, especially Obama.
He's in campaign mode a year early so most folks just think back to those glorious days of change and know what's up.... o[])


FWIW, debt to CHina and deficits are great for Bond value, and Governemnt spending and overspending is a good thing. Government is NOT a business. The continuos flow of money and spending drive economies. It's the choice of spending that seems to be causing the divisions.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> What would you tell a friend who makes $58,000 a year, spends $75,000 a year, and has $327,000 in credit card debt?
> 
> These figures are the exact ratios of our National Debt.



I'd suggest a combo of earning additional income and cutting spending(bending over in a dark alley with your pants around your ankles while eating ramen noodles straight from the bag).


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 21, 2011)

I'd tell him to stop fighting wars he can't afford, and to stop letting his rich friends' get away with highway robbery through bribery.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> What would you tell a friend who makes $58,000 a year, spends $75,000 a year, and has $327,000 in credit card debt?
> 
> These figures are the exact ratios of our National Debt.



Most people are in this exact same position. Add car loans, school loans, home loans, ect... and you've got about that much debt. But the thing you left out is the time. America's got a lot of time to payback the loans. So as much as the country is "worried" about the debt it isn't really that big of a deal. Yes is should be handled, but it's not this all encompassing problem of overwhelming doom if we just continue on paying our debts as is. 

But I will agree on one thing. In the short term spending has to be below income so john's point #2 is probably the best course of action and the "Gang of Six" plan is probably the most sound fiscal policy for a country that I've ever seen. Yet, nobody is making a big deal of it. They'd rather just fight than come up with solutions that make sense.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

> If reducing the deficit is truly important, hitting it from both the revenue and the spending sides is the fastest way to reduce it.



Ah, but that's the paradox: cutting the spending (across the board) will have the opposite effect! Slashing public spending in the middle of a depression is going to make everything much worse; the correct response is to increase public spending - INVESTMENT - to support the economy while people pay down their PERSONAL debt.

Government debt is a totally different thing - which is why Jose's analogy (spouted by our president) is so flawed.



> the short term spending has to be below income so john's point #2



Robert Reich put it very clearly: you have to separate spending into past, present, and future.

Past obligations are set. Get that, tea party morons?

Obligations for our future are a good thing if they are going to have a positive return; so for example going into more debt to keep teachers is absolutely appropriate. Investing in our infrastructure is a very good thing.

And present obligations probably should be balanced when that becomes possible (i.e. our country is back to work).

But to look at all spending as the same is as ludicrous as looking at all taxes and all debt as the same thing. Who pays the taxes and who holds the debt makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

What’s the first step to getting out of debt?
* don’t go any further into debt
* increase the income? Sure....but you can't out-earn your stupidity. Washington hasn't learned that yet.

Do you think cuts are going to pleasant? No. People are going to be mad. They're going to stomp their feet, stick out their bottom lips, have little red faces, and pout.

The proposed cuts are laughable when you look at the percentage....and it won’t work. It’s politics as usual. It’s not the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s both of them. Both parties have learned to spend at a level that would make you throw up if it were at your house....and they’re bankrupting our country. Both of them are. They both talk a lot...but neither side has proposed anything like what’s going to have to happen. So if you want to point blame at solely the Democrats or solely the Republicans, I’d say you have your head too far up your politics to see the daylight.

It’s going to be very painful. It’s sad. About half of our country’s total expenditures is on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. There’s no way to balance the budget...and leave those items alone. It’s mathematically impossible. You could do away with all government spending (not counting wellfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, defense)...and not balance the budget; close every single federal office (without touching Social Security) and you won’t even balance it as much as you’ll begin to repay anything.

The pain that is coming is coming. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid is going to have a problem. We are either going to choose to give it a problem or it’s going to fail and we are all going to have a problem.

Look, I want your grandma to eat....but she’s getting ready to get a pay cut. That’s not a political statement....it’s not even a suggestion. It’s a mathematical fact. We’re past the point of no return.

I wonder if anyone in Washington will have the...ummm....backbone to say what’s going to have to happen? It sure would be "politically incorrect."

- Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike, what you're saying is intuitively correct but actually incorrect.

That's the "you can't borrow your way out of debt" argument, and it's fallacious. The problem isn't the amount of debt, it's that the people who owe money can't spend to keep the economy going. For every borrowed dollar there's someone who owes it - the actual wealth stays the same.

Austerity doesn't work. It shrinks the economy and makes everything worse, including tax revenues and the amount of money that has to be spent feeding and sheltering people who are unemployed.

The Republican argument is dead wrong - you know, the one that you and our president are making.

By the way, there are many examples of this in the real world and in history - it's not academic theory.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

Then we'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

Fine, but that doesn't mean we're both right.

But you are right that medical expenses are the biggest problem - although Medicare is the answer rather than the problem, i.e. it's the underlying health costs that are the problem (Medicare brings down costs). Social Security isn't even in the same breath, because it's taxed separately and only needs a relatively minor tweak to remain fine.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 21, 2011)

If you watch the markets you'll notice no indicators of fear whatsoever.
When the CHinese Premier announced that petroleum based engine production was halted and re tooling for natural gas engines was starting.
The exploration and investment here soared and Pennsylvannia is just the beginning of that steamroller.
But people who have legitimate power can make statements and the market responds.

Wall Street also remembered Bernanckes' testimony in May on fiscal policy.
On record he said QE3 was a last resort measure, but unnecessary, and also said if there were a Government shutdown, " smaller " measures were in place at Treasury and the Fed.
When this CSPAN session was aired the market reflected this as capital shifted to less volatile investment.

Why doesn't anyone on Wall Street with Billions in investment seem worried...? They saw this speech, and know who really calls the shots in our Capital.
These temporary occupants read the scripts they're handed, and are in campaign mode right now.
If there was any truth to these inconsequential " meetings " the market would have relfected this. 

Afterall, we are not Communists.
Don Bartzini.....The Goldfather. 1972 Untied Artists.. o[])


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/opini ... an.html?hp

Paul Krugman wrote a column saying what I said, only much better - and he talks about the same crap going on in Europe.

It's a fast moving train wreck, and the sad thing is that it's totally unnecessary


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 21, 2011)

why is no one in the media and else where mentioning the defense budget?!?!!!!!

bout half of the overall budget consists of 2 things:

-medicare
-defense


http://thefalconpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Budget-Pie-Chart.jpg (http://thefalconpost.com/wp-content/upl ... -Chart.jpg)


wind down the military spending. 

and try to make health care more affordable instead of newer and complicated. 
which is not only med tech but also on the paperwork/insurance side.


----------



## snowleopard (Jul 30, 2011)

I'm not even sure where to begin. I guess I'll start with the most serious and end with humor (that's also very true). 

First, the serious. Steven Kyle, former economist for the World Bank and now a professor at the Dyson School of Economics at Cornell says the solution is simple. This is an excellent read, and not too long. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/29/kyle.default.consequences/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Now for the humor. Beyond Boener apparently calling the Tea Party jackasses, John McCain referring to the Tea Party Hobbits was classic. He sure angered some people, but he's completely correct. 



The debt ceiling will be raised one way or another. Either Congress will come to it's senses, after all the President has given them nearly everything they want and is offering an extremely conservative plan. Or they all will be pistol whipped into raising it by the bond markets and federal reserve as the markets crash and take the economy with it, or the President will invoke the 14th amendment, and with that ignore Congress, possibly for the next several months.


----------



## snowleopard (Jul 30, 2011)

Wow, that's interesting. Never seen it do that before. Was it something I said?! :| 

Let's try again: 

I'm not even sure where to begin. I guess I'll start with the most serious and end with humor (that's also very true). 

First, the serious. Steven Kyle, former economist for the World Bank and now a professor at the Dyson School of Economics at Cornell says the solution is simple. This is an excellent read, and not too long. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/ ... ?hpt=hp_c2

Now for the humor. Beyond Boener apparently calling the Tea Party jackasses, John McCain referring to the Tea Party Hobbits was classic. He sure angered some people, but he's completely correct. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt5OE3_3zvM

The debt ceiling will be raised one way or another. Either Congress will come to it's senses, after all the President has given them nearly everything they want and is offering an extremely conservative plan. Or they all will be pistol whipped into raising it by the bond markets and federal reserve as the markets crash and take the economy with it, or the President will invoke the 14th amendment, and with that ignore Congress, possibly for the next several months.


----------



## rgames (Jul 30, 2011)

As with all things economic, it all comes back to perception.

Is it an international emergency?

Well, do you *perceive* it that way?

Therein lies the answer.

We're going through the same media-hyped baloney we went through at the end of the housing bubble, the economic event that led us into the last recession in 2008. People are predicting the same doom and gloom that they predicted back then (remember "10,000 banks will fail"? How are the banks doing now?). All the while, they have no clue how the situation actually affects them. They're being told armageddon is approaching, and for lack of a desire to stop and think, they believe it.

And when people start to *perceive* armageddon on the way, well, like I said: in economics, it all comes back to perception. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, of course the country's ability to pay its bills is a big deal. However, there is no conceivable way the government will *not* pay its bondholders, so if the debt ceiling is not raised, the cuts will come elsewhere so that the bondholders are paid. Social security, transportation, military, etc.

So, no worldwide economic meltdown (yet). It's a problem - yes. It's a bad situation - yes. But the Chinese government will be paid, as will all other bondholders. So the "worldwide economic impact" should not be as grand as some would have you believe.

If you choose to believe it, it will become a reality.

Do you really think the Chinese government cares if grandma doesn't get her social security check? At this point, no. We're still a huge economy that is a great place to store cash. In fact, the economy is growing, and has been for some time. Slowly, yes, but it *is* growing.

However, if everyone buys into this armageddon baloney and starts cutting back, then we might have a problem. So please don't  Didn't we learn that lesson in 2008?

Now, the debt ceiling: yes, raise it. Get out of the hole by cutting spending and raising taxes (a bit). Even when (if) the debt ceiling is raised, the US bond rating might still go down, so raising the debt ceiling is not the "magic cure" that many think it is. The fact that we're worrying that grandma might not get her social security check is enough to affect that rating. Even if you pay your bondholders, the fact that you're having trouble paying your other bills is enough to shake investor confidence: how long until you can't pay the bondholders?

(Side note: the ratings are bullshit, anyway. Remember all the great ratings that existed right before the financial meltdown in 2008? It's all a bunch of crap - the people making those ratings aren't any smarter than you and me, they prey on people's insecurities about finance and try to convince them they've got it all figured out. They don't.)

So, what to cut? Well, there's where the debate should be. It's hard to imagine that something won't get cut - it'll have to be broad-based cuts across all government programs. And yes, increase revenues with some higher taxes.

I will say this, though:

- Cutting the mortgage interest tax deduction seems like a really bad idea. People are already having trouble affording their houses and many rely on that deduction to bring their interst costs into a reasonable range. So removing that deduction will effectively make it harder for people to afford their homes - the last thing we want is more stress in the housing market. I don't understand why I don't see this point discussed in the media - it seems like a pretty significant factor.

- Cutting military spending is not the panacea folks think it is. Remember that a huge portion of the military budget is health care, and college loans, and science/technology. The portion of the military budget that is actually spent on bullets and gasoline is significant but is not really enough to produce the cuts we need.

So stop and think. Don't just read the reports and assume there's somebody smarter than you who has it figured out, so you should trust his analysis. He's not smarter than you (don't we learn that every 10 years or so? 80's savings and loan, 90's tech bubble, 00's housing bubble). Economics is a social science; it is, therefore, rooted in human behavior. As such, it is influenced by people who prey on others' uncertainties and fears.

So decide which way you want to influence it 

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jul 30, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> What would you tell a friend who makes $58,000 a year, spends $75,000 a year, and has $327,000 in credit card debt?
> 
> These figures are the exact ratios of our National Debt.




I certainly wouldn't tell him to stop going to the doctor if he's sick, stop eating or become homeless. As it's been suggested by others, cutting spending unless critical parts of his life would be as important as him increasing his revenue stream.


----------



## midphase (Jul 30, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> About half of our country’s total expenditures is on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. There’s no way to balance the budget...and leave those items alone. It’s mathematically impossible. You could do away with all government spending (not counting wellfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, defense)...and not balance the budget; close every single federal office (without touching Social Security) and you won’t even balance it as much as you’ll begin to repay anything.



I say raise taxes...I'm cool with that, and I don't even make the amounts that would be impacted by repealing the Bush tax cuts. 

Seriously, I'm ok paying an extra $2000/year or so if it means ensuring that our elderly, poor and sick are taken care of.

Aren't you?


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 30, 2011)

I'd tell him to stop taking financial advice from broke people.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 31, 2011)

the us wont get out of debt in your lifetime and to leave this until the very last day is pathetic. its a great way to make money on the markets if you think about it. the trouble is the us growth has been downgraded from 1.9% to 0.4% for the quarter which in terms of predictions almost smacks of criminal behavior.
cant see any way the dems can survive any of this in the medium term. the pressure on the us private sector is going to be ridiculous. this is what happened with the crazy labor uk government over 13 years or so and is happening in the western arena simply because they cant do anything but come up with at best spurious growth predictions.

observe the markets after they come to a decision. my bet is they will rise considerably but i would be careful on that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2011)

The debate SHOULD NOT be about what to cut. It should be about which useful infrastructure projects to write people checks for completing.

Instead our president has said nothing to stop the biggest bunch of f-ing idiots in the whole country from taking over our government and making the debate about how many teachers and firemen to fire in order to give business leaders the confidence to grow the economy and hire people.

Whatever happens is going to be a total disaster.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 31, 2011)

George C. nailed it according to the creditors we actually owe money to.
The markets don't respond to another script read by Obama or other poor actors in DC, they did however react immediately after the Finance Minister of China made an announcement.
And S & P is a joke as they are the fools who allowed the credit swaps and housing market securities to be so toxic. So we're suppose to listen to these " authorities. "
It's brinkmanship at best.
Here's some coincidences to consider in case you grow weary of the experts and proffessors who work in make believe land at some University....

The Tea Party was originally a bunch of unemployed pissed off independants. Dick Armey and his cronies brilliantly swept up these commoners prior to November 2010 elections, and the money poured in.
But back then it was GOP money and the usual Koch Brothers, etc.

Then came the new law passed in the Supreme Court that restructured campaign financing, all during a super majority that was 100% controlled by Liberals of the DNC.
How could this possibly happen...? Follow the money, the committees and the record paced fast tracking of this to the Supreme Court.
This alone should have raised eyebrows but barely was mentioned except by a few wealthy Liberals like John Kerry.
Dick Armey has long been after a seat at the Fed and he has definately earned it as the election in Novemeber became a referendum, hence the most productive lame duck session on record. If you think back Obama became a Conservative overnight.

But now these Freshmen are being threatened by Boehner as he tells them the GOP will not finance their next campaign.........they haven't flinched.
Obviously they have access to bigger funding, and my guess is the folks who benefit the most from their existance.........the Federal Reserve and Pentagon.

Sounds like a consipracy theory, but check the voting records and what bills these freshmen are offering.
Start with Adam West and Bachmann. 
Knowing the debt ceiling game was coming they immediately started pushing through bills that keep the Pentagon funded in case of a default. They alone are responsible for this widepsread protection that ensures nobody can audit the Federal Reserve, or Pentagon...??

Isn't this where the bulk of our spending is...?
Wouldn't you want to protect your spheres of influence...?

People can point fingers and call names, and provide further distraction to a shell game that everyone knows will pass anyways.
The important thing here is that for the first time in decades representatives sent to DC have kept their word.
Whether or not we agree about the validity isn't that important, but I see many more of these freshmen fall guys coming to DC in 2012, no matter how many millions the DNC gets from the AFL-CIO and Georgy Boy Soros, or Evangelicals, corporations, defense contractors of the GOP.

Obviously GOP funding doesn't seem to scrare people.
Pelosi did the same thing twisting arms within her party for the Health Care Bill.....it worked because where else can a politician get funded ...?
This Supreme Court decision combined with Dick Armeys' decades old connections is causing major fear in both " parties " and this little game has shown millions of independants there are actually politicians working outside of this 2 party system that fails over and over every cycle...

These people should be who we watch, not these pathetic actors who keep reading new scripts.
Harry Reids monotone voice, and joking about a cell phone and pizza only confirmed to millions this game isn't anything to worry about.

Anyone notice when groups of the GOP or DNC stand in their formations with the flags behind them and they take turns speaking.
They all have that sad downward looking face as if someone is telling them how to look, act, dress, shit and shower, etc.

If anyone still believes that any of these " representatives " have your back, you're dillusional.
The Tea Party, GOP, DNC all have thier own purpose and agenda, and its not to serve us, but rather the folks who pay the most.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2011)

I agree with half of that, but once again it's not true that the DNC is the same as the Republicans. There's a huge difference.

However, the difference between today's regular Republicans and the tea party ones is a lot less clear. Mostly the tea baggers are just ignorant amateurs who don't understand the dangers of allowing religious ideology to interfere with reality. In other words the only difference is that the tea baggers suck even more.

By the way, what's going on right now is a great argument against term limits. Too much is at stake to allow ignorant douchebag amateurs to have this much power.


----------



## snowleopard (Jul 31, 2011)

Finally got around to reading the Krugman article that Nick linked to. I think it's pretty spot on accurate. I think this current deal talked about today - if it happens - or anything close to it is not going to fix the economy nor the debt problem. It is also likely to make the economy worse.


----------



## rgames (Jul 31, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jul 31 said:


> Seriously, I'm ok paying an extra $2000/year or so if it means ensuring that our elderly, poor and sick are taken care of.
> 
> Aren't you?


Yes.

But how about we get that $2k by cutting some of the fat out of the federal budget? Wouldn't you rather do that first?

Then you can give your $2k directly to your favorite cause, completely bypasing the overhead incurred by the government and making better use of your money.

See, I've just turned your $2k into $4k and made you feel better because at least half of it is going directly where you think it should 

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Jul 31, 2011)

Actually, Richard, we have had banks failing at a rate surpassed only by that seen in the Great Depression. A few large banks were rescued, as we all know, but bank failures are legion.

We didn't have a housing bubble burst by perception, but by reckless lending. Once that ceased, a large number of buyers abruptly left the housing market, and the old supply / demand law found that there was too much supply. So prices are way down.

The idea that it was media-hyped is, I'm afraid, not supported by the numbers. In California alone, one of the biggest sources of the housing debacle, the number of sub-prime loans as a percent of all loans outstanding rose from 3-4% to well over over 15% between 2005 and 2008. 

That means that, during the 2005-2008 period, an enormous percentage -- during some time spans, over half -- of all mortgages originated during that period were sub-prime, including "liar loans," with unconfirmed income.

It is astonishing to me that the Federal Reserver was so totally inept, or asleep at the switch, to allow this very obvious balloon. But they did.

Perception absolutely is important. But so are basic bank lending practices, which went over a cliff.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 31, 2011)

As usual JohnG. speaks wisely and is factually correct.
Roland Arnalls' Ameriquest with the help of a Federal Reserve partner from Europe knew the trouble and thought by giving loans to home owners with 40-50% equity vested, would be similar to flooding the market with huge amounts of spending, as many home owners were getting anywhere from 20-60k in cash back from their equity which was thought would be spent and stop the downward spiralling of the markets.

This was a Government program and the chances of failure and risk were extremely high, yet the protectors of the little peoploe cared not, as they are wealthy, and it's easy taking risks with others money instead of their own.

Look at the vetting process where Barney Frank, G.Bush, Cheney, Dodd, Kerry, and every other wealthy career politician allowed Roland Arnall who was on the verge of being criminally prosecuted, escape to the Netherlands after the fastest bancrupy, where he became an Ambassador, without ever serving the public before....??
Myseriously this healthy man in his 60's died, but the gracious wealthy Queen was more than happy to allow his son, who also had no experience at anything becoming the new Ambassador...

Don't expect to see this reported in the media. Afterall it's not as exciting as world castrophies and murderers set free.

But don't think for a minute that these scripted media events reveal any truths about the way these 2 parties pretend to be so different.

Look at the wars, and the new ones, the same Bush programs extended and enlargened,....the list is long.
THey both want larger unnacountable Government growth too. 
I am not distracted, and definately not represented by any of these bought and paid for " servers of the people."

Here's an example of a Harry Reid broken promise to get a vote.
Notch Babies.............anyone ever heard about them...?

They were our fathers and grandfathers that served in Europe and the Pacific in WWII and if they were lucky enough to come home with a few pieces of lead in their ass, have paid higher Social Secutity rates for 60 + YEARS..!!!!!
In 1990 the Senior Citizens League was promised by the elites who serve us so well, that their higher rate of taxation will be returned in a lump sum, or a higher monthly check......
And Guess what, they're all dead except a few brave ones in their 90's.
My Father was one of them. 
Now with the all caring Liberal majority Harry Reid promised us once all Republicans were removed in 2008 this issue would be resolved, since he himself is a Senoir Citizen and who better to represent these brave patriots......
Well as you can see that was a big fuckin' lie too as the Super Majority came and went w/o a single mention or vote on this.
Thankfully their widows are elidgable for these owed monies, but as you can see, 1924 is the cut off date, and now the widows will die w/o ever recieving these funds.....

So.......if you think ANY of these cock suckers cares about you, or your family.....you'd better think again.
They love you once you serve them, feed them and then die for them.....

God Bless America...... o[])


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2011)

Richard is always going on about perception as if it's perception when someone loses his or her job and doesn't have money coming in.

Exactly what fat are you talking about, Richard? We have an unemployment problem that demands government spending. That's the problem, not the small percentage of inevitable waste that is impossible to avoid in any huge bureaucracy. The 20 teachers who lost their jobs at my daughter's high school weren't "fat." You can't make up for the massive budget shortfalls facing most of our states by "trimming fat."

The states have a revenue problem, not a "spending" problem as the douchebaggers like to say. People who are out of work don't pay income tax.

And once again we're having the wrong argument. The US government is not broke just because it needs to borrow money to pay its bills. Deficits are not an emergency; the emergency is caused by *lack* of deficits.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 31, 2011)

forget housing bubbles and forget about firemen and public sector workers getting fired and forget about the national debt.

if the growth rates dont happen and they keep giving out shitty growth figures to the market makers then the markets will bomb. if you believe krugman or any pinko paper financial reports then what are any of you doing in the market. you need to get out fast if you think thats about to happen. i dont. this is the trouble with paper reporting. you get extremist right followed by extremist left. what you need to find is balance. sentiment is now at a big low and sentiment is what counts with the big players. in the uk where i currently work the sentiment is at an all time low and their growth rate is non existent. growth!!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2011)

Pinko and extremist. Yah.

We're in the market because we don't want to put all our money in the other place we have it. And because there are two economies: the one most people live in, and the one reflected in the market. Lots of corporate profits are made overseas.

I do believe Krugman, and for good reason: what he's been saying all along has happened exactly as he (and every other rational person) has been saying - and that applies to austerity around the world and throughout history, about interest rates and inflation not exploding under zero bound conditions, about the inadequate stimulus wearing off, and about our economic problems still existing only because of the political realities.

What's going on now is just a bigger dose of austerity and bigger wrong policy moves.


----------



## rgames (Jul 31, 2011)

Of course it's not *only* perception that explains our current situation, but it is a bigger piece than most people realize. Yes - the housing bubble was real, and the problems with the banks were real. Our reaction to those problems, however, continues to be far in excess of what it should be.

Right now, banks are sitting on tons of cash. And so are hundreds of other businesses. They could start hiring if they wanted to. But nobody wants to be the first to jump back in. After all, CEO's are getting paid. And stocks are doing OK, so corporate boards are OK, too.

It's going to take a change in perception to shake the money loose and get it back into the American economy.

As long as we keep allowing ourselves to believe this over-hyped baloney, well, that perception isn't going to change. So, again, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jul 31, 2011)

JohnG @ Sun Jul 31 said:


> Actually, Richard, we have had banks failing at a rate surpassed only by that seen in the Great Depression. A few large banks were rescued, as we all know, but bank failures are legion.


I couldn't remember the number so I looked it up.

Between 2008 - 2010, the FDIC payed out about $45B to cover bank failures. http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bank_failures/list (http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppleme ... lures/list)

The *number* of banks are large but the total amount of cash required for those bailouts is not (because nowadays, as opposed to the great depression, the huge banks own so much of the market). The US economy can recover from that without trying too hard. If the people decide they want to, that is...

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 31, 2011)

I have to admit, the Republicans and Tea Party have played this high-stakes game of chicken perfectly. Too bad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 31, 2011)

Richard, what the frick are you talking about.

Do you really think it's psychological that the reason businesses aren't investing is that they don't have enough customers to buy what they can produce with their existing capacity, that all we have to do is reassure them and they'll unleash the potential in our economy?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 31, 2011)

They're just hoarding their money and counting the interest.

Oh, and they're also just as scared as we all are.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 31, 2011)

Obamas' economic Proffessors are back where they belong in make believe land at some University, where accountability doesn't exist.
That makes me confident for a rebound.
Guys like Steve Wynn pay me. I don't want to see them build more Casinos overseas trying to escape this " Social Justice. "
If wealthy Liberals want to save the Planet with cash, call up George Soros or risk your own capital.
As it turns out, the stimulus was good for wealthy Liberals.

Harry Reid had insider information on the new Hoover Dam Bridge. Bought the property for Peanuts, used the Stimulus to build this unneeded Bridge and even sold the land back to us at an 800% profit.
Way to go Harry, protector of the people....... _-) 
Nancy Pelosi got a free railroad built to her Vinyards and Winery in Napa Valley.......Shovel ready worked for her really well.
The late John Murtha ( RIP as he actually served in Nam ) had an Airport extension for the multi million dollar Airport named after him that maybe 30 people a day use, but he hated driving his Gas Guzzling Limosuine very far, and was saving the Planet by using less Gas.
To be fair, John Ensign split before they could proove the 190k his parents were going to pay for blackmail money was stimulus funds for his district..
The Liberals just got a large percentage and finders fee.
By the time their trickle down economics went into play, there wasn't much left or we wouldn't be firing teachers, firefighters or other people who actually serve the public instead of fleecing it...


----------



## rgames (Jul 31, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jul 31 said:


> Do you really think ... that all we have to do is reassure them and they'll unleash the potential in our economy?


Yeah, pretty much 

Of course that's not the whole story - there are real problems that exist outside the psyche of the American (and world) public. And they need to be addressed.

But sentiment is a facilitator - if people continue to "feel" bad about their economic prospects, then they will continue to realize that outcome regardless of whatever else happens.

As I already said, there are huge stashes of cash sitting around in the US economy. The reason it's sittting there is because of uncertainty. Nobody wants to be first back in the water to see if the sharks are still just below the surface.

The political wrangling in DC doesn't help, either...

Think about the last round of armageddon. What happened? Did you try to write a check and find out that the bank couldn't fund it? Probably not. Some people did - about $45B worth of people. And they were taken care of by the FDIC. The system worked like it's supposed to. That's chump change for the US government, but we were told that we're headed towards armageddon. And after a few quarters of recession, the economy started growing again. Just like it always has. Yes, there were problems, and they were addressed and fixed. Then we moved on. Well, we're trying to, anyway...

So why is this a jobless recovery? The economic indicators seem decent. Hmmm... let's see... maybe ... sentiment? Maybe, just *maybe*, the media (and politicians, including Obama) so thoroughly convinced people that the world is about to end that it's taking years for them to get out of that mindset, even when things are actually looking up.

"The Economy" is not something that exists separate and apart from all of us, like some type of alternate universe. But people seem to think of it that way, so they turn to their favorite talking heads and recite the same drivel that they spew, without stopping to think what motivations they might have for spewing said drivel (e.g. drive internet traffic, sell advertising, get elected to office, etc).

We *ARE* the economy.

What type of economy do you want to be?

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 31, 2011)

Richard, there are two economies. The real one where goods and services are exchanged and the fake one where speculators deal in stuff like market cap. The problem with the escalating difference between rich and poor is that more and more money is sucked out of the real economy and put into the fake one.

We have a crisis of demand. The earning power of the middle class has eroded and unemployment is up. People are afraid of losing their jobs. Hence, spending in the real economy is down.

The Republicans don't say "rich." They say "job creators." But that's BS. Many large corporations have lots of cash - and they're sitting on it because you don't invest and add jobs if there is no demand.

When a rich guy (oops - "job creator") pays too little tax, listens to Glenn Beck, and buys (speculates on) gold, how many jobs does that create?

A question for the supply-siders: when did you last go to the store and find out there wasn't enough supply? Are there not enough car brands to choose from? Are there not enough TVs on Best Buy's wall?

To re-balance the economy from the virtual to the real, we need to boost the capital gains tax. Let's rebalance the wealth from investors to consumers to increase demand. From demand will come investment and job growth.

When supply is low and inflation starts to grow, then we may need to shift the balance back to supply. Currently, lack of supply is not the problem. The problem is that the wealthy have sucked so much cash out of the real economy and into speculation. There are too many dollars chasing too little demand.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 31, 2011)

Let's assume that theory is correct, and all of the newspaper and university economics proffessors that were in the White House sat back and watched this continue, knowing good and well the 1.4 trillion that was used to stimulate wasn't going to be sufficient.

Did they not then also fail, knowing that while they had a Super Majority, they could have basically taken over Wall Street while they fed them Billions of dollars....?
Instead they wasted 2 years on another failed Social experiment where their sponsors came out shining, or recieved exemptions.
I know this since I am a retired AFL-CIO tradesmen. My benfits rose and my dental plan is now unlimited, with some slight exclusions for cosmetic treatments. Other members of my family are paying more as they work in the private sector.

At least the Liberals could have closed the " corporate Jet owners " loopholes Obama repeats every week, or extend the Unemployment beneifts to those who had employers pay into the program for decades.
And lets not forget the evil CEO's and Corrupt corporations paid into another Uncle Sam Ponzi scheme called " unemployment " but yet after decades of paying into it and it not being used much, politicians are using the stimulus to extend benfits...?? Where's the decades of funding that they collected....? More Bull Shit.

I pray that someday money will not be a factor in policy making. Only then will these 2 false parties become history.
Then we can actually rebuild our economy and attract investment again.
Government should be used to keep the game fair and thriving, not this class warfare bullshit that divides us with disinformation and lies.

The Debt ceiling " crisis " was a fine example of more DC Bull shit.
Wow, we only have to raise the national debt 7 trillion instead of 10 trillion.
What a great deal that is. The choice was catastrophic death and mayhem, or another " ceiling " to raise.

Why bother calling this a ceiling anyways. That just shows you how phucked we are by these 2 parties. They don't even understand the English language. This ceiling must be higher than the Sears Tower by now.

Only in DC can we use Humanitarian reasons to start a third war where we kill in the name of Human Rights...?

We're Phucked Up....


----------



## rgames (Jul 31, 2011)

From Obama's speech this evening:

"I have been concerned about the impact on business confidence, on consumer confidence ..."

Sounds a lot like he thinks perception has something to do with it...

The crazy thing about the whole situation is that the people with the least confidence in the US economy are US citizens.

Think about it: just because we raise the debt ceiling doesn't actually do anything to help us out. We still have to find folks willing to hand over some cash for our government-backed bonds. That means *someone* has to have confidence in our economy.

My guess is we'll find some buyers. Yes, even despite the fact that the US media is still telling us that we're headed for certain doom. Somehow they know something that everyone else in the world is missing...

rgames


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 1, 2011)

I agree Obama does think that. After all, he just signed a bill that gave the Republicans about 95% of what they wanted, maybe more. At a time not during normal calendar budget negotiation, but during a debt ceiling extension. Something never done before, even when the GOP controlled both houses and the Presidency. Obama caved across the board. He not only went back on his campaign promise to protect SS, Medicare and Medicaid, he made little effort to engage in debate with the Republicans or Tea Party, never once calling them out, or using the bully pulpit. Even John McCain had more balls than that when going up against the Tea Party. Obama acted like he was still a junior Senator in Illinois, not the President. 

What's most fascinating is that I fully expect as Krugman warned, the economy to remain very flat, especially for working people. And while that happens, the conservatives will continue to rail against Keynesian economics, even while getting the massive cuts and low taxes on the wealthy they sought, with supply-side economics the only option in this massive $2.4 trillion bill. 

I'm starting to think this may kill Obama's presidency. Not because there are great Republicans out there to run against him, but because there are a very large number of progressives who showed up in droves to vote for him before, who are likely to be very angry and bitter about this and feel betrayed by him. And this is something I think he may have completely underestimated. While this happens I think the Republicans are going to be very energized by this debt bill today, and will ride this wave for the next year, or they will try to, knowing all they have to do is keep talking, wait Obama out, and he will give up. And with that, a lot of their base will show up and vote. It may all depend on just how much the average American is going to continue to put up with a flat-lined economy and focus their blame once again.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 1, 2011)

banks wont hire anyone. in fact they will go the other way. the amount of cash in the system matters little. its about growth. without meaningful growth where are the revenues going to come from to pay for all this crap. we need growth not more QE. QE wont stimulate growth. some believe it will but i dont. poor people are going to be poor people whatever the economy does and thats life. growth rates dont matter to poor people but they matter to everyone else that has something to lose.

most of the big cash has obviously gone into gold and swiss francs lately. we need desperately to see the price of gold start to drop. thats a good sign whenever that happens.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 1, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Jul 31 said:


> I have to admit, the Republicans and Tea Party have played this high-stakes game of chicken perfectly. Too bad.



the democrats and obama were never in a million years going to win this one. with respect if you were an american you would have understood that from day one.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 1, 2011)

George, 

You don't really know me. I'm a news junkie, specifically addicted to US politics. Podcasts, blogs, editorials, forums, I read 'em all. You don't have to be a Canadian to understand and study political life here. I'd say the same thing is true for any country. Now, all those flags you guys hang everywhere? That, I find hard to understand... :wink:


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 1, 2011)

flags. thats just our way of portraying total jingoism. incidentally while i have your attention. what has happened to the 1980(???) olympic stadiums in canada?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 1, 2011)

I can only speak for Montreal' olympic stadium. It's almost completely useless. Some have considered blowing it up, but it was deemed that this would create such a mess/dust that it was unrealistic. I saw Michael Jackson there for the Victory Tour, and a few Expos' games (remember them?), but that's about it.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

The Victory Tour was magical, I still yet to see a show that mesmorized me as that one did. But as we speak the Cirque guys have put together a show that has attempted to, at least pre productions I saw looked pretty good. The Jackson impersonator is incredibly talented.

FWIW I voted for Obama because I believed the failed " Conservatives " were not the same fiscally wise members that brought us growth under Clinton. The Kenneth Starr debacle was a huge waste of time and money when we should have been preventing things like 911.
So while I am a progressive on certain issues, I feel as betrayed now as I did when Bush started his big Government programs that only blossomed further under Obama.
Personally, I now feel even stronger about my beliefs that neither party has any power and do as they are told, since money rules the legislative branches more than ever.

Obama wants a second term at any cost, and he can give all of the speeches he wants. As we just witnessed, his actions are what need to be watched, the speeches are for hopeful future sheep.

The tell tale sign of his wavering positions being controlled by some " gathering of elite power brokers " became obvious to me with his invasion of Libya, which anyone who follows troop deployments knows we have boots on the ground, before we use our air assets.

We can vote for whatever party lies its way into office or even is delusional enough to believe they can control the worlds wealthiest banks and cross border " entities. " We have no power to achieve or change the direction of our Government until laws allowing funding for campaigns gets rolled back. Money for legislation has proven to be our undoing, and everyone involved caves into the pressure.

We could vote in Ron Paul who promises to audit the Fed and bring home our troops, but I just dont see anything like that ever happening.
Global security for the largest donors of our debt will dictate our future. Not the temporary idealogs.
The fact some Soccer moms can even get on the ballot is scaring the hell out of me.

Lets hope we get the Lithium in Afghanistan, the Oil offshore of Libya, and our troops on Irans border while our subs blocking thier ports to bring down the mullahs from within, otherwise another war looks perfect during a low growth period. It worked for FDR.

Every grassroots movement, even womens organizations, might start off for legitimate reasons, but once they grow into a force, someone takes over and uses that influence for other purposes.
Even our own EPA is a bunch of shakedown artists.
Just look at the Sea Of Cortez that has been ruined by Californias water needs. Years ago they promised the Lottry funds would help public schools and have water de salinization plants.
The most diverse exological wetlands have been destroyed and the continued draining of the Colorado river down by Yuma, AZ. ensures it will stay that way. Yet there's a little 2 inch guppy that has allowed Sacremento to cut off an entire productive valley using the water from the Stockton Delta.......Farmers can now begin to get their water rights back but at a huge price.........So much for " Enviromental Protection."

Capitalism has been hijacked in the same fashion by these power brokers. In 10-15 years the Chinese will have a great balance of Government and Capitalism. That is where our society needs to be, not with this politically correct perversion we suffer under.

Did anyone esle notice that the commoners form the " Tea Party " seemed to have 3 weeks of massive campaign blitzings ads where Obama and even " big party conservatives " were trahsed by millions of dollars of commercials...??
I barely watch TV except for certain shows on the History channel or prime time sit coms, and I couldn't escape this assault..
where were the GOP and DNC ads....?
You telling me they are broke, or didn't see this as an issue worth wasting resources on.......
Coincidence I suppose..


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 1, 2011)

Interesting article about this:

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/3...ndmoney_economy/?ectid=bitlyified080120111144


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 1, 2011)

ron paul will never get a meaningful vote. do you watch restoration man on the history channel?

that article is strange. there may well be a us downgrade even after the rep/dem thing gets sorted out. reason because of us growth and future ability to not default.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 1, 2011)

Mike Marino @ 1/8/2011 said:


> Interesting article about this:
> 
> http://www.daveramsey.com/article/3...ndmoney_economy/?ectid=bitlyified080120111144



Lost me here though: 


> ... by returning to God’s way of handling money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2011)

Richard:



> The reason it's sittting there is because of uncertainty



Wrong. Wrong.

It's sitting because of certainty: they know their customers don't have the money to buy their products.

The big Republican lie is that this is all uncertainty. It is a lie. We have a crisis of DEMAND.

***

George: growth will decline because of the unnecessary austerity being imposed. We could be doing great if we didn't have conservatives in our government who want to repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover.

And of course it's not just here. You have a fool for a prime minister, and even the new head of the ECB is saying the same thing about austerity.

It doesn't work and it never will.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2011)

Snowleopard:



> I'm starting to think this may kill Obama's presidency



Ya think?



But the truth is that Obama deserves to lose for not making the arguments for the right policies. I'm still going to have to vote for him, but I'm deeply disappointed. Mitt Romney isn't particularly different.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 1, 2011)

Yes. A crisis of demand.

And demand should not be confused with need. Need is air, water, food, shelter, clothing, transportation, healthcare, etc.

Demand is desire and funds.

Let's look at the composing profession. Would you be better off if there were more demand (desire and funds) for original music? Or would you be better off if there was a larger supply of composers?


----------



## midphase (Aug 1, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Aug 01 said:


> Let's look at the composing profession. Would you be better off if there were more demand (desire and funds) for original music? Or would you be better off if there was a larger supply of composers?



Without sidetracking this debate too much, I don't think that it's quite that simple. There is plenty of demand for original music today...more than ever in fact. There is a vast pool of composers providing a good supply for said demand, some better than others. The underlying problem with our profession is the devaluation level that we have allowed. 

You can find plenty of other fields where the supply is greater than the demand, and yet those industries manage to maintain value for their services because they understand the bigger picture (unlike composers).


----------



## midphase (Aug 1, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 01 said:


> But the truth is that Obama deserves to lose for not making the arguments for the right policies. I'm still going to have to vote for him, but I'm deeply disappointed. Mitt Romney isn't particularly different.



I don't believe Obama deserves to lose. He is an incredibly moderate president, the type who would accomplish great things if he was working with a senate of moderates and not a house controlled by people with the sole purpose of stopping him every step of the way (for no apparent reason since his policies are remarkably centrist).

I do find myself wishing for a democratic challenger with a stronger stance (Howard Dean?), but I wonder if that would effectively accomplish nothing. 

Republicans seem eager to remind the public that they only control half of 1/3 of government...but in truth they control the entire process as we have seen since 2009. Sure Obama was able to pass some legislation, but it was ripe with compromises which ultimately resulted in very weak and easily challenged policy.

It's really a shame that we live in such times where politics overrides the desire to improve the lives of the population.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2011)

The reason I'm so disappointed in Obama is not that he's being forced to compromise or even that he's been beaten down.

It's that he's been selling Republican lies as if they're the right thing to do. He isn't even making the case for what he knows is right!

If the Republicans are right that cutting social spending is going to set our economy on the right path, then why not cut even more deeply and really put it on the right path?

This is a terrible day for the country and for the world. Really, really sad. Because of this we're headed for a lost generation, not a lost decade.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 1, 2011)

One tiny silver lining?:

The Tea Party and Republicans might split up, yielding 2 right-wing parties to the one kinda-left-of-center-right.

Here in the land of maple syrup (yes, I'm in Vermont on holiday - but I mean Canada), there are 4, count 'em, four left-wing parties to one right-wing. Guess which party continues to win the elections even though it never gets more than 40%?


----------



## David Story (Aug 1, 2011)

The GOP wants government to fail. No more regulation. A police state would do fine by them. They represent the rich, who made their move years ago, and showed the GOP how to regain power.

Obama has to cave to preserve anything. Default could help many millionaires and billionaires at your expense.

We could rise up against the Plutocracy, but that would take the courage to oppose the rich, instead of worship them. Obama isn't a revolutionary, he's a moderate. Frankly, the public is thoroughly confused, just the way the GOP likes 'em. Incapable of defending themselves.

Midpahse is right, composers are in a similar situation. Producers exploit fear and narrow-mindedness. And most of us fall right in line for the next pay cut, that we rationalize according to the producer party line. 

The thing is, composers have a long history of not getting the big picture, with the occasional Victor Herbert to lead us.

It's the American public that really is stunningly ignorant of how the country is now controlled by an elite that's looking more like the old European ruling class. 

Irony, epic scale!


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

Ned, the States are the only place citizens still have a voice.
A 3rd party would spoil the game in DC, and reveal the real powers that rule the game there. The electoral vote is always their hole card to make sure their pick wins. Let's not forget the Al Gore debacle that was on it's way to the Supreme Court. Once the true rulers showed Al a way to make Billions as a delegate for Mother Nature he quickly forgot about the Presidency and how he actually won the election.
You can't blame the guy really. He made more money and purchased more Planes and beachfront property than he ever dreamed of. Not bad for a guy with a topside portfolio in Oil.... :mrgreen:

Anyone notice these defense numbers Pre Robert Reichs' successful defunding of the military....? They are showing numbers from the days of Saddam Hussein and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Of course the numbers are going to be half of that. 
Give Ramstein, Osaka, Seoul, Diego Garcia and dozens of other " forward " bases to the host counrty and let them defend themselves, seeings how the terrorist aren't going after them.........

Robert Reich watched the economy boom under his planning, he was right then, but I am shocked to see his recent cacklings as he avoids defense spending which he knows from past experience is the key to redistribution.
We should be building bridges here using Union Contractors and tradesmen. The stimulus was mispent as a political slush fund, so getting another trillion for the elites to divvy up amongst themselves cannot be allowed.

Tea Party freshmen are so poor compared to their wealthy counterparts, Im not sure they should have access to funding either.
But maybe their pockets are overflowing from their recent staunch representation of the Federal Reserve and Pentagon....
They outsmarted the grand old parties, that's for sure.
It just re-enforces my beliefs about the rigged games we think we have a voice in.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 1, 2011)

Imo, the basics of economic laws are so distorted by both parties that nobody knows anymore what is right and what is wrong. Economic falsehoods get so bandied about by the mega banks and wallstreet and these politicians who are politicians mind you and not economist rely on these guys for their "advice".

I honestly think that left wing economics and right wing economics are both crap. They're both thinly veiled disguises used to promote some sort of social agenda. But the truth is that economics is black and white. It knows now political affiliation. That's why guys like the Koch bros' freely give to both sides.

In the end though, economics will win out. And, as disappointed the extreme left is and the extreme right with this "grand compromise" it really on the surface just boils down to "a grand economic reality". And, reality one is income must be greater than outgo. Money coming in has to be greater than the money you're laying out. If it isn't you play right into the hands of the bankers who then jack up interest rates or "threaten your credit rating" to jack up interest rates so they can make more money off of ya! The funny thing is that these mega banks who actually do know economics really well, as soon as their balance sheets went asunder, then all of sudden they're screaming for economic bailouts. Imo, it's time now for those companies that are doing well after bailout (Goldman Sacks) to bailout the people of the United states by ponying up a few $1billion each to at least help the US balance it's books in the short term. But, you think they'll do that. No. Why? It's not good business.


----------



## rgames (Aug 1, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 01 said:


> Richard:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a chicken and egg situation: yes, demand plays a role.

Think of it this way: if GE suddenly started hiring then there would be more people with cash available to buy Ford automobiles. Then Ford could hire more people, who could in turn buy GE products. Take that example and network it through the thousands of businesses in the US economy and you see how a recovery occurs.

The supply side and demand side are inextricably linked. You can't really say it's all on one side or the other.

So why aren't we seeing that? Like I said, nobody wants to take the lead because of the uncertainty. Everyone's waiting for someone else to make the move. The trick is to get someone to make that move, then folks will start to follow.

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 1, 2011)

another issue over this debacle is going to be the rest of the worlds view now of us foreign policy. 

Nick there will be very little in the way of demand. the uk where i am has gone through all of that and although the public sector debt levels here are miles less than the us its all relative. also remembering that the uk is the 3rd largest bond holder of us debt albeit a ton of a way off china and then the oil people bond holders in 2nd spot.

the demand in the uk/cant speak for europe/ is almost non existent and you cant help wondering when everyone is going to start lying about their growth rates.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

Here Jose.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... jEWS0D_bcA

You'll notice the article isn't available and has been cleansed.
It's an article on how Obamas' Chief Counsel Craig, came into the cabinet, set up shop and negotiated loans for banks in return for campaign donations of course, then he left and returned to Goldman Sachs where his tax rate is low since he is a " Consultant. "

Yeah, let's get those Fat Cats and corporate Jet Owners.........
Only fools and sheep buy into that nonsense, but it seems like we were the fools for voting for Obama in the first place.
We got change.............but that's what I have let after shopping, or working all damn week for drunken scoundrels yelling Freebird at me....

Ill vote again for Obama as the GOP freak show is scary, but why change my vote, I have a candidate who is changing for me.....


----------



## José Herring (Aug 1, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Aug 01 said:


> Here Jose.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... jEWS0D_bcA
> 
> ...



Yeah pretty curious how all of a sudden the article isn't available. I heard the White House has an entire room of people trolling the internet looking for stuff like this. I wonder if they flexed their muscle to get this article axed.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

There's plenty of links aboiut Craig. It's nothing new unless you watch cable news or read the NYTimes for your talking points.
A favorite trick for the " cleaners " is to actually flood the topic with thousands of articles all saying the same thing and shoving back the truth under 40 pages of Google crap.
My guess is Bloomberg got a call from his businessmen and friend Ed Daly, who is also a Fat Cat Wall Street guy, and also on Obamas cabinet, with other fat cat CEO's like GE's tax free status Jeffrey Imhelt.

I like the idea our President hangs out with wealthiest tax cheats and loophole lovers in the country.

Afterall............we're not Communists.
Don Barzini..........The Godfather....1972 United Artists.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2011)

> Think of it this way: if GE suddenly started hiring then there would be more people with cash available to buy Ford automobiles. Then Ford could hire more people, who could in turn buy GE products. Take that example and network it through the thousands of businesses in the US economy and you see how a recovery occurs.



I like the thought, but unfortunately there's a hole in the scenario. Why? Because GE isn't going to invest in more capacity when it's not using the capacity it has already!

***
George: I'm saying just that rhetorically - it's faulty logic to cut spending in the middle of a depressed economy. Austerity doesn't work.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

It's sad that the states have to lay off public employees that actually serve the community. It's made me so angry but that's where our stimulus funds were suppose to be spent.
Too bad the public Unions wouldn't accept the negotiations where folks could keep the job, but freeze pension contributions until another phase of negotiations could be put in place. As usual, the protectors of the people failed here, just like their counterparts in DC. They aren't starving, they're eating at fine restaraunts and getting salaries and pensions from the taxpayers too.

But let's talk about unemployment and food stamps. These programs are the best form of stimulus we have as the money is immediately spent and isn't being passed around through the sticky fingers of wealthy elites seeking votes for food....
Many of my freinds are winding down and will hit their 99 week mark in November-Februray.

These guys are working for cash on the side since the benfits in Nevada are meger compared to the Nanny States like Calfornia or New York.
But it really drives them mad that they cant take a 2 or 3 week job from the Hall in hopes of being hired full time. If they take the job and work for 3 weeks the amount puts them into in-elidgability which is just stupid.
Food stamp collectors cannot accept work either as if they do they lose their benefits.....

Now tell me this isn't just fucking stupid.....?
If anyone in DC ever had a real job they'd know how hard it is to find full time work. They are being penalized for trying to better themselves.

These programs need to be fixed by someone who actually had a job in their lifetime instead of daddy getting them on at the DC feast for elites.

But I agree, austerity if applied in this country will not do anything but drag more coin out of the economy, and drop demand further.
I guess that is eating your peas, but it doesn't serve any real purpose I see.

But the Liberals had their shopping spree and screwed themselves out of money and most likely their jobs, oh well.
Maybe the terrorist, mass murdering, racist, moron, uneducated retards from the Tea Party will understand the real world.
At least most of them seem like they had a job once....


Peace.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

Nick,
In case I never told you I really appreciate your off topic forum.
I never start a thread here when it comes to politics, but seeings how others bring the issues up, I really enjoy bashing the elites, so thanks for the forum. Seriously.
I feel so much better when I type my frustrations, if I could write music angry I'd just turn on cable news....
This is much more pleasant so thanks for the space on your server....


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 1, 2011)

Yeah, I think what I like about Nick is that he wears his heart on his sleeve. And he's not the cliched liberal. He comes off as a blue collar, old school worker. 

Meanwhile, I just got done sifting through a lot of news articles and such on this debt bill. Here is what I can tell it entails. 

For the most part, Congress has played kick the can once again with the bill. That is the majority of the cuts are set to take place in 2013 and beyond. There will be very few cuts in 2011, or 2012 for that matter. No changes to Social Security, small changes to Medicare (I can't figure that out just yet) and no likely changes to Medicaid other than perhaps some distribution admin changes to the states. Of course no changes to defense spending, nor taxes, not even closing any loopholes like the one that allows the oil industry to get billions from the government. 

What does this mean? 

Well, from what I can surmise, this means very little change in the country or economy until at least the end of the election next year. No change to the budget, though it locks everything pretty much in place. So if you think Congress and the President are doing a great job of running the country and things are on the way up, this is a good bill for you in this regard.

Now as you can guess, when a new Congress starts in Jan 2013, there is likely to be another huge budget fight, with the President (Obama or someone else) fighting over that. And at that time it appears quite possible that virtually everything in this bill will be up for grabs. Yes, right before most of this bill is supposed to take effect. I think what this really means is that both the Republicans and the Democrats - mostly the President are saying that they are happy with their current position, and they think they are going to prevail in the 2012 elections, and be able to press their mandate that following January. It's sort of a game of brinksmanship, and in the end the American people, especially the average every day citizen, will be the one who continues to suffer. 

What a mess.


----------



## rgames (Aug 1, 2011)

snowleopard @ Mon Aug 01 said:


> For the most part, Congress has played kick the can once again with the bill.


I think that's right - that was my take after a quick look.

Gotta get through the next election cycle...

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2011)

So as we all expected this debt is basically meaningless since we can just have Club Fed print the cash, and naturally China will lend us the money even though they pretend to be Capitalists and Conservative.

California could solve all of it's deficits by adding a tax to all of the Chinese products entering Long Beach. 300 Billion is what they usually get from the Middle Class here, lately that's been dropping, so what's to lose by sticking that cash back into our economy, of course after a small processing fee for the elites.....

As much as I quack about these scoundrels, I still wouldn't ever dream of living anywhere else.
I mean where else can I swim all day, help my kid with his homework, go gig for decent money 6 nights a week, and hang out in Tahoe in the summer to swim, and winter to ski.....???

Life ain't so bad..

Viva Las Vegas and Vaffanculo DC..


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 2, 2011)

ok so after yesterdays predictable outcome expect higher interest rates and/thru a possible downgrade. expect job losses a plenty in the public and private sector and higher inflation.

change is coming.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 2, 2011)

Fascinating article on the Tea Party and Southern extremists: http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/i ... _tea_party


----------



## José Herring (Aug 2, 2011)

George Caplan @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> ok so after yesterdays predictable outcome expect higher interest rates and/thru a possible downgrade. expect job losses a plenty in the public and private sector and higher inflation.
> 
> change is coming.



Wow, mr. doom and gloom.

There's just a possibility that things could get better.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2011)

Lets have the racist, mass murdering, terrorist, slave owning Tea Party take over.
Instead of paying our debt, let them be like their predecessors and point fingers.
But then tell our debtors " we didn't borrow this, they did, here's their address, go collect it. "
I always thought Bush and Reid should be prosecuted, but I am a fair guy. Just seize their assets and tell their children they might have to work for a living now like eveyone in the middle class does.......


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks Chimuelo and Snow Leopard. But note this is Freddie's forum - I'm just an administrator....and one who's usually half a day late and a few Euros short, because my Greek namesake usually handles the reported posts while I'm still asleep on the other side of the globe.

***
George, the possible downgrade and higher interest rates would be the biggest outrage in the history of our country. I'm not kidding.

Sorry if I've ranted about this in this thread already, but the idea that S&P - the organization that helped enable our financial crash - can demand that more teachers and firemen get fired for the benefit of the people who pay them, and who are directly responsible for the crash....it's just obscene.

...to say nothing of the fact that what they want would have a negative effect on our economy.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 2, 2011)

josejherring @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> George Caplan @ Tue Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> > ok so after yesterdays predictable outcome expect higher interest rates and/thru a possible downgrade. expect job losses a plenty in the public and private sector and higher inflation.
> ...



wtf? things will get better. but the problem is when? these are just predictions from around the people in the business. its not good taking an optimistic view just because youre an optimist. what do think is going to happen? its not much use to people like me thinking things will be an outrage just because you dont want them to happen. its very possible that there could a downgrade. net result of that will be higher borrowing costs which means higher interest rates. these are very subjective things you guys are coming out with. try and be more balanced about judgment calls and then just maybe you can make money in your 401Ks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

As Keynes said, "In the long run we'll all be dead."

snowleopard, what I'm saying is that this is a can that needs to be kicked much farther down the road. The time to pull back on government spending is when the economy is booming and the government doesn't "crowd out" private activity, not during a depression.

And once again, just cutting money for Medicare is the wrong thing to do. Medicare brings down healthcare costs; it's the underlying costs that are the problem. Social Security needs minor tweaks to remain healthy. This "tax reform" and "flatten the tax structure" doublespeak is really hideous. What it mean is "shift the tax burden down even lower so that we can have even more income inequality and the economy will never recover."

Have I mentioned that I'm deeply disappointed in our president for making the arguments for 180˚ wrong public policy? He's turned into a big liar. I hate having to vote for him again.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 2, 2011)

so is it safe to say that the debt problem is mostly due because of Bush's 2 wars plus tax cuts for the riches and other "kick the bucket" plans from bush .

also of course the Bank Bailouts that Bush did and then Obama as well guided by the same guys at the treasury.

W. Bush came into office with a surplus and left with 2 wars funded by bonds and debt and now that Obama has to deal with its Obamas fualt.??! 

so now that the country has to realize the there is too much debt , its obamas fault? 
to republicans and middle america it makes seem it is, from all the opinions and forums and posts in yahoo, msn, cnn . fox news. 

so are they short sided, or am i just not getting it. not getting that obama is doing something wrong?

he is trying to get republicans and democrats to compromise and republicans tea party seem like anything a black guy says its wrong and want screw him with a defamatory campaign. 
to me it seems its just on underlying racism. 
but it well can be that its the same stupid people that voted for bush a second time.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 2, 2011)

Don't disagree with you there Nick. I'm on the record favoring a single payer system (means tested/rationed, and coupled with HSAs). I'm also in favor of upping the cap on Social Security. I also think the defense budget can be cut by over 20%. I also think the Bush tax cuts should have never been extended, for anyone (yep, I'll pay another $500 a year to help the elderly and infirm, no problem). Also think many of these tax credit loopholes mentioned should be eliminated. 

What I'm saying on this bill is that I don't really think much is going to happen as this bill does little more than lock where we are in place. There will be few changes in the next 18 months until after the election. I basically anticipate more stagnation, and the recession to continue for the bottom 98% of the population.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2011)

Here's another take.
ClubFed is negotiating a Peace Treaty w/ NKorea right now, which is bad news for Syria and Iran as they will be financially and politically isolated.
Our fear of Taiwan being invaded, and NKorea striking South during such a scenario is now going to be over.
Common sense tells me that Israel will take Syrian ground and free their people, which makes them look great in the Arab world.
We will just use Iran's own citizens to overthrow the Mullahs.
The Chinese won't intervene, and the Saudis are demanding it.

It's already been leaked publicly that the Saudis would allow Israel to use their airspace if such an attack were to take place.
This is a great scenario for a worldwide economic recovery.
Since I try and think like ClubFed this scenario is very easy to envision, and lets face it, Obama is getting a second term for his use of our troops and air assets in Libya.

There's the scenario I think will fix things.
We will however suffer from now until then w/ higher prices and inflation, but look back at our fathers and grandfathers, they had it much worse, and then were also raised from poverty to fight 2 major wars that brought our economy to the top spot in the world.....

Obama wants to achieve something, he is ambitious. His health care plan was shit, but what a brave move that was. Nobody before or after him will take a long shot like that again.
But I think he wants to go on record as the guy that killed Bin Laden, put insurance companies on notice, and made the Middle East a region for shared propsperity instead of slavery to sharia law....

Makes sense, but definately out of the box as usual....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

> so is it safe to say that the debt problem is mostly due because of Bush's 2 wars plus tax cuts for the riches and other "kick the bucket" plans from bush .



It's safest to say that we don't have a sovereign debt problem at all, that this is a huge diversion from the real emergency (unemployment). The real problem is that conservatism is taking over and preventing us from doing what we should do: *go much farther into debt* so that the government can hire people to do useful things while individuals pay down their debt and the economy recovers. Not doing that is pound foolish.

But I'd say there are four reasons our debt has risen so much recently: the two you mention (Bush tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary wars), lower tax revenues and increased unemployment insurance due to the recession, and also the ARRA.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

I guess I'm repeating myself now, so that means I don't have much else to say.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

That is an interesting article, Ned.


----------



## rgames (Aug 2, 2011)

snowleopard @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> (yep, I'll pay another $500 a year to help the elderly and infirm, no problem)


So do it - who's stopping you from doing that?

I think this is a point a lot of people miss: the government is ONE way to help folks out, it is not the ONLY way.

There are much more efficient means to administer social program. In fact, going local with such causes is almost always the better approach because it cuts out the middle man (i.e. the Federal government).

Your $500, when given to the government, probably puts $10 in the pockets of the people you intend to help. Your same $500, when used for local charitable opportunities, can easily provide 30 to 40 times that level of benefit.

So, given that fact, wouldn't you rather the government let you keep your $500?

Here's a perfect example: the school district where my kids go to school has some of the lowest levels of government spending in the country (Arizona always winds up towards the bottom of the list). However, our local schools foundation collects hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, so the actual amount of money going into our schools is a *lot* more than what the government spends. It's a much more efficient way to do it: it costs less, the kids get greater benefit, and people are more involved in their communities. As a result, the school district *always* winds up with tops-in-the-nation scores on any test you care to use as your benchmark.

So: low levels of government spending, excellent results. What's not to like?

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

The stupid ideology?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2011)

I think that's great rgames, but you must live in Oro Valley or somewhere where there are strong ties to the community.
My street and Khoury Leagues are as far as we get in Vegas, but we do have the best and most efficient Catholic Charites in a 4 State area.

It provides the " working mans program " where the homeless get a roof and food, but have to work so many hours a week in return, and even so they earn cash in their pockets while working.
It restores their pride and dignity.
Welfare and Food Stamps need to be reworked where folks who need it get it, and can also climb out of it instead of being put down for years at a time. The Feds programs are totally out of touch. especially now.

This also is where the managers find out if someone is mentally challenged and then further help can be obtained.
The Feds just dont know about these folks and many wander the streets getting worse.
So it's too bad that the Feds won't kick in some money to St.Vincents here or at least treat the ones who are really off upstairs, It would be a perfect answer for many who end up dying here everyday from heat and de hydration.
What's sad is many of them are veterans, but nobody knows until they enroll in the program...

I know this because I lived there for 6 weeks after my first divorce.
Back then I knew I could walk away and start over and anyone can go there to start over.
I actually worked day and night for shitty money but eventually the Union Hall called me and then gigs came....

Sometimes we just need a fresh start...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

The whole concept is medieval, starting with the assumption that replacing any government bureaucracy with a private one is automatically much more efficient.

We live in a huge modern world. Alms to the poor went out a long time ago.


----------



## rgames (Aug 2, 2011)

In a lot of instances it is more efficient. Consider two scenarios that can be used to fund education programs:

Scenario A: Taxpayer -> IRS -> Congress -> Federal Program -> Local Program -> Students

Scenario B: Taxpayer -> Local Program -> Students

Scenario B cuts out three levels of cost burden: IRS, Congress, and the Federal branch of the program. Thus, for the same dollar paid by the taxpayer, much more makes it to the students. You really prefer Scenario A?

Of course, education is just one example, there are many others that follow a similar pattern.

There are, of course, activities that make more economic sense when handled on the national level. Defense is an obvious one: there's no way each state can maintain its own military. Health care is another: having a larger pool of people in the system can help keep the costs down, so coordinating it on the national level makes more sense.

rgames


----------



## P.T. (Aug 2, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> The whole concept is medieval, starting with the assumption that replacing any government bureaucracy with a private one is automatically much more efficient.
> 
> We live in a huge modern world. Alms to the poor went out a long time ago.



The current ststem of gov't assistance just turns the gov't into an enabler of poverty.
The people on these programs rarely improve their situation and become dependent on the aid.

This is why things have either not gotten better or even gotten worse over the years since Johnson's Great Society started pouring huge sums of money into poverty.

Possibly, the gov't programs could be improved, but I tend to doubt it.
Then, there is the huge inefficiency that has already been mentioned by others.
These programs becomes jobs programs for the people working in the bureaucracy with only a small amount of money actually helping people.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah, there's no point in helping anyone. Let them suffer. They're no use anyway.

Richard, what happens in the real world is you get mostly this:

Scenario C: -> nothing -> nowhere.

or

Scenario D: Taxpayer -> profesional fundraisers who make a profit -> telephone salespeople who annoy the f out of you when you're trying to work -> a little left over for students.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

And also what's really going on today:

Scenario E: F-ing Republicans refuse to raise taxes even though it's absolutely necessary -> teachers get fired -> school budgets get cut to absurd levels and the local fundraising we're doing and contributions we're making are nowhere near enough to fill in the gap -> everyone loses and we're headed toward a lost generation.

Or worse, we get the right-wing insanity that breeds in the kinds of conditions we're experiencing. You know, the bashing of immigrants and unions, and so on.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2011)

http://twscruise.com/

Nick, these folks would be perfect you to take Cruise with.
Probably one of the NCL Flagships.
They're a blast.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

hahahaha

I have to steal that link...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 2, 2011)

I know this may come out of left -field, but it often strikes me that many in the US are unwilling to copy examples from other countries. I mean, aren't there several examples of successful (relative that is) economies that can inspire a new way of doing things?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2011)

“Some of them don’t get it, some don’t care, and for some it is a combination of both,” Kerry lamented. “I have had Republican leaders of the Senate—I’m not going to tell you who—tell me that they’ve tried to talk to some of these (House members), and they just don’t understand the implications of their actions.”


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2011)

Absolutely Ned.
Most Americans want a re vamped progressive Government, but still maintain work ethics and incentives that competition creates. 
The Marshall Plan was the most humane act a nation ever did in the history of the Planet, yet those who fought overseas were taxed when they returned to rebuild Japan and Europe. They didn;t cry like little bitches, they shut up and pitched in.
What we see there are now democracies that had their own versions of Governing and you'd think we could apply those over here.
THe problem as I see it is our Government has long record of lies, and deciet to its' own citizens, as well as our allies, and nobody wants Government to grow without some sort of accountability.
The recent debt talks just redouble what Americans think of their bought and paid for leaders. 
Up in Canada do your politicians assainate your own....
Do your leaders invade foreign countries using fake resolutions like the Gulf Of Tonkin.....
I think you see my point.

The Tea Party folks are the talk of the town now and the Jurys not out, so I aint saying anything for a while.
But what most folks I know like is that the 2 wealthy parties that have bent us over for decades are having their hats handed to them.
I still think they are ClubFed's sweethearts, especially Bachmann.

I think we should get new blood in DC and revamp the crappy health care plan. Let the Feds slap insurance companies around while freezing their premiums. That's how you get results, not by taking them over and adding more layers of crap that breeds inefficiency.

When I come home from Europe I immediately feel embarrassed that I dont speak 3 languages, or that our infrastructure is in shambles, our dry docks haven't been upgraded since WW2..

So trust me, most Americans want this world policemen shit to stop, but when your military just keeps rolling everyone, I dont see the boys at ClubFed wanting a replacement for their global schemes anytime soon....

If that means millions of people die from no health care, thats fine with them, they're covered already. So when I see wealthy Liberals or Conservatives that accept campaign money from ClubFed lobbyists, and then try and convince me they care for us as they fleece millions, I dont buy it, and never will. Take the money out of politics, then there will be plenty to go around for everyone.
I mean how humane is it for Obama to spend a billion in 2012 for a campaign, and then expect us to believe they will be good stewards of our tax dollars.........Seems like the same old payback for 2 years, then maybe figure out what to do with the rest of us.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 2, 2011)

Was locked out of this thread earlier. Can I speak now?


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 2, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> > so is it safe to say that the debt problem is mostly due because of Bush's 2 wars plus tax cuts for the riches and other "kick the bucket" plans from bush .
> 
> 
> 
> ...




getting more into debt to jump start the economy and create jobs like it did after WWII seems feasible but then you see japan and they have like a 200% over gdp debt since the 80s or so and doesn't seem to get any better. worst now w the earthquake. 

the market economy you refer to based on kensian theory is sound, but still i wonder when its too much. 
when i stop at an intersection of a non major street i see about 8 traffic lights (u know; 2 for above, 2 on the sides and 2 on the other side) 
i wonder maybe its not that its the spending but how its spent. 
cause just one- 4-way-light can do the job. 
u can argue that each of those lights costs about 2 grand each, and it creates jobs for the people who made them, its parts, installation, design and electrical... still just one traffic light would of done the job. so then comes a problem in the economy and there is no budget for traffic light because now it costs 8 grand minimum for one intersection. 
so all that money spent on provided jobs for people on a 8 traffic light per intersection now is not affordable any more so all of those people no loose their jobs and trickles down to other people they maintained w the money earned. 
so you created a whole economy based on non essential product or service so it turned into wasteful spending.
instead of leaving it to one traffic light per intersection and developing software and computers to monitor the flow of traffic and programming the light accordingly to help productivity in society. which btw is something IBM is doing. 
of course the light is just a loose metaphor but u get the idea. 

a more real example is the government subsidies to airlines to pay for rural area flights to $300-$1000 per passanger !!!!! 
i mean, the gvmnt is paying for flights to rural areas that its only 4 people in the plane for about 4 grand that trip.!!!!
im not kidding.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/01/138901060 ... ts-at-risk


----------



## JohnG (Aug 2, 2011)

rgames @ 31st July 2011 said:


> JohnG @ Sun Jul 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Richard, we have had banks failing at a rate surpassed only by that seen in the Great Depression. A few large banks were rescued, as we all know, but bank failures are legion.
> ...



Hi Richard,

I don't mean to be a dog on a bone, but the bank "shrink" was far bigger than just the banks that specifically went into FDIC receivership. Nationally, the US is suffering from a debt hangover after the all-time binge. It's not perception, it's the reality sinking in that someone who pretends on his loan form that he's making, say, $75k but is really making $45 can't make the payments once he gets out of the teaser phase, and the interest rate on his home loan jumps three or four percentage points.

The disastrous bank situation is, I'm afraid, much worse than you're looking at. By looking only at FDIC, your $25 billion figure is misleadingly low. Apart from outright failures, we put $85 billion into just one company, AIG, that played around with credit default swaps it couldn't handle. Wells Fargo -- $25 billion; Citigroup -- $25 billion; JPMorgan Chase -- $25 billion; BofA -- $15 billion. This is just a handful. More figures at http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/

Some of it has been recovered from the largest banks, but not nearly all.

The other point is, that _especially_ the small bank failures can immediately put small businesses into insolvency. If you own a local dry cleaner or bar or liquor store or pack-and-ship company, there's a good chance you might borrow from a smaller, local bank rather than, say, Citigroup, which generally favours larger customers. With your bank gone and your $150,000 working capital line gone with it, you may not be able to buy inventory, pay staff, and so on.

As is often said, small businesses employ an enormous percentage of workers in the US, so if you hammer the ability of small businesses to start and to get loans to support their normal assets, you are going to see a lot of pain in unemployment.

And on top of that, the regulators suddenly woke up and slapped the lenders around so badly that even the solvent ones didn't want to make _any_ loans, having only a few months earlier been willing to give $500,000 to a bagger at a grocery store.

So it's not "just perception." The number of people who could afford a new car, new dryer, new washer, etc. just cratered. Plus, the collapse in turnover of houses puts a damper not just on those participating directly, like real estate agents, but on those selling carpet, fridges, curtains, appliances, kitchen cabinets -- it's a cascade effect that made things look super for many years.

Now the music stopped and none of those people are making what they once did. 

So that's why the "it's just a mood swing created by the media" is far too simplistic. Definitely you have a point that perception matters -- it does. But it isn't everything.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2011)

Man Or Myth..................JohnG.

Bagger is a demeaning, cruel and condescending term in our potically correct enviroment where everyone is equal and there are no losers.
Therefore, the " Bagger " is to be called an Agricultural Product Organizer. 
Bald people should be reffered to as Comb Free.
Someone with B.O. is nondiscretionarily fragrant.
Dish washers are Utensil Sanitizers, etc.

Don't mind me, Im just getting ready for a convention where the entire Carson City legislature meets.
They really care about us little people.
I even have a reserved table for me and my mates.
It's just before the double swinging doors in the kitchen hallway.
It's refreshing being treated as if nobody can see you, or hear you.
We are so use to having loud rowdy tourists demanding Ozzy, etc.
Now I have to use my ancient fake applause patch and no shit, it gets them to clap.....


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 3, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Aug 02 said:


> Here's another take.
> ClubFed is negotiating a Peace Treaty w/ NKorea right now, which is bad news for Syria and Iran as they will be financially and politically isolated.
> 
> 
> Makes sense, but definately out of the box as usual....



:lol: :lol: :lol: thats great.

im not going to explain the differences about sovereign debt and other debt again gsilbers. george bush is responsible for deficit as is just about any world leader. american voters wont care about that a year from november when they vote. the way we will see it is obama is the president now. not bush. when youre in charge you take that responsibility. bush no longer has any responsibility. technically.

take the uk deficit for instance. they are showing signs of desperation in trying to get that done and gone but come spring 2012 if their markets and( lack of) domestic investment is showing no signs of growth then there may be trouble for the conservative leadership. thats how it works. no one will remember the reason theres a huge deficit caused by the idiots of 13 years government previously.

if theres no growth then theres no tax take and therefore very little government investment and employment because they will have a big reticence about further borrowing. growth is the key for any country.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 3, 2011)

josejherring @ 2/8/2011 said:


> Was locked out of this thread earlier. Can I speak now?



Huh? By whom?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2011)

It must have been a glitch, Jose. Speak away.

And I forgot that Ned is also an admin here (in an earlier post)! Am I even wrong that Nikolas is too?

Sorry about that!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 3, 2011)

Nick,

I'm a junior Admin, and Nik is a Mod. It's nice to be a junior at nearly 50, real nice. :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring (Aug 3, 2011)

Thanks guys. 

Yeah it was looking like a glitch, but when something like that happens, maybe because my first experience with a forum was NS, I start to think the worse.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> By looking only at FDIC, your $25 billion figure is misleadingly low. Apart from outright failures, we put $85 billion into just one company, AIG, that played around with credit default swaps it couldn't handle. Wells Fargo -- $25 billion; Citigroup -- $25 billion; JPMorgan Chase -- $25 billion; BofA -- $15 billion. This is just a handful. More figures at http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/stor ... nkbailout/



Here's the catch, though: the FDIC covers accounts that are supposed to be "secure". The other bailout money was used for investments, which are not secure. In fact, every investment I've ever made has warnings about how returns are not guaranteed, and not FDIC insured. So the FDIC payments represent the payments on failures that were *supposed* to be secure.

During the banking crisis, was there a single person who lost money from an FDIC-insured account? I think not. Everything else is gambling, so if folks want to roll the dice, then they shouldn't complain to Uncle Sam when they lose.

The underlying problem is the way people perceive their 401k's and other investments (yes, perception again...). They are *not* cash on hand - the instant you buy into a stock or bond, you have *no* money - you are speculating that the money you pay up front will provide returns in the form of dividends or bond payments. And of course, they have some residual value that represents the value of those payments to the next person who would buy the stock or bond. But when you look at the balance of your stock and bond investments, there's no *real* cash there. But people perceive it that way.

If the company folds, or a bunch of people do really stupid things (like what happend in 2008) then you lose on the stocks and bonds issued by that company. Uncle Sam categorically *does not* guarantee any returns on those types of investments.

So the real issue is that people need to be smarter about what investments really are (and are not).

This behavior becomes a problem because the estimated value of those investments affects peoples' behavior with regard to *real* economic activities. So even though nobody lost money from an FDIC-insured account, the *perception* was that they lost money, so they cut back on actual economic activity.

I think starting in the early 90's we entered into an era where the speculative part of the economy and the real part of the economy became too interwoven: traditional banks started doing business as investment banks, people started paying a lot of attention to market metrics (how many times a day do you hear reports on the Dow?), and the "my house is an investment" trend really started to pick up. Those behaviors shift the focus from reality into perception. And since it is so easy to manipulate perception, we've seen a lot more volatility in all of those markets.

Yes, I agree perception is not the entire story. As I've said, there are real problems that existed (and continue to exist). But it does play a big role, and it is fueled by the media and politicians.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2011)

I wonder what would happen if Bill Clinton was allowed to make a run a the presidency again?


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 3, 2011)

> I wonder what would happen if Bill Clinton was allowed to make a run a the presidency again?



Cigar sales would go through the roof.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> I wonder what would happen if Bill Clinton was allowed to make a run a the presidency again?



Well, since Clinton also drove the debt up every year he was in office, I'm not sure we'd see much difference...

We need a president who is willing to get the debt under control. That definitely ain't Clinton because he was the one president in recent history who had an opportunity to do something about the debt and he chose not to.

rgames


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 3, 2011)

I thought Clinton was able to pay down some of the debt by cutting down the defense budget during his tenure.....


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

US Debt has increased every year under every president since about 1950. 

Clinton had some surpluses (rare), so he had the best opportunity to reduce the debt. But he didn't. When he left office, the debt had risen by about 40% compared to when he took office.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2011)

What about the debt/GNP ratio?

That's the only important figure - and even then it's used in misleading ways, because the GNP is measured in one year and the debt is paid over decades.

What's really going on is that a group of despicable people want to dismantle our social safety net for their own short-term gain.

That is the whole story. The deficit "emergency" is a massive hooter buff.


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 3, 2011)

> US Debt has increased every year under every president since about 1950.



Soooooooo, then, that means since the debt has been increasing since 1950 that it IS all of George W Bush's fault as was pointed out earlier in this thread. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2011)

Nobody said it was all his fault, but he certainly led us off a cliff - and not just economically but in many areas. That was by far the worst administration in recent history. Even if you're conservative and foolish enough to agree with his general outlook, you'd have a hard time arguing that they weren't totally inept.


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> > US Debt has increased every year under every president since about 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooooo, then, that means since the debt has been increasing since 1950 that it IS all of George W Bush's fault as was pointed out earlier in this thread. :wink:




Sigh. The increase in debt is a misleading figure since the US economy has also been increasing since the 50's. 

It's a bit like saying that your debt has been increasing since you were born...duh! It doesn't necessarily make you financially irresponsible, it's the way it's supposed to be as you get more and more financially strong. For instance, when you're a teenager your personal debt is almost zero, then you buy yourself a car..but you're also working so that even though your personal debt has skyrocketed off the charts, you're able to manage it quite well. Then you get a student load but once again, due to your education investment you're able to get a higher paying job (unless you studied music that is), then you buy yourself a house...once again debt skyrockets but you can handle it.

So the fact that the US debt has grown for the past 50 years is actually a very natural progression.

However...

George Bush made a huge investment with very poor gains when he started a war with no clear focus or goal. Then he compounded the debt increase of the war by lowering taxes (and hence income). This would be the equivalent of you purchasing a house while also taking on a lower paying employment which can't sustain your mortgage bills...bad idea!

So yes, George W. is largely responsible for getting us to where we are now, and to think that Obama can offset the damage of two Bush terms in just a couple of years, and be angry at him because things are not back to happy land yet is pure idiocy.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

Nick's right that Debt/GDP is the more important metric (seems we've had lengthy discussions on that topic). However, it was a bit better under W Bush than Clinton, by the way, so the media-induced belief that W Bush is to blame for economic problems is a load of baloney. Of course, things got ugly in the last couple months of W's presidency.

However, debt is more concrete, so it's always better to go ahead and address it rather than relying on the "things will be better at some point" approach. Everyone thought the debt was no problem under Clinton because of all the glorious predictions about the American economy (there's that pesky perception element again). Remember the predictions about surpluses into the year 2020? How did that turn out? Makes you think twice about all those super-smart economists, doesn't it...

So if you have the chance to reduce the debt, it's a good idea to do so because you never know where the GDP will go.

Think of it this way: if Clinton had used his surpluses to reduce the debt we'd be in much better shape right now. Instead, he used all the extra cash to ... ummm ... hey, what the hell *did* he do with all that money?

So yeah, much better to go ahead and address the debt.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2011)

Perhaps the first table can illustrate this point better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

As you can clearly see, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 are largely responsible in unprecedented hikes in the debt.

Obama is up there too, but I think it's too early to tell if this is an accurate and fair assessment of his presidency due to the very unique conditions of the country under which he took office.


I have a question for all the conservatives here:

Do you honestly feel that we'd be better off today if McCain/Palin had won the election?


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> George Bush made a huge investment with very poor gains when he started a war with no clear focus or goal. Then he compounded the debt increase of the war by lowering taxes (and hence income). This would be the equivalent of you purchasing a house while also taking on a lower paying employment which can't sustain your mortgage bills...bad idea!



I'll repeat for clarity: average debt-to-GDP ratio was slightly better under W Bush than under Clinton.

rgames


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 3, 2011)

> I have a question for all the conservatives here:
> 
> Do you honestly feel that we'd be better off today if McCain/Palin had won the election?



Any better? Probably not. Any worse? Probably not.


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> I'll repeat for clarity: average debt-to-GDP ratio was slightly better under W Bush than under Clinton.
> 
> rgames



In the immediacy of his term ok...but going to war has long term repercussions beyond his term, and so do tax cuts which have yet to be repealed (blows my mind).

So under my analogy...he bough a house that was in dire need of repair for way too much money, took a pay cut, and was still able to make ends meet. Now years later the house has fallen apart and needs even more money to even function as a house...yet for some weird reason the new guy isn't allowed to take a higher paying job even though it's a very feasible option.

Too weird!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2011)

Kays is right. Lots of irrelevant stuff here.

Bush is a rabid conservative ideologue, and he used that sociopathic ideology to start two unfunded wars (one of which was totally unnecessary and one of which - Afghanistan - lost any necessity early on); push through massive tax cuts for the rich, exacerbating the income inequality that led to the crash; push through the prescription drug fiasco...well, those are just the big ones.

It's not necessary to go through this yet again; all you have to do is read this to understand how insane these radical lunatics are:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

But back to today. Mike, our country's government is a MESS because it has been taken over by the radical right - and ONLY because of that.

Having said that, any president would have had to continue bailing out the financial and automobile industries and pass some kind of stimulus. Obama has become McCain, so you may be right about it not making any difference to the economy.

However, McCain wouldn't have passed universal healthcare, he would have put two more conservative POS on the Supreme Court, and on and on. Our longterm prospects would have been even worse.


----------



## Mike Marino (Aug 3, 2011)

> our country's government is a MESS because it has been taken over by the radical right - and ONLY because of that.



...and with that I'm gonna to write some music. And some of it's going to be good.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2011)

The blame game doesn't work anymore. Just like the same shell game ClubFed runs with these 2 parties.
But even ClubFed wised up and realized the huge dissatisfaction Americans have with these wealthy elites pretending they want to tax themselves, it's an insult.
So ClubFed has brought us some Soccer Moms and other various new Fall guys.
The same game will continue, but wealthy Liberals and Conservatives will kick and scream the whole time up to their departure in 2012, trying to spend what's left of " our " money as they scramble to sponsors for positions in various parts of the Private Sector where evil CEO's wait with open arms...

The new ClubFed members will also become intoxicated with power eventually, it's human nature. But just maybe they might re structure the funding of legislation that we've had for decades, that we all know has failed over, and over.
I ain't holding my breath, but at his point I'll take the Pope or a 5 Star General rather than vote these career politicians back in to endure more of their legislative salemenship..

We really need an American Indian with the big Sioux War Bonnet as President, that would be great for political correctness sake.
But then the EPA would be up in arms as some poor flying bird gave his life for those feathers.........OMG..


----------



## P.T. (Aug 3, 2011)

The problem with the Debt/GNP ratio is getting accurate numbers.

As far as I know, the govt includes debt in the GNP. They borrow money and then when they spend it they count it as GNP.

They also give us fraudulent unemployment numbers. They drop people who have been unemployed for more than 1-2 years ( I forget the cut point). So, unemployment is actual worse than they say it is.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> he used that sociopathic ideology to start two unfunded wars


W. Bush started one war - the one in Afghanistan.

Clinton started the war in Iraq - W expanded it.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 3, 2011)

During the Bush presidency, he advocated and got...

1) A war.
2) Another war.
3) Tax cuts.
4) A stimulus package.
5) A drug benefit program.
6) A bank bailout.

Obama advocated and got...
1) A stimulus package.
2) A health care bill (that is largely not yet in effect.)

Note that the stimulus package was in response to the worst economic status since the Great Depression. Had he been handed a strong economy, no stimulus package would have been pursued. Had Bush paid down the debt, rather than growing it during good times, the US would have been able to apply stimulus without much pain. 

It was part of the Republican strategy to "drown government in the bathtub." The debt raised by Bush and company wasn't an accident. It was intentional. Part 2 of the strategy was to starve any Democratic administration.

It's not rocket science, people.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> rgames @ Wed Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll repeat for clarity: average debt-to-GDP ratio was slightly better under W Bush than under Clinton.
> ...



The ratio did improve under Clinton - it started high then came down. And it basically stayed there after Bush took over. Well, until the end of 2008...

Really, though, saying that either had any significant control over GDP is a stretch.

It's pretty easy to argue that many of Clinton's policies led to the 2008 financial crisis and recession, not Bush's approach to taxes. Repealing Glass-Steagall basically allowed it to happen, and Clinton was the one who signed it into law. And the push for high-risk mortgages has always been a democratic thrust - it allows lower-income folks into the housing market. Put those two together and, well, you get the financial crisis of 2008. Maybe Bush exacerbated it a bit, but it's hard to argue his contribution is anywehere close to that resulting from Clinton's policies.

Again, though, everybody thought the US economy was invincible at the end of the 90's, so perception ruled over common sense. Just as it always does...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2011)

Repealing glass-Steagall was a continuation of the failed experiment that started with Reagan, part of Clinton's "triangulation" strategy - a bow to the Republicans, of course.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 3, 2011)

Meanwhile, the late, great George Carlin had it all figured out back in 2005.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 3, 2011)

rgames @ 3rd August 2011 said:


> Clinton started the war in Iraq - W expanded it.
> 
> rgames



Richard, that really is departing from reality.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 3, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> > he used that sociopathic ideology to start two unfunded wars
> ...



You're delusional. Having beliefs is one thing. Having beliefs that are contrary to facts (ie, know dates and times) is practically the definition of insane. And is the definition of zealot.

Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2011)

:lol:

I miss George. 
Carlin not the Bush's....

And Jon is correct about starving the next democratic administration.
I also think unemployment will intentionally rise through a strategy of coordinated layoffs and Government shutdowns as we are seeing with the FAA debacle right now. 
This is the decades old game that both groups of elites involve themselves in. WHy......? Cash. Power. Influence.
The 3 factors politicians all agree on and their sole purpose for being there. 
But they really do care about the little people though, well, once they get their share, then the scraps are divvied up, and key to that is never giving enough so there's a reason to keep getting more. 
Stimulus 3 or 4, I've lost track, must be given now or the free world will crumble, etc.etc.

So assuming the administration will stay in campaign mode while the nation crumbles prooves what a poor bet the DNC will be in 2012.
I always thought Hillary would resign and jump back in the race when Obama dips below 40% approval ratings. So if the DNC is too stupid to let a real Democrat have a shot at running, it prooves how small their dreams are.

Count on the Tea Party and dozens of new inexperienced souls becoming the new fall guys for ClubFed..
It doesn't take a genius to see that angle either.

I'll vote for Bill..........ooops............I mean Hillary in a heartbeat over the recent wave of Proffessors who make us the beggars of the world.
We send Geitner to China and Saudi Arabia more then the North Koreans show up with their empty rice bowls. 
Thankfully they need us as bad as we need them.

Perhaps the next deal for CHina will be North Korean Peace Treaty and exclusive rights to the American Middle Class markets. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are extreme fees for shipping and duties on all European products. This makes it so difficult for Europeans to do business here, that several companies are moving from Germany to open up shop here. I just paid 150 USD for " duties " for a 1U unit from Germany. Then 2 weeks ago another 315 USD for my hardware synth. 

China's goods go straight to the shelves, via the Port they now own known as Chang Tan..........Long Beach for the 1000's of Longshoresmen who lost their jobs when we gave them a piece of California.

Yessiree, Casey Anthony and the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank these days.
Why not beat up on our "weak" leaders...? Cash buys their loyalty, not the citizens needs. They get our money upon arrival w/o any further negotiations. But they must dance like whores for the cash they get from China and the Saudi Kings.
Now I know why Obama bowed his head almost to his knees....a sign of complete submission in Asia as well as the Middle East.

Cant wait for 2012 because for the next 15 months we will be blasted with campaign ads, fundraisers in Hollywood and other areas where beggars gather support and cash.

I hope Hillary gets in, if not maybe Schrawzkopf or someone with a set between their legs, anything but a Soccer mom, as that will surely mean our demise...
Although I do enjoy watching them bash the men around like drunks waking up from a hangover who cant defend themselves........

Peace.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2011)

Oh and to whoever said Uncle Sam jumbles the figures, here's how to calculate that since Media, nor the elites could dare reveal the pathetic numbers in fear of the truth further exasperating the dying economy.

Go to the numbers, millions who are off of their unemployment extensions.
Then add the new and weekly rate of 375-450 thousand everyweek.
Now add the Welfare and Food Stamp numbers.

Add those up and estimates are as much as 18-22% of the labor force.
The 4% lee way is due to the numbers of the exhausted benfit crowd, as they are not able to get on the ClubFed feedwagon until a state levied grace period has passed. So, basically what ever numbers relating to cash, spending , or unemployment figures we get, a safe multiplication factor of 2 is the accurate assesment..

Those numbers are approaching Depression era figures, and since there's no jobs for high school graduates as millions of fathers are trying to get a job, it's perfect for the Military, which is another reason why I see Iran and Syria as our next targets.

Liberal, Tea Party, or COnservative in office doesn;t matter.
We just had the most anti-war, apologetic President ever hold office just invade Libya.

So much for Peace in our lifetime....


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> rgames @ 3rd August 2011 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton started the war in Iraq - W expanded it.
> ...



I'm not sure if you're joking, so just in case:

The Iraqi Liberation Act was signed into law under Clinton. That act stated that it was the goal of the US to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Clinton then launched Operation Desert Fox, the first attacks against Iraq under the authority granted by that act. The primary justification was the fear that he held weapons of mass desctruction.

Look it up - I'm not making this up.

Bush took Clinton's approval and stepped it up after 9/11. But the fact remains that the policy was instated under Clinton. Clinton started it; Bush finished it.

So why is it that nobody ever heard about it? Well, there was another topic in the media at that time: it had the name "Monica Lewinsky". And people found that much more interesting...

In fact, at the time, the media blamed Clinton for trying to divert attention from the Lewinsky ordeal by launching the military mission to remove Hussein from power.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> rgames @ Wed Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 03 said:
> ...



See above - what I stated is fact.

I am many things but a zealot is not one...


----------



## José Herring (Aug 3, 2011)

If you hadn't use the word "war" I might have agreed. But, convert action is a long ways away from a war. We've had convert actions against nations such as the Soviet Union for a long time, but it never amounted to "war". George Bush Jr. most defiantly decided to start a war. You know the kind with planes and missiles and troops and formal declarations and an approval from congress, ect....


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> If you hadn't use the word "war" I might have agreed. But, convert action is a long ways away from a war. We've had convert actions against nations such as the Soviet Union for a long time, but it never amounted to "war". George Bush Jr. most defiantly decided to start a war. You know the kind with planes and missiles and troops and formal declarations and an approval from congress, ect....



There was nothing covert about Clinton's actions: it was covered in the media, if only a tiny bit in the breaks in the Lewinsky circus. He *did* send planes and missiles and bombed the crap out of Iraq, all with the stated goal of removing Hussein from power. Sound familiar?

Bush's primary justification for his military activity was the act that Clinton signed.

Again, I'm not making this up - so please don't accuse me of ignoring facts.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2011)

Technically US's military involvement in Iraq started with Bush 1.

Take that beiotches!


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> Technically US's military involvement in Iraq started with Bush 1.
> 
> Take that beiotches!



True, but then we left for a number of years. The most recent involvement began with a big push under under Clinton, dropped to a low level for a couple years, then picked up under Bush 2.

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 4, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> Oh and to whoever said Uncle Sam jumbles the figures, here's how to calculate that since Media, nor the elites could dare reveal the pathetic numbers in fear of the truth further exasperating the dying economy.



oh yeah i agree wholeheartedly with all of that. but please. not Hillary. 

sentiment is a key issue with most things. gdp and debt go hand in hand. simple math tells us that the less you make as an individual the probability of going to the bank to borrow more puts us in a weakened position.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 4, 2011)

The "advantage" of Hillary is that she's a cunning pit bull when she wants to be. I can just picture behind closed doors her as Pres telling members of both parties how it was going to be, and if they didn't fall in line and smile for the cameras, she'd destroy them. 

Unfortunately that comes with repercussions, and her connections it would take to get her there wouldn't exactly lead to a clean government either.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

Damn Brotha' Man SnowLeopard, I thought I got in late..... 0oD 

Hillary could save the DNC and get the independants, if she wont run, the House and Senate will be Tea Party as we just witnessed what they can do with small numbers.

We are at the crossroads of perception and political correctness. Obama got in for his ethnicity, and a record of voting present in the Senate.
In other words the perfect candidate. Cant go after a guy with no stance on issues. Hillary went after his lack of a record.
DIDn't work too well. Then Bill was called a racist as thats the Liberals favorite move when they lack position in an argument.

She's a circling shark and they know it. That's why as Sec Of State she has been taken out of important trips several times as the administration knows her positions differ from theirs, hence her powerless position.

But she still makes off record statements that are correct and differ from Obamas cabinet ( handlers ).
Remember her remarks on National Security being comprimised by debt...? Media gave that 10 seconds...

Perception as Richard says is a factor and cannot be ignored. Obama is a perception as he just campaigns everywhere and never really leads......Having Hillary..................ooops................I mean Bill back in the WHouse w/ a GOP dominated Senate and House ( even if its CLubFeds new Tea Party ) is a percieved sign of the boom times of the 90's.

This new direction Obamas handlers wanted was also a perception for independants and far lefties. He won based on statements and promises made, which none of will be implemented. Even this pathetic attempt to sue 2 states in hopes of getting the Latino vote doesn't even fool an immigrant. Latinos dont want hand outs, they want jobs. The worst thing you could do to a Latino is take a handout, and tell him to stay home while others work, their work ethics and family values are rooted in religion, which both parties seem out of touch with, even if they ask God for guidance publicly..... :lol: 

I know many Mexican families from decades of Concrete work and Union Picnics. Guess who they love...? Donald Trump......again, perception, but that's who they percieve as a job creator because we built one tower here for him already, and I gig at the other one in AC every year too. Steve Wynn no longer supports Harry Reid or the DNC, they're finsished here as they are percieved as " Anti-business. " Carpenters International Union has broken ranks from the AFL-CIO and now back candidates on the state level, so Harry Reid just lost the Casinos and the Union Tradesmen. This is why a few months ago he gave speeches in DC on how he wants to shut down prostitution in Nevada.......Huge mistake. He would never do it, but it's a sign that he's scared and wants more money. Political Science 101 tells you to shake down and go after the money through " anti " positions, then when the donations arrive, the speeches stop. He's bled the state too long and his time is up. Even his son ran as Govenor and wouldn;t use the family name. He campaigned as " Corey ".....Pinchy Putos.

Big Government is not working in the eyes of the American Middle Class. Obama and Pelosi again say they will create jobs but there's not a chance of that. They couldn't do it with speeches backed by trillions. Now they have speeches only, so fat chance there.
The economic decline will continue as more jobs will be lost by corporations who want the Liberals sent home. Then add the troop withdrawals, and more shutdowns of Federally funded " wasteful " programs. 
Its sad the DNC has to be the fall guys twice in 4 years, but most have made a fortune. Maxine Waters and Charley Rangel did pretty good, even Wiener and the latest sex freak will get nice bonuses in return for their silence. Political Pre Neptuals are excellent these days.

Lets get Chief Save-A-Ho to take Harry Reids place in DC. He can represent the Prostitution and Gaming sectors. He might even get those racists in DC to change the name of the Washington Redskins to something politically correct.

Peace.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

JohnG @ Wed Aug 03 said:


> rgames @ 3rd August 2011 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton started the war in Iraq - W expanded it.
> ...



Just in case you still think I'm departing from reality, I looked up the public record:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

Note that it was passed in 1998 - that's Clinton.

You can search YouTube for videos of Clinton talking about it if you don't believe the public record. Clinton used this act as justification for the first major bombing campaign aimed at removing Hussein from power (Operation Desert Fox). Bush then used this act again as justification for his military activity in Iraq.

I get hot under the collar on this topic because so many people don't know the facts about our involvement in Iraq - the media in the 2000's led everyone to believe that removing Hussein from power was Bush's idea. It absolutely was not - the US policy and initial military actions predated him. Clinton's primary justification was the WMD issue, just as it was under Bush. You can find the YouTube video where Clinton says "Mark my words - Hussein has WMD and he will use them"

Involvement under Bush 1 was about containment. Clinton stepped it up a notch and said that's not good enough - we want removal (again, primarily because of the WMD concern). He signed the legislation then got the military in gear to achieve that goal. Bush finished it.

I'm not departing from reality.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

How many boots did Bush I, Clinton and Bush II put on the ground in Iraq? How much money did they spend?

And have you forgotten about the Project for the New American Century? Jeb and most top Bush staff were signatories. And toppling Iraq was their top policy goal. 

No matter what Clinton did, you can't obscure the role of the Bushes in Iraq.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> No matter what Clinton did, you can't obscure the role of the Bush's in Iraq.


I don't think I've tried to. Have I?

Of course Bush 1 and 2 both had much more involvement in Iraq than Clinton ever did.

But it was Clinton who started the push to remove Hussein from power because of concern over WMD.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> But it was Clinton who started the push to remove Hussein from power because of concern over WMD.



What? And Bush was powerless to reverse course?

Bush never tried to sell the war on the basis of executing a Clinton policy. As they told us over and over, "everything changed after 9-11."


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Bush never tried to sell the war on the basis of executing a Clinton policy. As they told us over and over, "everything changed after 9-11."



Not true - Bush continually cited Clinton's policy as justification for his military actions in Iraq. 9-11 was the justification to step it up.

You're stating the position of many folks who never looked beyond the baloney fed to them by the media. The facts tell a different story. It's in the public record - not that the media care about the public record...

It's also true that another authorization was signed shortly after 9-11; that was the legal basis that allowed Bush to expand the war into Afghanistan.

Interesting note: there's only one president in recent history who has deployed US forces *without* Congressional approval: Obama (Libya).

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

•Blocking Congress and the public from holding powerful Fed officials accountable by falsely declaring-for 17 years-it had no transcripts of its meetings;
•Manipulating the stock and bond markets in 1994 under cover of a preemptive strike against inflation;
•Allowing $5.5 billion to be sent to Saddam Hussein from a small Atlanta branch of a foreign bank-the result of faulty bank examination practices by the Fed;
•Stonewalling Congressional investigations and misleading the Washington Post about the $6,300 found on the Watergate burglars.

Here's just a few documented facts that haven't been cleansed on how ClubFed operates during peacetime.

Does anyone really think these temporary occupants of the White House have power to say no to the globals banks at ClubFed...?
They decide where the troops go, they pay off Governments to play ball, and take them out if betrayed.
Noriega is another one and I could quote dozens more of examples of ClubFed.

I do enjoy the right left shell games though.
Eventually folks will understand why Soccer Moms and inexperienced Union Organizers are perfect to Preside over us.

Representative Gonzales........just google his name. Links lead to other links, and then you'll understand why ClubFed Presidents get 16-20 year terms.
The power starts there and thats the trickle down economics Reagan spoke of so dearly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

> Obama got in for his ethnicity, and a record of voting present in the Senate.



He got in *in spite of* his ethnicity.

The man is an extremely inspiring speaker, and he really did sell the idea of hope. See if you can find his speech at the 2004 DNC - that's what catapulted him to national prominence immediately.

It didn't hurt that he's so bright, articulate, and insightful...which is why his failed presidency is so deeply disappointing. Depressing, really.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

Richard, this proves that you are an unwilling zealot:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Take a look at who signed it.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 4, 2011)

markets are crashing all over the place.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
> 
> Take a look at who signed it.



Nick,

You nailed it to the wall with that link. The fingerprints of Texas oil money are all over that letter.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Richard, this proves that you are an unwilling zealot:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
> 
> Take a look at who signed it.



I don't follow. Are you saying I'm a Bush zealot? I've said many times that I don't like Bush and he had some pretty rotten policies. Though I will argue that he's not as bad as some say.

If I'm a zealot for anything it's the public record.

I never said Bush did a good job or there weren't other interests driving the actions of Clinton/Bush. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I was simply correcting the *very* common misperception that Bush initiated the move to remove Hussein from power because of WMD fears. He did not. The public record clearly shows that fact.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

Political correctness rules the games played in the media and in DC.
What sends a better message than a President who isn't a good old white guy from the Yacht or Golf Club. 
Obama was perfect, why else have a record of present as a Senator, he was chosen a long time ago and groomed. Speakers and actors are the best Presidents as they actually end up believing the scripts.
He's got that side to side reading of the teleprompter nailed.
You know where there's maybe 15-20 press people there and the rest are Obamas handlers, and he looks left and right as if there's some big audience....
You gotta love these guys. They know half of America thinks there's a big crowd gathered.... :lol: 

I can see this anti war President really doing the right thing by having Quaddaffi and that bastard that got released from jail hung in public, and at his own compund in Tripoli....


No need to waste hundreds of millions on the Tea Party war chest or GOP guys. Let them take the Senate and more seats in Congress and keep Obama in there, with Hillary as Vice President.
She could slide right in in 2016 if Afleck doesn't do any good memorizing his scripts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

> markets are crashing all over the place



...which sort of shows that austerity may not be the right plan, eh?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

Austere spending leads to an austere economy.

*aus·tere* _[aw-steer] adj._
without excess, luxury, or ease; simple; limited; severe: an austere life.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

ClubFed wins again as people race to buy US Treasury Bonds...
Im glad to see the real rulers of our Government got things under control.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

The real rulers of our government are totally out of control.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 4, 2011)

I thought this new debt deal was supposed to inspire confidence in the markets? Which would of course lead to investment, and job creation. 

Not that I expected it to happen immediately, but what kind of message does it send when this "big fix" bill is passed, and the markets tumble?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

The message is that the US isn't the center of the universe. After the drama concluded in Washington, investors turned their eyes back to Europe and didn't like what they saw. Italy is teetering and the new catchphrase is "too big to bail." The global markets started falling and the recent US job reports were poor, feelings are still raw over the debt deal, and there was nothing to help prop up the markets.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> > markets are crashing all over the place
> 
> 
> 
> ...which sort of shows that austerity may not be the right plan, eh?



No - the surge in treasuries shows that investors do think it was the right move. It shows that the market feels safer in government bonds than in the stock market. They wouldn't do that if they thought the debt deal was a bad move - why move your money into an investment that you think is less likely to give a good return?

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

Tea party logic.

The stock market is crashing because the world economy is shrinking. Treasuries are safer because the stock market is crashing.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

Yet we are to believe that our S & P credit ratings will be downgraded as US Treasury Bonds are considered the " safe " haven... :mrgreen: 

During world wide panic, death and mayhem........the worlds policemen is the best place to invest in.

The masters of speaking with a forked tongue, and political correctness forge ahead stronger than ever.

Quaddaffi in 2011, Iran and Syria in 2012, Korea reunites in 2015....No need to send Latin American peasants over there, the North will provide millions for the South. China has its own slaves.

ClubFed has definately got its shit together.


God Bless The USA.......... o[])


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Tea party logic.
> 
> The stock market is crashing because the world economy is shrinking. Treasuries are safer because the stock market is crashing.



Ok - don't follow that one either. What does that logic have to do with the Tea Party?

And a crash? Really? A little early on that call, I think. 4% is bad but we've faced much worse in the past.

But you're into the sensationalism... enjoy...

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Tea party logic.
> 
> The stock market is crashing because the world economy is shrinking. Treasuries are safer because the stock market is crashing.



A crash this week is next weeks boom. Now's the time to pick up today's cheap stocks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

Let's hope you're right, Jose.

But I'm worried. What's going on in Europe is even worse than here, and they have constraints we don't have. Plus the politics in this country are getting worse by the day, with the f-ing Republicans crashing the world and our president helping them.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

The trouble was started when Bush ran up large debts during good times. It was a political strategy aimed at starving any future Democratic presidency. It also starves the US government's ability to act as a damper during bad times.

Only a fool borrows big when times are good and decides to pay down debt when times are bad. 

Republicans in Oregon have a similar mindset. Sometimes there is a budget surplus. Democrats want it put into a Rainy Day Fund. Republicans want a "Kicker" - a check that is refunded immediately. Duh. Any dumb squirrel knows to store the walnuts in the Summer in order to get through the Winter. Duh.

Now that times are tough in Oregon, they've had no elasticity. As soon as things get tight, teachers lose jobs, which further depresses the local economy, etc...

So, when the Bush gang started two wars, cut taxes and ran up debt during good times, they implemented a political scheme at the expense of the US economy and people.

What a mess.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Let's hope you're right, Jose.
> 
> But I'm worried. What's going on in Europe is even worse than here, and they have constraints we don't have. Plus the politics in this country are getting worse by the day, with the f-ing Republicans crashing the world and our president helping them.



Europe not withstanding, the stock market today just looks like a bit of a knee jerk. Wall street folks are extremely jittery. Crazy lot. Worked on wall street for a while after college and couldn't take it. But, one thing that Wall Street can't stand is losing money. So these "crashes" are usually accompanied by a surge upward. Now if it's really bad then that surge won't come for a while, but this doesn't look really bad. Banks are still sound and the big power wall street companies are still making record profits. I feel what's going to happen is that wallstreet people sensing that the government isn't going to be handing out blank checks to certain companies like automotive, defense ect...., are now reevaluating where to put their money. So they'll pull money out of certain companies that get big government contracts and put them in other companies. They'll pull money out of Europe and find private companies here to put the money. So there's going to be a big shift. But the shift will be sudden and resolute. Let's hope so anyway.

But at anyrate I think you'll see a lot of American money being pulled out of overseas companies and put back into America ones. Which is really what Obama has wanted all along.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

Here's another theory...

Investors move their money between stocks (medium to high risk), bonds (low risk), and cash (lower risk). After the debt ceiling was raised and the spending cuts passed, bonds suddenly became more attractive - the returns aren't any better than last week, but the return to risk ratio just improved.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 4, 2011)

I agree Jon, but that's not what we were told was going to happen. I fully expect market growth, and with it economic expansion and job creation after this debt bill. At least that what I was sold by the Tea Party and by default, the Democrats and President. 



JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Republicans in Oregon have a similar mindset. Sometimes there is a budget surplus. Democrats want it put into a Rainy Day Fund. Republicans want a "Kicker" - a check that is refunded immediately. Duh. Any dumb squirrel knows to store the walnuts in the Summer in order to get through the Winter. Duh.


Being from the same state, the concept they sell us is that by giving back the kicker it will help spur on the economy and that its your money and the government wastes it. Same thing the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do, both when Bush implemented them, and Obama agreed with them. Problem is, it doesn't work. It's been a miserable failure. It may have worked in 1982 or so when we had stagflation, but not now. It's killing the economy. Even Bruce Bartlett and David Stockman (Reagan economic team at that time) now advocate the opposite, and say demand side economics is the solution.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 4, 2011)

heres the worrying news. even guys in the business dont know whats going to happen next. its great to have turmoil every now and again if youre a star at timing. but its not great if youre the majority that get stuck in a market thats crashed. i would use the term crash in this instance. yes. because its not just happened over one day. this has been going on for 2 to 3 weeks.

its basically about what has already been discussed to death. us unemployment and the euro. the ecb are full of shit and now you have to think the euro itself is in definite danger if this goes on which it probably will now that panic has set in.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

Panic or rational flight?


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> The trouble was started when Bush ran up large debts during good times.


Clinton ran up the debt in even better times.

So why is it Bush's fault?

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

By the last two years of Clinton's term, the annual deficit was under control. Bush could have built on that trend. He did the opposite.

So, Richard, did the RNC send out a memo to say "CLINTON!" every time somebody criticizes Bush? It seems kind of desperate.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> By the last two years of Clinton's term, the annual deficit was under control. Bush could have built on that trend. He did the opposite.
> 
> So, Richard, did the RNC send out a memo to say "CLINTON!" every time somebody criticizes Bush? It seems kind of desperate.



It's my job on this board to make sure we all have the facts straight and are thinking for ourselves 

I realize that's not fashionable - better to just pick an ideology and follow it blindly, mindessly repeating the drivel handed from your talking head of choice. YouTube links of that talking head are even better, right?

Yes - I am desperate. Desperate for folks to stop and think.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2011)

You're pretty good at thinking, Richard, but I'd suggest you also do a little work on your reasoning skills before accusing other people of being nonthinking ideologues.

Another avenue to pursue: the only reason you think other people are ideologues who parrot talking heads is that it doesn't occur to you that other people can be different from you. Because I've never seen you post anything that isn't totally conservative ideology, despite your belief that you're an iconoclast.


----------



## rgames (Aug 4, 2011)

Well, I don't consider myself a conservative - I certainly don't follow the conservative talking heads. I think most of the conservative talking heads are just as off-base as the liberal talking heads.

However, on this board with its significant lean to the left, a guy like me who's pretty much in the middle appears to be to the right.

I've repeated many times that I'm not a fan of Bush, nor right-wing ideology, but the Bush-bashing that is so popular on this board is often completely uninformed. So sure, bash Bush. But do it for the right reasons, othewise you look like just another idealogue repeating the same crap you hear on the news.

Case in point: Clinton did, in fact, sign the legislation that created US policy to remove Hussein from power. And Clinton did, in fact, increase the debt in every year of his presidency, despite a booming economy and government surpluses. All I've done is add those facts to the discussion here, to counter comments which were obviously intended to bash Bush.

To make comments that Bush is guilty of those transgressions requires a reminder that he was not the only one. That doesn't mean I like Bush - I do not. Nor does it mean that I am a conservative - I am not.

I'm just trying to introduce folks to facts relevant to their comments. It's a public service - you'll all appear much smarter when you discuss it elsewhere 

Pick whatever you hate about liberals or conservatives: odds are the other party has done the same thing.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2011)

Some folks just have to have something to believe in, just like a kind of blind faith. I believed in Santa when I was a kid. I never got mad at my folks for tricking me, because as a child I figured speaking out in disbelief might cause the gifts to stop coming..... :mrgreen: 

ClubFed is the top dog as the soaring of US Treasury Bonds demonstrated today. Thats who runs the show.

Liberals should be happy as that came in after the debt deal, so it isn't even on the books yet. Perfect timing 'eh...

This makes me think back to Bernankes' statement before Senate committes in May where he said QE3 wasn't necessary but other plans were in place. I think I have to agree.

You'd think people would be happy as that's the new stimulus funds that will surely be called something like " Job Creation Funds " and could do what the first couple of trillion were suppose to do.

I do believe that spending money is key to keeping an economy alive, but not without some form of collateral to back up it's value.
Thankfully TBonds maturity allows a 10 year period.

Praise The Lord...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 4, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 04 said:


> Case in point: Clinton did, in fact, sign the legislation that created US policy to remove Hussein from power.



Are you still on about that?

I characterize that kind of rhetoric as "a devil's lie." A devil's lie is where you find a technical detail or use a weasel word in order to claim truth, but the real goal is to obscure truth.

When a criminal says, "I didn't steal the TV", but they did, it's a flat out lie. But if the criminal says, "I didn't break into that house" and the door happened to be unlocked, they can claim that they were technically telling the truth. But they're still trying to obscure the fact that they stole the TV. That's a devil's lie. It's doubly wrong in that it's still trying to obscure truth - and it's done with forethought in a way to try to get away with it.

Bush started two wars. Period. Bush simultaneously lowered taxes. Period. That led to large annual deficits. Period. These actions were not forced upon him. These policies were clearly laid out by his advisers who were PNAC supporters (Iraq) and by the Republican Party (lowering taxes). Full stop.

If I'm bashing Bush, I'm bashing him not just with facts, but with his oft stated policies - and his concrete actions.

There is no sugar coating the Bush presidency - no matter the actions of any other president.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 4, 2011)

so it seems thatsa actually a fact 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... g-deficit/


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

This is the typical Potomac 2 step, blame game 101. 
Girly men who cry about the job they spent millions to get, so they could spend trillions, all while earning a low 6 figure salary.
And we wonder why women are getting on the ballot.....??... /\~O

These are the whiny bitches we sent to DC, its our fault, not Bush not Obama, its on us.

I take full responsibility for my bad vote.
Dont hold you breath waiting for one of these pussies to man up.
Its so shameful, yet many sheep will follow.

Just keep your eye on the ball. ClubFed has all of the Coke. These 2 false parties all hold up their cocktail glasses at the same party, just waiting for Bernanke to summon them into the restroom for their little lines.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 5, 2011)

theres a lot of bond traders out there betting that italy wont be able to pay a 7% coupon on their debt. i would bet on that too. be interesting looking at germany and frances next general election results.

if the us employment figures this morning turn out bad then get ready for some more mayhem.


----------



## midphase (Aug 5, 2011)

There you go:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Mayhem avoided!


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

See...........ClubFed has it's shit together.

Im thinking that Governor Perry prayed and made this happen.

He's going to pray for the Heat wave and drought in Texas to come for an end.
I think God will answer him with August Monsoons and a few borrowed Lightning Bolts from Thor and Zues. 
They've been busy in northern Europe and Greece lately.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2011)

> I do believe that spending money is key to keeping an economy alive, but not without some form of collateral to back up it's value.



Then you believe in the world going into a depression. My new bumper sticker:

Gotta spend money to make money.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 5, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> See...........ClubFed has it's shit together.
> 
> Im thinking that Governor Perry prayed and made this happen.



i would have lied if it had been down to me and just made the figures up. 

depression can still happen.


----------



## rgames (Aug 5, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> There you go:
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t1
> 
> Mayhem avoided!



It is good news. Especially since so much of the increase was in the private sector.

But we've still picked up only about 25% of the jobs we lost during the recession, so there's a ways to go before I'll say "Mayhem avoided" 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 5, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> Bush started two wars. Period. Bush simultaneously lowered taxes. Period. That led to large annual deficits. Period. These actions were not forced upon him. These policies were clearly laid out by his advisers who were PNAC supporters (Iraq) and by the Republican Party (lowering taxes). Full stop.


OK I'm done after this:

We already established that debt-to-GDP is the only meaningful metric, and it was lower under Bush than under Clinton. Fact.

Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, the legislation that started the military action to remove Saddam Hussein. Fact.

Clinton had budget surpluses. Fact.

Clinton raised the national debt every year. Fact.

The part that I don't get is why people aren't completely incensed over the fact that Clinton *did* have budget surpluses and *still* raised the debt every year. What the hell did he do with that money? Aren't you upset that your government took in more money than it needed and spent it on ... what?

I bet the Wall Street fat cats could tell you, if they were willing.

At least with Bush you know where to direct your anger because you know where the money went. But with Clinton, you have no clue! You just know the government wound up with a bunch of extra cash and gave it to someone else. I, for one, would have much rather used that extra cash to buy down the debt. We'd be a lot better off right now, that's for damn sure.

EDIT: here's why: if Clinton had used his surpluses to buy down the debt, the money we're spending on interest payments right now could have been used to provide health care for a huge number of people. Or unemployment benefits. Or salaries for teachers. Or, or, or....

Yes, Bush made some bad decisions. But so did Clinton, so if you want to raise issues with one, you better be honest with yourself about the other.

Over and out.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to stop by, Richard. I'm sure I speak for every other blind, unthinking ideologue here that we really appreciate the unique clarity you bring to every discussion.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

I would enjoy having a beer w/ Nick and rgames.
I could sit back and listen to the 2 opposing sides, and then ruin their night by reminding them that neither side really exists except in thier own personal beliefs.... :mrgreen: 

Play Ball......


----------



## midphase (Aug 5, 2011)

What kind of beer do you like?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

Blue Moon with a slice or Orange, and then a big fat frozen double shot of Jager for the road....

What's yours...?
Don't tell me.........You're a fancy brand kind of guy...some brew I never heard of before probably.

Truth is I hate beer, I grew up next door to Anheiser-Busch and never liked beer, but would pretend at keggar parties.
Then a few years ago some chick bartender told me she would find a beer I liked as they have 312 different beers at the 100 foot bar she worked at.
I tried tan and darks, lagers, domestic and foriegn, and finally a slice with a Blue Moon, and I was in shock. I love that stuff.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2011)

After a few of Kays' beers I'd probably start agreeing with Chimuelo that we're all totally foophed no matter what and there's no difference between Michelle Bachman and Barney Frank (because they both have gay partners).


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 5, 2011)

Guys, I think I just heard the other shoe drop... :cry:


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

:mrgreen: 

I knew you'd come around after a while...

_____________________________________________________________

I am having a Brew tonight in celebration of S & P downgrading us to AA+.
Thank God they allowed CLubFed to collect billions in TBonds before the announcement.

This is step 1 in a strategy to freeze market trends.
Similar to what happened in the housing market.
There's no way they could have ever paid millions of mortgages unless you forced people to hold tight by de valuing the property so much, it's detrimental to cash in or sell.
That's the benefit actually of a high short term Capital gains tax.
Imagine if we had no tax there. Sell offs would skyrocket even with percieved losses.
But losses and taxes combined ensure trading only, less cash outs.

Again ClubFed and its bros got their shit together....
S & P guys are probably at Bernankes for a BBQ, definately no Pork, chicken and lamb.


----------



## rgames (Aug 5, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> Guys, I think I just heard the other shoe drop... :cry:


Congress needs to get its ass in gear and stop avoiding the hard choices. The dems need to be more willing to accept cuts and the republicans need to realize we need to raise some taxes.

Honestly, though, I don't see the credit rating having that much impact. I think everyone realized it was probably coming.

Plus, yesterday's drop in the DOW coincided with a huge shift to US government securities. So go figure - investors seem to disagree with the S&P rating. Or maybe the US government-backed securities are just the least bad of many bad choices.

And, of course, the S&P is the same organization that had glowing ratings for a number of the bailed-out investment banks just before the banking crisis in 2008.

So go figure again...

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 5, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> Thank God they allowed CLubFed to collect billions in TBonds before the announcement.


Yes, that part is quite intriguing...

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Aug 5, 2011)

Yeah seems kind of suspicious to me too. This whole thing. Don't credit downgrades usually happen after you've failed to pay your bills? Not after you've decided to keep paying.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 5, 2011)

No doubt. They raise the ceiling until 2013. They form a plan to reduce debt without raising taxes. The initial S&P reasoning is off by $2T, and after the administration corrects them, S&P changes their rationale and downgrades anyway.

It looks to me like this was planned weeks ago. It will make more money for anybody who loans money to the US Govt. How convenient.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2011)

Glad to see others paying attention.. :mrgreen: 

I saw Greenspan give testimony years ago on CSPAN and that's when I realized I was wasting my time listening to some temporary occupant of the White House or Halls Of Congress.
Bernankes testimony last May just reaffirmed that.

I also remember watching the stimulus funds wind down, and we had 450 Billion left, and we were told the Banks had all paid us back, but that money never was added to the 450 Billion that was left...
Thats our money isnt it..........where did it go..?
Did it pay the unfunded wars, or is that to outlast the common mans memory too.

I follow the money, but the trail always end up cold.
But ClubFed is the action, this much is certain.
Knowing they are secretly in control is most reassuring to me.
We'd be in deep shit if either of these parties really had any power.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 5, 2011)

It would be good to find out who's behind the S&P.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 6, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Aug 05 said:


> It would be good to find out who's behind the S&P.



this probably should have happened quite a while ago. the s&p won't be the only agency to downgrade the us credit rating. its a shock but not really a surprise. already other countries are making demands. this is what happens when debt gets out of control. Geithner could be in trouble.

theres an old saying in golf if anyone plays. the most difficult shot to play in golf is the one right after a shank. if the us gets downgraded again...........

edit: looking at the post below i would say thats not very accurate as an assessment of CRA's. you have to understand that this started as an issue in 2007 and what is happening now is just a continuation of that. they never got it right then and now its coming back with a vengeance. CRA's arguably have not been able to cope with the circumstances dealt to them over the last few years. for s&p to downgrade the us to aa+ could be construed as quite brave. there is no similarity between the us and greece or italy in fiscal terms.


----------



## nikolas (Aug 6, 2011)

When S&P was fucking Greece and Italy and the other countries there wasn't really much to talk about was there?  bouahahahahaha!

(ok kidding with the above).

I think that such 'organizations' like S&P are rubbish to begin with. Not only because their rational is rarely... rational, but also because THEIR doings and ratings are one of the main things that influence the market, so this whole idea is getting more and more bullshit!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2011)

This is an obscenity.

And Richard, I thought you were gone. You think you're not an ideologue, but your "middle" position is still way to the right.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 6, 2011)

Geitner isn't in trouble, when you serve the master as he did, you're golden parachute is waiting.
Why do you think Wall Street guys get such huge payoffs?
They know deez taingz..........Wut taingz.?........Deez Taingz.......

Look at Chris Dodd............." I have cancer and want to be with my" family. Law states a member of the House cannot take a job for 2 years that makes his former position a political advantage.......remember.
Then suddenly his Cancer is cured, and now he's the head lobbyist for SAG in DC w/o the 2 year law being applied, as he is an elite member.

That position was created under Reagans term, and basically coordinates media events where actors comment on policy, like the recent Matt Damon show. Where his script was really effective, and I was impressed. The question was perfect, the reply was well thought out in advance.......excellent media work.

Wall Street, Politicians, Lobbyists are all the same folks. Where do " retired " politicians end up many times...? Wall Street consultants, and the idea that they are GOP only is a laugh.

This game has been perfected over 50 years now and ClubFed has its shit together. My guess is Bin Laden was upset that the plane where the passengers took our the terrorist in PA was headed right for the Federal Reserve building....

It cant be that hard to figure out once you follow the money and juice.
TARP, who got the money......Banks.
Banks were allowed to swallow up smaller private banks, hundreds of them.
ClubFed gives them interest free loans, and payback money suddenly disappears.
There's so many angles and tricks they use because most people listen to the puppets and distractions the media provides.

Just chew on this for a minute.

Eisenhower never said jack while in office, but as a farewell speech, and its recorded and went out on National TV, he warned us about the Fed and Defense Contractors, the CIA.........a huge warning for all to see. Now comes Kennedy. He publicly stated that he would tear apart the Fed and the CIA......again well documented..
LBJ was known as a serious bigot and major anti War candidate.
After seeing recent events, he suddenly creates the Great Society Program, then invades Viet Nam.......
Its just the way it is. We can look the other way since we are implicit with our silence and tax dollars.
Personally I tell myself they know Deez Taings........wut taingz.......Taingz I dont want to know about, and if its between a russian version of our ClubFed running the globe, maybe they're protecting us, which appears to work. But my God we basically have a huge version of the old Sicilian Mafia as our Government.
Seriously.
Look at the Commission. The Regimes. Captains,...etc.
THe top dogs hand out cash to feed people during the depression like Capone use to do, all while they talk Human rights, etc. As they smile others are being assassinated.......
It's our sytle of Democracy I guess.


Where else am I going to go...? Our shcools didn't teach us foriegn language so Europe wont work. Besides, who wants a great infrastrusture or free health care..... besides the protection money I paid into the rackets for decades is suppose to comeback my way right..? we'll see.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2011)

George, what are you talking about. Our national debt is NOT out of control; this is purely right-wing politics from the company that enabled this crash. The people who pay S&P don't want a negro in the White House again.


----------



## rgames (Aug 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 06 said:


> This is an obscenity.
> 
> And Richard, I thought you were gone. You think you're not an ideologue, but your "middle" position is still way to the right.



I'm done trying to convince you guys that Clinton is not the Messiah and Bush is not the Devil.


----------



## rgames (Aug 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 06 said:


> George, what are you talking about. Our national debt is NOT out of control; this is purely right-wing politics from the company that enabled this crash. The people who pay S&P don't want a negro in the White House again.



The debt is a problem, but yes, maybe not out of control. Yet.

It's easier to understand if you don't think of it in terms of debt - the actual debt is too abstract. So how about this:

You want universal health care, right? And you want money for education, right? And you favor unemployment benefits for folks getting back on their feet, right? And you favor infrastructure development programs, right?

Well, instead of funding those activities, you're paying for interest on the debt.

Reduce the debt, and you magically have more money for those activities. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it?

Seriously - you think it's better to give our tax dollars to Chinese bondholders than our own Americans? I do not. I'd much rather use that money for health care, and education, and unemployment, and infrastructure, and ...

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 06 said:


> George, what are you talking about. Our national debt is NOT out of control; this is purely right-wing politics from the company that enabled this crash. The people who pay S&P don't want a negro in the White House again.



no no no no. that is a difficult concept.

the national debt is what has brought this about. its only going to get out of control if theres no growth. BUT a lot of the rest of the world thinks that just maybe theres not going to be any growth and yup here comes the double dip, recession, depression whatever you want to call it.

s&p arent going to change their minds tomorrow because democrats or republicans think its an outrage right? there will be other CRA's that will almost certainly downgrade the us BeCAUSE of its huge debt mountain. this is not about any single president but about years of debt mismanagement and wanting everything now. like education, like defense and soforth. i already pointed put who the main bond holders are. china just lost a shit load of money on their paper investment. saturday is always a good day for these announcements. :lol: :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 6, 2011)

If you believe the numbers on the debt clock.
Go to the world debt clock per country.
Click on the country you want, then read the upper window whenever you hold the mouse over a certain tab. The sources of information are revealed.
ClubFed, EuroStat, the CIA, all of our favorites.....
You can read and fear the numbers.
Or laugh at how this " debt clock " was invented recently and just suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Where was this debt clock when Bush and DC were blowing tons of cash...
Was there ever a surplus clock for the peasants to watch....?

C'mon guys just admit it. We've been bamboozled, Run amuck....


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 6, 2011)

a surplus clock. now that would be good and extremely rare.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 6, 2011)

We should have a list of politicians by name.
Then we could click on their names and see how much each lobbying firm contributes before and after various legisaltive sessions.

That would be called the Slut Clock...

We could avoid watching them struggle with thier scripts and just go right to the juice.
Have another clock that reveals where the money comes from.....
Wait we cant do that. During the " SUper Majority " a new law came to us from the " Supreme " COurt that makes anomynity legal again....
Shoot............these guys are slicker than a Cats Ass....


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 6, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Aug 06 said:


> I'm done trying to convince you guys that Clinton is not the Messiah and Bush is not the Devil.



Because Reagan is the Messiah and Bush is his disciple? 

The problem with those guys is that their policies led to huge deficits. And then the Republicans try to tell us that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. It's a load of BS.

The Republican position is much more cynical. Spend like hell when there is a Republican president. Rail against spending when there is a Democratic president.

The logical conclusion is, if you want to cut federal spending from 2013-2016, re-elect Obama.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2011)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 ... -and-debt/

Paul Krugman:

"What matters for debt sustainability is the real interest rate, since what matters is keeping real debt, not nominal debt, from growing. (World War II debt never got paid off, it just eroded in real terms to the point where it was trivial). As of yesterday, the US government could lock in 30-year bonds at a real interest rate of 1.25%. That means that a trillion dollars in extra debt would mean $12.5 billion a year in additional real interest payments.

Meanwhile, the CBO estimates potential real GDP in 2021 at about $18 trillion in 2005 dollars, or around $19 trillion in 2011 dollars.

Put these together, and they say that an extra trillion in borrowing adds something like 0.07% of GDP in future debt service costs. Yes, that zero belongs there. The $4 trillion S&P said it needed to see clocks in at less than 0.3% of GDP."

The rest of the blog post is well worth reading too - as it is every day.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2011)

> I'm done trying to convince you guys that Clinton is not the Messiah and Bush is not the Devil.



My point exactly: it's because you're such an ideologue that you don't understand that...well, I can only speak for this guy, not we guys...is not the same as you. Had you stopped to read, you would have seen that I for one never considered Clinton (or anyone else) the Messiah. Triangulation was disastrous.

And everyone knows Bush isn't the Devil. Dick Cheney is.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 6, 2011)

I believe half of what I read, but even with that in mind his findings seems to make good sense and this is probably why Bush had unfunded wars.
The recent phony solution, to a fake crisis, really worked out well.
Bernanke is brilliant....

I bet Krugman is delighted as now we can borrow with collateral.
China needs our middle class to spend on its goods. Im sure they can spot us another large...

o-[][]-o


----------



## rgames (Aug 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 06 said:


> Meanwhile, the CBO estimates potential real GDP in 2021 at about $18 trillion in 2005 dollars, or around $19 trillion in 2011 dollars.


Remember the estimates about budget surplulses well into 2020?

How did that turn out?

So, given that these brilliant economists clearly can't predict anything, are you willing to rely on the "things will be better" speculation?

I'm not. Better to just go ahead and reduce the debt. Then you have wiggle room when these brilliant economists are once again proved wrong about the growth of the US economy.

That's exactly the type of behavior that led to the housing bubble: people banked on things getting better, so borrowed more than they could actually afford. Didn't we learn that lesson already?

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2011)

I think it's safe to say that Paul Krugman has thought through basic concepts like what potential GDP means. Read this and you'll understand what he's saying:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... ng-trendy/


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 7, 2011)

A very good article but I am still waiting for Krugman to explain why our WW2 debt disappeared.
It seemed that there was a World Bank of sorts back then that funded the USA, which in turn funded Russia, UK and China, but from what I have read they were the very same lenders who armed Hilter and the Nazis to begin with.

Keeping that information in mind what did we as a nation do to pay down that debt. Were the returning veterans not taxed to fund the Marshall Plan and re building of Japan...?
How did this debt disappear.....??

I totally respect Krugman's theory and knowledge but he never fully explains many events that lead up to his formulation of opinion, other than it happened.

The reason I want answers is because I am looking for an explanation of why Bush was allowed to run unfunded Wars and create this national debt. Congress was capable of defunding this, it was a Democratic Majority, and naturally Bush was the guy leading the charge and taking the blame, but Congress knew about this " unfunding " and yet did nothing. I always end up with the same answer, CLubFed/Pentagon/CIA and national security reasons...

God Bless The Patriot Act....... o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2011)

Growth and inflation. That's what he means by real terms in the earlier link.

There are probably people still making payments on electronic calculators, in other words, but the amount they pay is irrelevant on today's scale. The can is always getting kicked down the road - that's what makes the world go around and it's not a bad thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2011)

And by the way I'm not sure what you mean about him not explaining the events that lead up to his formulation of opinion.

It seems to me that the reason he has it so right is precisely that his economic theories have been tested in the real world - most recently most recently - while our public policy is being based on pigheaded ideology.

Intellectually honest conservatives - and I know of only 2-1/2 of them in the world (David Frum, who was fired from the Heritage Foundation for being honest; Bruce Bartlett; and the half is David Stockman) - realize that:

http://www.frumforum.com/could-it-be-that-our-enemies-were-right (http://www.frumforum.com/could-it-be-th ... were-right)


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 7, 2011)

Disappearnace of debt post WW2. That's the facts I want to see.
Spending trillions can stabilize any bad economy, as long as the " spenders " properly target weak sectors.
I am talking about his continiued FDR and post WW2 examples where he'll state examples as factual, yet no links, or documents backing up those facts, which many of his theories are based upon...

Simply mentioning that the debt of WW2 just vanished while we spent our treasury during the Marshall Plan, rebuliding of Europe and then Korea doesn't explain where this massive amount of money came from.
Are we to believe these economies we totally destroyed were paying for this massive global infrastructure building....??

I am in no way trying to diminish his opinions or theories. As I have stated before from watching CSPAN, many economists that are subpeonaed to testify before committees often refer to Krugman.
I just wish someone would please explain where the money we owed post WW2 went to. Krugman mentions how over time that debt just evaporates.....
I am intrigued by his " theory " as I believe the unfunded Bush wars, and many wars for that matter are unfunded and never have to be paid for.
Surely there's a reason, I'd like it explained instead of assuming it to be factual.....

I have even asked for specific answers to when do the wars in SW Asia and the Middle East become funded..........I get no answers.
Seems like Krugman knows something about this since he mentions it.

Anyways, I admire the man as long as he doesn't associate himself with Maureen Dowd and the other Parrots that cackle over at the NYTimes...
He's definately a big step ahead of those stenographers....


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2011)

I will make my own theory based on looking the opposite way of the media and their " experts."
I predict lower Gas prices, and lower interest rates.
I still don't buy the phony crap they're putting on my plate.

It's to our advantage is people sell off and go to less volatile stocks, it's also to our advantage if TBond sales soar, and it's also to our advantage if people are frozen by the confusion with promises of an upward trend.

Purely speculation, but I think the consumer is going to benefit from this jive meant to trap the big fish....


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 8, 2011)

well the markets have tanked completely.


----------



## rgames (Aug 8, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> well the markets have tanked completely.



Well, not really tanked, but definitely not a good few weeks.

This whole mess is mostly a political problem, not an economic problem.

And interest rates on US-backed bonds are still crazy low. So, clearly, nobody cares what the S&P thinks.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 8, 2011)

Also, I think Obama is the only sane person in DC right now.

Will be interesting to see if he can herd the cats.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 8, 2011)

Wow...did hell just freeze over?


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 8, 2011)

Interesting point Richard. I think it also shows just how screwed up the political system in Washington is right now. 

Meanwhile, I'm starting to believe there will be large protesting, even rioting, at the Republican convention next year in Tampa. Remember the Chicago Seven in 1968? Get ready. This could also look a lot like the 1999 WTO riots in Seattle. I think the police are going to try to be ready, but be somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer number of people showing up to protest. The location of the forum also fosters protestors ability to disrupt foot and car traffic in the surrounding area. 

There are a LOT of broke, bitter, angry people out there who have had it. Plus this has to be a strong focal point for the usual suspects of protestors. The anarchists, DAN, black bloc, etc. Throw in the labor unions, anti-war people, gays, ALF/ELF, etc. Could be a real mess.


----------



## midphase (Aug 8, 2011)

Here's where we are headed:

http://youtu.be/O3ZOKDmorj0


----------



## rgames (Aug 8, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> Wow...did hell just freeze over?


No - despite the fact that you guys try to paint me into a right-side corner, I really don't live there. When the republicans do stupid things I say so. And right now they're being stupid. Well, so are many dem's other than Obama.

A lot of folks have talked about how they think this will destroy his presidency - I disagree. The dissatisfaction right now seems to be aimed squarely at Congress, and rightfully so. If Obama can smack them around a bit and get them to start thinking straight, I think he'll come out way on top.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2011)

The problem is that by taking *poliical* advice rather than at least arguing for the right economic policies he has led us into a corner with no options. Of course he isn't to blame for the economic problems, but now that he's convinced the country that government spending is what's been holding us back, what can he do to stimulate the economy?

My dissatisfaction is aimed squarely in several directions in Congress - including at the Democrats who allowed the national debate to be over a high cholesterol problem while ignoring the gaping would we have (as Chrystia Freeland put it so well).

But the biggest problem facing the world is...have I mentioned this?...the Republicans. They are insane.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2011)

My Main Man really lays it out in today's column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opini ... bt.html?hp


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2011)

He calls it like he sees it as S & P is the sole cheerleader for Fannie and Freddy by giving them the thumbs up over and over.

This whole game is rigged though, it's too involved with finger pointing which reeks of proffessional spin meisters.
It's sad Obama gets hit with this, but where were his Handlers and experts....?

I can just see it now in my Grandkids history books................

In the year of 2 thousand and eleven, the first time in the nations history, the Federal Government got it's credit ratings lowered form AAA to AA+.....but it was Bush's fault.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 8, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> In the year of 2 thousand and eleven, the first time in the nations history, the Federal Government got it's credit ratings lowered form AAA to AA+.....but it was Bush's fault.



Bush loaded the chamber. The Tea Party pulled the trigger. 

I'd downgrade the Tea Party, but what's below an "F"?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2011)

Yepp, it's their fault. What a mighty group of 30 folks they are.
To bring the phony GOP and false DNC to their knees.
And here we thought the Liberals and Conservatives were so powerful and all knowing in brinksmanship.

Hundreds of elites outsmarted by these freshmen, inexperienced, racist, terrorist, uneducated fools.
The only people blaming these vastly outnumbered morons are the defeated Liberal protectors of the people. S & P considers the Tea Party a joke, but the elites are pulling their hair out. I wish this was on CSPAN, but that's another Obama promise unkept, he forgot ClubFed didn't give him permission.

I'll never vote for them but I will enjoy watching both false parties getting all red faced and reduced to name calling since they appear to be unarmed in a battle of wits..

Maybe this 3rd party rising is just too early in history.
Imagine if we could let the people actually vote on laws for once, get we all agree on, then let these 3 parties spend decades never getting anything done since there's too many splits.

Perhaps a Government that can't do anything might be great once the laws that were sold by these scoundrels get re written for the citizens, not the few...


----------



## Udo (Aug 8, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> chimuelo @ Mon Aug 08 said:
> 
> 
> > In the year of 2 thousand and eleven, the first time in the nations history, the Federal Government got it's credit ratings lowered form AAA to AA+.....but it was Bush's fault.
> ...


... or make at least potty training mandatory for politicians. That would've kept out Tea-potters, etc. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2011)

> Hundreds of elites outsmarted by these freshmen, inexperienced, racist, terrorist, uneducated fools.
> The only people blaming these vastly outnumbered morons are the defeated Liberal protectors of the people.



?

They threatened to blow up the world economy - and may have done - if they didn't get their demands. That's what you call outsmarting and defeating liberals?

If I hold a gun to your head and threaten to blow your brains out if everyone within earshot doesn't give me all their money, does that mean I've outsmarted all those people when the comply?

Or is it just that I'm an f-ing asshole with no principles?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2011)

I wont even dare to debate when you use the daily Blackberry Liberal talking points.
There's no way in hell I believe all of this bull shit anyways. It's a very carefully thought out game that benefits the status quo.
Sure many folks not privvy to Insider trading are going to suffer, but Wall Street also has it's peasants.

If you think this is catastrophic and these 30 morons brought down the world economies, then they deserve to be brought down, the sooner the better. 
But I don't believe any of these scripted media events, or the jive talking points.

If we were really in so much trouble why is Congress not being recalled, or why isn't Obama cancelling any of his daily fund raising events..?

Im voting for anyone who I never heard of before. That's my 2012 strategy. 
I'd rather see unknown people get ClubFeds cash instead of the same old Fat wealthy sack lickers....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2011)

I aspire to reach your high level of aloof nihilism and post pictures of popcorn while other people less intelligent than I argue mindlessly about complicated policy decisions that are all equally wrong. How stupid of me not to recognize that Paul Krugman is only the equal of Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2011)




----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2011)

Everyone has their favorite Speculators.
Big Oil, Newspapers, blogs, radio talk show pests....

Chill chief. 
The Federal Reserve and its bros have thier shit together.
Krugman will see another stimulus probably too.

Just ask yourself who benefits when these " crashes " occur...?
The folks who get the bailout money and the politicians who share their committees inside trader information.

You should be happy. Pelosi did great and might even let you ride on her train for free,...as long as you buy the wine at one of her Vineyards.
Feinsteins husband bought entire blocks of houses and sold them back to the public for millions more than their market value.

So you have 2 great wealthy Liberals watching out for you in California.
And now ClubFed............I'd say you're covered pretty well.... 0oD


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 9, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> George Caplan @ Mon Aug 08 said:
> 
> 
> > well the markets have tanked completely.
> ...



little straw poll just for you around this trading room. yup theyve tanked.

trust me theyve crashed. it doesnt matter if its for 3 seconds 3 days or 3 months. this constitutes a crash. does it matter? well a lot of people always think this never affects them. it does and if continues then youll start to see a lot more unemployment just as one example.

agreed this is a politically caused problem for the most part. the europeans will never get it right and the us political arena is in turmoil. the uk are like sheep caught up in the middle.

the yields will rise. its only been a few days. at the end of this month fitch will probably downgrade the us too and so on and so forth with other crAs.

i think i mentioned sometime ago that the bond traders ruled the world right?


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 9, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> chimuelo @ Mon Aug 08 said:
> 
> 
> > In the year of 2 thousand and eleven, the first time in the nations history, the Federal Government got it's credit ratings lowered form AAA to AA+.....but it was Bush's fault.
> ...



we have kind of nick names for downgrades instead of letters and plus/minus signs. its due to boredom i guess. for instance greece and ireland are now fucking retard status. it means more to us when we re trading than boring old letters. the us is now uh oh status and so on.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 9, 2011)

IMO this game was hatched long ago. You simply let world wide investment grow for 2 years, and then to avoid paying that virtual profit back, you tank the market by having the same unknowledgable fools read scripts and tank it far enough so only investors with more than 1 year vested still make a profit. THis keeps the old money in and the new money vanishes.
Now TBonds look better and better, and only people with lots of equity can afford such a hedge bet.

I mean just look at that script the Fed handed Obama to read this time.... :( 
They have him sitting around like a Stewardess on call, and after the market starts levelling off at 300 points down, they make a call to their mouthpiece, and have him do the side to side teleprompter dance as if he has a full room. Yeah right, 20 Parrots from the media, who aren't even allowed to ask a question....
But CLubFed watched the markets drop 400 more as they shook each others hands and popped the corks....

Lets see the Bernanke speech at 2:15 today, where he'll probably announce he will save the poor folks with another QE hedged by TBonds.
His Helicopter will land for a quick speech where him and his global bro's will appear as the Knights saving the Queen.....

What a rigged game.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2011)

> Everyone has their favorite Speculators.
> Big Oil, Newspapers, blogs, radio talk show pests....



And they're all the same: stupid people who don't realize that the Fed rules it all. 

I'm mildly interested in your take on the 175 point rise this morning ahead of the Fed's announcement on whether they're going to do a QE3.

They aren't, I predict, and if they did it would have limited effect (since monetary policy doesn't work in the current "zero bound" state - the problem is on the demand side, not supply).

***
George, right now it's the bond vigilantes who are ruling the world.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 9, 2011)

Actually they're brilliant folks, but admitting the truth about the real powers means they have nothing to Speculate, no story, no ratings, no 24/7 coverage, no income.
I happen to love the Anceint Alien Theorists as they offer opnions that de bunk better funded " authorities " like religious leaders, and mainstream archeologists and scientists.
By reading all 3 differing POV's I can draw my own conclusions.

After 30 years of participation in the political process, this is my conclusion.
Pretty simple since decisions in our capital are all based on money and power.
Once you see them wiggle for their cash, and see their voting records, you realize they are meger puppets.
So find the cash, and follow it.
These days I prefer following who prints the cash.
No sense wasting time with low level mouthpieces and Parrots..

Dont foget the Golden Rule.
He who has the Gold, makes the Rules.

Jamie Farr as Sheik Ben Abdul Falafel.......Cannonball Run II
Warner Brothers 1984


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 9, 2011)

im looking at the dow right now and its tanking again. very fragile. yup there will be as chim says opportunities but like i said before its all in the timing and thats never a scientific thing.

as far as bonds go i would not really like to go into them as an investment anymore than say swiss francs which isnt going to help switzerland either.

i will have to consult my guru irwin stelzer and see what he comes up with.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 9, 2011)

That's a nice Irish name... 8)


----------



## José Herring (Aug 9, 2011)

There's a whole lot of speculating going on right now by the big guys at the expense of the little guys.

McGraw is behind this latest speculation. Obama's going to have to learn to deal with these power brokers unfortunately. I love the liberal idea of taking down the Wall Street fat cats, but realistically he needs to stroke their backs a little 'bout now. McGraw III has become my public enemy number 1. He just replaced George Soros. The kind of guys that make billions off of tanked economies around the world.

Right now it's the US Vs. China and China is coming out on top. With our own top money people working for the other side. Why is it that nobody is put on trial for treason any more?


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 9, 2011)

According to IRS records, 1,470 millionaires in this country paid no taxes in 2009. Zero. Not one penny. 

Where are all the jobs being created with this extra money they have to invest? 

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-1470-millionaires-paid-no-income-tax-in-09/1


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2011)

Right, but the bigger question is why our president is busy bullshitting about the national debt - as if that has anything to do with anything - instead of pushing for the massive jobs plan we need to get out of this mess?

He's a liar, cynical political operator, and/or fool (if he thinks that we're in this mess because of government spending). It's totally depressing.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 9, 2011)

Give the guy a break, he's just a lawyer from Chicago who's simply following orders from the real rulers.

We knew when we voted for him we knew he would be learning on the job since he had zero experience.
But honestly speaking, When I replace the last fall guys in my band, I look for talented musicians who are young and full of ideas, instead of old crabby bastards like myself.

Booking agents and entertainment directors are my ClubFed. And they require new and younger singers ( talent not needed ), and love to feel powerful as many of these people who pay me have often made suggestions on my personel, in exchange for more weeks and better pay.
So just like the real world, goes the ClubFed game in DC......

It's not really as hard as we make it out to be...

Tax loopholes will be closed, and tax reform is coming.
This is why the Tea Party financial backing in 2012 will be anonymous and vast. 
Somebody wants more money and seems to have a lot in invest to get it.....My guess...ClubFed lobbyists, ala Dick Armey.
Funny how the University in Texas he is connected to bought a Billion dollars in Gold....??

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... x-VjT5D13g

To follow the money I often have to read information from less desirable websites, but the corruption is widespread, and takes no sides, just taxpayer dollars.


----------



## rgames (Aug 9, 2011)

snowleopard @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> According to IRS records, 1,470 millionaires in this country paid no taxes in 2009. Zero. Not one penny.
> 
> Where are all the jobs being created with this extra money they have to invest?
> 
> http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-1470-millionaires-paid-no-income-tax-in-09/1



Right, but that's a *really* small percentage of all millionaires. Considering that about half of *all* Americans don't pay federal taxes puts it into some better perspective.

Those sorts of number are fun to think about (and make for great political pandering) but let's be serious: let's say all those 1470 millionaires were each forced to pay $500k each in taxes. That's $735M.

Yippee :? . That's nothing. Time is better spent focusing elsewhere.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 9, 2011)

Richard,

I don't think you need to be reminded...but come on, let's be real. We both know that if you're wealthy enough to have a great accounting firm the taxes that you pay in this country are a joke.

I'm certainly not a millionaire, but I've got one mother-fuckin'-Bush-lovin'-kickass accountant that gets me some insane tax breaks each year...all legal and all on the books. 

When taken within the context of all the tax breaks and loopholes, the USA has one of the lowest tax rates in the World...particularly for corporations and particularly for wealthy individuals.

PS.

Meanwhile if all you can afford is H&R Block...you know you're paying the IRS through the nose!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2011)

How's this for perspective:

- The 400 richest families in America have an average income of $300 million each, taxed at 17%;

- The richest 1% will avoid paying $36 billion in taxes this year, and millionaire families will avoid paying $31 billion in taxes as long the Bush tax cuts continue to be extended (total $700 billion over ten years);

- The top 25 hedge fund managers in the US got an average of $1 billion last year - enough to pay 20,000 teachers. That money is taxed at 15% capital gains tax. My daughter's high school was forced to fire 20 teachers this semester; if that money were taxed at the regular income tax rate it would be enough to rehire all the teachers who have been fired in the country.

- You know this one: the top 1% takes 24% of the national income (up from 9% in 1979).

We have a fucked up tax structure that allows so much of the country's wealth to go to the very top while middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years. That's what's behind this crash.

At least you could stop pretending you're not a knee-jerk radical conservative, for heaven's sake.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 9, 2011)

Lost in all this debt debate still remains the fact that our debt to GDP ratio remains favorable compared to many countries. We're in better shape than German, Canada, France, Spain. Italy (and almost Belgium) have us doubled, and Japan has us more than tripled. 

I don't for a moment think we can grow our way out of this. But to simply cut our way out and have no mechanisms in place to increase spending or moving of money and with it production is going to make things worse. I think that's something lost on all these armchair Tea Party "economists" who think the entire global economy is like your home checking account. 

Debt to GDP by nation: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 9, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> Right, but that's a *really* small percentage of all millionaires. Considering that about half of *all* Americans don't pay federal taxes puts it into some better perspective.



Or it skews the perspective. 

Children don't pay taxes. The elderly don't pay taxes. The unemployed don't pay taxes. These are givens. And this is a large percentage of Americans. Take them out of the equation.

Next are low-income earners. There needs to be some threshold under which no taxes are charged. The threshold level should be continually debated and adjusted, depending on inflation and other factors. Basically, below the threshold, one is considered "unable to pay."

Clearly, millionaires are not unable to pay. What's up with these 1470 deadbeats?



> Those sorts of number are fun to think about (and make for great political pandering) but let's be serious: let's say all those 1470 millionaires were each forced to pay $500k each in taxes. That's $735M.
> 
> Yippee :? . That's nothing. Time is better spent focusing elsewhere.



If it's "nothing", then maybe they wouldn't mind paying it. 

In fact, I pay less than a tenth of that. That's nothing. I should pay no taxes. Please tell the IRS to look elsewhere.

The "that's nothing" defense is bogus.

One has to look at the specifics. Did some of these millionaires *personally* hire a number of new American workers? Then maybe they deserve significant tax credits. Did they shelter their money with accounting tricks? Then F-em. 

So that's the unanswered question: why did they pay no taxes? We can't really attack - nor defend - them without that information.

But at first whiff, it stinks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2011)

> I don't for a moment think we can grow our way out of this



We not only can and should, but it's the only way out of this!

...not that "this" is what we're in for the next few years.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 9, 2011)

We seem to foget these wealthy millionaires paid for these loopholes and tax laws.
Why are we mad at them....? Their job is to give campaign contributions in exchange for favors..Isnt that the good old DNC/GOP tactics we never seemed to be concerned with.
Look who Clinton pardonned before he left..........Another DNC tax cheat who owed billions to the IRS and since he too was an elite, was allowed to slide.

Laws shouldn't be sold, but since they are let's elect people who'll change these laws.
The DNC and GOP accept cash for legislation so don't expect them to change their ways...

Charley Wrangle cheats the IRS yet was allowed to make exemptions and re write the tax codes during Nancy Pelosis' draining of the swamps.
And for years prior to being caught.
He also is a happy member of our Vice Presidents brother offshore Hedge fund.
Shouldn't we look into our leaders who accept cash for laws monopoly...?

How about our Treasury Department chief, a tax cheat.
Obama couldn't appoint his first " health Care " chief because he was also a tax cheat and former Speaker of the House for the phony DNC.

Lets look at our " role models " and quit this following of the pointed finger by the media.

Or maybe I am just surrounded by Parrots and Carrier Pidgeons....

0oD


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> We not only can and should, but it's the only way out of this!


I believe probably the same as you, but it depends on how one expects "growth". But yes, the more the economy expands, the better. But until we have a complete tax shift, total campaign finance and lobby reform, a complete overhaul of the health care system, and something that actually compels capital investment in real US businesses and real US jobs, we're not going to grow much. That's what I was saying. 



> ...not that "this" is what we're in for the next few years.


Wait until Rick Perry gets elected. The tax cuts will be extended, social services cut, wars extended, and when Ginsberg retires from the SC we'll roll back the years on abortion, gay rights, etc. Don't think Perry can get elected? He's connected to billions of dollars, is popular with the Tea Party without being a "member", will bring out the Christian vote, and will take the entire South. [/quote]

I guess you are right though, it won't be "this", it will be worse. Much worse.



chimuelo @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> Look who Clinton pardonned before he left..........Another DNC tax cheat who owed billions to the IRS and since he too was an elite, was allowed to slide.


While Leonard Peltier rots in prison, some 20 years after he should have been released.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2011)

chimuelo, once again: you are guilty of #21 and possibly others.

http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/03/a ... failz.html

SN, it sounds like we agree. But don't frighten me with Rick Perry! Please! NO!


----------



## rgames (Aug 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> How's this for perspective:
> 
> - The 400 richest families in America have an average income of $300 million each, taxed at 17%;
> 
> ...



The richest families also pay the most in taxes - the top 5% of earners pay more than half of all taxes (a percentage that went up every year under W. Bush, by the way). And the top 1% of families also do the most charitable giving. Take Bill Gates, for example - he's given away 5 or 6 billion dollars to his and other charities. Warren Buffet has given away a couple billion. (By the way - where's your beloved Steve Jobs in this ranking? Answer: nowhere to be found...)

One day you'll realize that the government is not the only answer to every problem. There are alternatives, and rich people take advantage of them.

If you *really* want perspective, then look at what the richest 5% pay in taxes PLUS philanthropic activities. You'll quickly realize that they pay a *lot* more than what you give them credit for. And yes, they get tax breaks for some of those activities, as well they should because it's a much more efficient way to support social programs.

I'll never understand why you continue to insist that spending on social programs only counts if administered by a government.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 9, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> I'm certainly not a millionaire, but I've got one [email protected]#kin'-Bush-lovin'-kickass accountant that gets me some insane tax breaks each year...all legal and all on the books.


Right - so you take that savings and give it to the cause of your choice, correct?

After all, if you had paid it to the government, two things would be different:

1. Odds are it would support something that you don't favor. Would you rather that money be used for fighting wars or paying teachers? If you keep the money, YOU GET TO CHOOSE!

2. The percent of your payment that actually winds up in the hands of those who use it would be substantially reduced. Would you rather give 80% of that amount to the teachers, or only 20%? If you keep the money, YOU GET TO CHOOSE!

So, from my point of view, your accountant seems to be doing what's best for society.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Aug 10, 2011)

Well the good thing is that Obama finally made a comment that leads me to feel like he's finally getting what economics is all about. Went all but unnoticed by everybody but it gives me hope that things are about to improve-- at least economic policies coming from the White House. He said these little words, " economic recovery isn't rocket science". Good, he finally understands. Took him three years to figure that out. I guess it helped to get rid of all the Keynes bent economist on the White House staff.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 10, 2011)

His former economics geniuses are in make believe land at some University teaching their failed policies without fear of accountability.
Christina Romer has a class called Jobs saving 101, and some kid off of the street is teaching down the Hall at Jobs Creation 101. 

Reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield movie where the proffessor with the curly pipe and blackboard is teaching students about business, and Rodney is out there heckling the guy. Since the proffessor never had a real job and doesn't know about kickbacks and Union bleeding tactics, his class was another watse of time and money.

Just go to a rotting urban sprawl and grab some 14 year hoodlum and tell him you want to start a business.
His first choice would be drugs.....
So what do you do. Well you find wholesale dealers if you have backing, if not, you take a front from someone ( bank ) for a higher rate since credit is needed.

You give your dope out cheaper than usual to entice business, and once you have sufficient customers, you slowly raise the prices up to a standard operating level.

That's how you entice business and corporations to bring jobs back here, or create new ones. ( lower tax rates, de regulation, de fund Obama care ).
Once you get them back in the markets, thats when you start raising their tax rates, Why scare them off to Asia, Mexico, etc. Unless that's your real agenda and you want to grow Governement to be tha largest employer. China is the largest employer right now, England is second, due to their free health care programs which have almost 2 million people on the payroll.

Sad that a teenager in the Ghetto knows more about Job creation than these over educated philosopers and mooches that insult by using class warfare tactics as if we are complete morons...?

Does anyone here really think that John Kerry wants to pay more taxes for continued failed social experiments....?
He parks 2 yachts in a neighboring State to avoid the higher tax rates, so when I hear these beggars pretending that evil businesses and corporations can bail out more of their failed Liberal programs, it's truly pathetic.

Let me see John Edwards spend his money on his various bitches. He took our taxpayer dollars from his campaign funds to buy some whores silence...Actually he won't go to jail for his crimes as he knows too many ClubFed secrets from running for the Presidency.
He too will be allowed to fleece us in the same way that a mob rat gets witness protection...

We need our representatives to at least have 1 job on their resume that they got without having the Government place them or fund them.
And punks like Al Gore whose daddy had pictures of little Al as a child with a miniature podium set up in their 500 acre back yard, need not apply..........ever again.

His recent pleas for more cash to save the Planet are truly revealing of what happens when a red faced angry Liberal loses his support.
Now he can spend his money, or even sell one of his evil CEO Corporate Jets or SUV's......Where's his Chevy Volt...?.......... :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (Aug 10, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> midphase @ Tue Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not a millionaire, but I've got one [email protected]#kin'-Bush-lovin'-kickass accountant that gets me some insane tax breaks each year...all legal and all on the books.
> ...




Sigh...just when I start holding out hope for you, you manage to revert to your bizarre logic and destroy it all.

I do give to charity, but my point is that not all Americans (especially the uber-wealthy) can always be counted on to do that...don't believe me? Read this:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/27/ ... o-charity/


1. That's where you and I differ. I do want the government to manage where the tax money is spent. I (and my fellow 200+ million voting citizens) can steer the government towards what we feel is more important or less. But ultimately I do want the government to be in charge.

2. First of all, I'm not even quite sure how one would go about donating money towards the hiring of more teachers. Sure I can give money to a school, but they'd probably put it towards the school play and not a special fund to increase salaries.

Secondly, if you think that most private charity organizations only skim 20% off the top you're sadly mistaken. Once again, I'd rather the government manage the funds as it sees fit than some private fat cat.

Thirdly, social services, education, health assistance, environmental protection, and on and on....you really think that those services should be privately funded and subsidized by private donations?

What it really comes down to Richard is that you distrust government while I distrust the private sector.

PS.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels that the wealthy need to be taxed more (and with more restrictions):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2011)

Richard, you have lost the debate. Better just to stop while you're behind.



> His former economics geniuses are in make believe land at some University teaching their failed policies without fear of accountability



Whether or not I agree with you 100%, Chim, usually you make well-informed posts - or I should say the variation of the same post you make over and over is well informed. 

But this one is way off (and not just because the anti-academic crap smells to me of reverse snobbery, which is even worse than forward snobbery).

Are you aware that Christine Romer called for a MUCH LARGER STIMULUS?! Her - and Larry Summer's - policies WEREN'T TRIED!

The stimulus we had was 1/3 tax cuts, 1/3 aid to states, and 1/3 shovel-ready. So it's no surprise that as predicted 100%, trying to fill in a $2 trillion hole with $250 billion is not going to solve the problem. It worked as far as it could - and we're seeing the effects of it ending right now - but of course it was never going to get the engines roaring to full capacity again. 

In the meantime, the ONLY thing that has any hope of starting the world's engines again is massive stimulus! Cutting back spending is not going to work; it's failing all over Europe, it failed in Argentina, it failed when Hoover tried it, it failed when FDR pulled back too soon, and we're seeing the beginning of it failing here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2011)

Richard, I guess I have to answer your ridiculous argument, because what you said can't just be left to attract flies.

Are you aware that our states are facing huge budget shortfalls, causing among other things massive cuts to public education? How can you possibly make the argument that philanthropy is going to solve that problem?! We have adopted a tax policy that has allowed huge income inequality to develop, and with it a huge imbalance in power that causes it to perpetuate.

How anyone can be against modest tax raises on those who can afford them is simply beyond me. It's simply ugly.

And by the way, we were in the top tax bracket before my wife lost her job of 21 years, and hopefully we will be again. So it's not like I'm arguing for class warfare.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 10, 2011)

The "rich provide charity" experiment has been tried. It was called Feudalism. The lord owned everything in sight and the serfs were allowed to live on the land - within strict limits. If your lord was generous, you were lucky. If not, tough. And if your benevolent lord died and his jerk son took over, your good fortune was over.

Charity can be a whim. Government programs provide more stability. Charity is most needed in a downturn, and that's when it's most likely to dry up. And like feudalism, big charity is a form of power. The lord - or prime benefactor - calls the shots.

Charity isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't provide stability and often targets the values of the giver, rather than the needs of our most vulnerable.

It is also often advocated by those who are against paying taxes. To the selfish, charitable giving is for suckers. With taxes, we all pay our fair share (except those 1,400 millionaires, of course), so the burden is more evenly spread.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> Larry Summer's policies WEREN'T TRIED!


That's probably the most disappointing thing of all. Here was a guy who has an outstanding record and is highly respected across the planet, he would have sailed through the Senate confirmation as Treasury secretary (again), you can read up, or watch videos from the past and he's the guy that knew it all, more than Rubin. And yet, with all that, Obama not only took Geithner instead, we're mostly ignoring him. 

Here's Summers talking a few weeks ago about the economy. He really explains it well. 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/19/brainstorm-tech-video-larry-summers-transcript/


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 10, 2011)

keep telling you. the markets have crashed. the markets are telling you what you need to know. you can quote this or that guy all you want but they are 20 20 visionaries on hindsight. you heard it here first. :lol:


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 10, 2011)

I think something else that shows how far to the right the country, or at least politicians, have gone, is that Summers ideas on stimulation back 2-3 years ago were criticized by people like Joesph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman for _not going far enough_, while mainstream politicians painted him out as being a patsy liberal.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2011)

Actually you're right about Larry Summers - I believe he argued for the smaller stimulus (or at least he argued for it after the fact). Christine Romer is the one who argued from the beginning that it had to be much larger.

George, actually I agree that the market is telling us what we need to know; the question is what it's telling us.

And I say it's telling us that the decisions being made by governments in the Western world are and have been fundamentally wrong. That's why the vision in hindsight is important: it shows us the way to correct that, and it shows us that the fears of inflation by pursuing the correct policies have been wrong.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 10, 2011)

I still think Summers would have been a better Treasury Secretary than Geithner, but that goes without saying. Somewhere back in my mind I feel as though because Geithner seemed angry at recent events and now that he's on for a longer period, we may start to see him take a stand and speak up. Maybe. 

Then again, I'm the guy who thought John Roberts would be a moderately conservative, consensus builder on the Supreme Court, and it turned out he's just a politician in a robe.


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> George, actually I agree that the market is telling us what we need to know; the question is what it's telling us.




what its saying is that this a a continuation of 2007. and that the information that should have come out then is only now beginning to emerge. markets act on information and sentiment. lack of or delayed or even falsified information is bad news. look at the us. never ending stream just recently. there will be some serious money made out of this because like i said before the traders like this kind of turmoil if the recovery is timed right on the buying side. but on a human scale if it goes on then youll see a lot of job losses.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 10, 2011)

snowleopard @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> I still think Summers would have been a better Treasury Secretary than Geithner, but that goes without saying. Somewhere back in my mind I feel as though because Geithner seemed angry at recent events and now that he's on for a longer period, we may start to see him take a stand and speak up. Maybe.
> 
> Then again, I'm the guy who thought John Roberts would be a moderately conservative, consensus builder on the Supreme Court, and it turned out he's just a politician in a robe.



Not to worry we've all been fooled by these insane Jackals. 

Geithner will never step up and be a man imo. Since the day he got the job I personally felt that he was looking for the next job. You know the head of the IMF or something were he could make some real money and have real power. It's so clear to me that the guy is so in the pocket of vested interest and that Obama has some sort of blind spot for this guy. He should have been fired in week 2 of the start of the Obama administration. Geihtner is just another Paulson only more clever.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2011)

Meaning what?

I'm neither in favor nor opposed to Geithner; I just don't think he has anything to do with the problem beyond whatever advice he's given Obama (and I don't know what that was or is).


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 10, 2011)

Aside from economic policies and political goals, Geithner could use some help on his presentation style. He comes across as "shifty".

By contrast, Roemer seems quite authentic.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> Meaning what?
> 
> I'm neither in favor nor opposed to Geithner; I just don't think he has anything to do with the problem beyond whatever advice he's given Obama (and I don't know what that was or is).



Meaning that the bastard made doubly sure that stimulus funds headed directly in the hands of the vested interest (banker, wall street brokers, ect....). Which is what he wanted. The advice he gave Obama was "bail out the vested interest". He's either too stupid or too greedy to realize that the wall street fat cat just lives off of the labor of others. If he was really interested in "stimulating the economy" give the money to the farmer who needs new equipment to harvest his crops. To the teacher who has to take a retail job in the summers in order to make ends meet. To the small and medium business men and women who have to take out loans to keep their employees and to stay in business. You know, bail out the people who really needed it. 

You can't stimulate an economy by bailing out the parasites. Bail out the people that actually create the economy in the first place. The worker, the business owner, the product creators. He bailed out the leaches and here we are 2 years later heading for the same problem. Wall street isn't the economy. Wall Street are a bunch of lazy leaches that game the economy in order to make a profit. They're good at it. But if there's no economy (production of goods and services in exchange for money for the purpose of furthering survival/growth) then the wall street leaches don't have anything to snack on. So now they're trying to think of new ways to leach of the economy. Well guess what? There's hardly anything to left to leach.


----------



## rgames (Aug 10, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> What it really comes down to Richard is that you distrust government while I distrust the private sector.


I mistrust the government and private sector equally 

There are many good people in government and many good government programs and I'm more than happy to pay taxes to support them.

But there are options, sometimes much better options, than government.

The private sector and government are two different forms of the same thing: groups that take your money and do something with it. They are equally worthy of mistrust. I don't distinguish between the two in that regard.

And yes Nick, I am very much aware of cuts in education: my wife just retired from teaching (perhaps not permanently...). Part of the reason she did was to free up a spot for a new teacher who needed a gig more than she does (tough times, you know). So now she's volunteering and subbing, we took a pay cut, and the new kid who really needed a gig got one.

So you see, when people come together, they can get things done without involving the government! Shocking, I know...

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 14, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Aug 10 said:


> midphase @ Wed Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > What it really comes down to Richard is that you distrust government while I distrust the private sector.
> ...



I applaud you and your wife for doing good works and showing compassion. My wife and I also try to do good works.

Unfortunately, extrapolating that to believe our good works will be practiced by enough private citizens, religious institutions, charitable foundations etc to address the issues of the hopeless poor, at-risk children, impoverished elderly- is beyond my ability to believe. Government wastes far too much money doing it, but at least it gets (mostly) done.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 14, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> rgames @ Wed Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > midphase @ Wed Aug 10 said:
> ...



I agree. And, it's always the funniest thing to me that the most conservative anti-government places I've been have always been the most backwards, depressing, lacking in any kind of culture or arts type places. But, coming from NY, I've found that undeniably the best way to implement programs for the poor, hungry needy as well as other Civic programs is at the city level of government. At that level these programs seem to be most effective. At the national level they just turn into a giant sucking whole of money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2011)

It's easy to say stuff like that, but it's really just anecdotal.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2011)

Again, these wasteful programs are more symbolistic in nature, than effective. Many of the people recieving " benefits " are making it tough for the folks who really do need the help. 
Again, the unaccountability and fraud is what bothers me, but the numbers for such programs pale in comparison to the gulity, politically correct, nation building bull shit that falls under " defense " spending, and their various unfunded wars.

We seem to forget that wasteful spending still means spending, and re circulating money in a crappy economy is vital, and must be continued.

It's so ironic that Obama as well as the other side of the shell game are all talking about the debt and spending, yet they spend like whores on furlough from the Mustang Ranch ( Lake Tahoe/Reno ) and sell 40,000 dollar plates of food, and in Iowa over a billion spent trying to thin the GOP ranks ( ClubFeds girl won ), so if there really was a debt crisis or spending problem, dont these elitists make excellent role models..

I loved watching Wasserman Shultz tormenting the folks there, she's an upcoming Liberal Sarah Palin, and as usual the women have more balls than the girly men we keep sending there.
I wished she would be like Colbert and interview GOP candidates and ask them if they feel guilty spedning so much money on wasteful bumper stickers that kill trees, etc........

Better yet, send in the clowns...............Al Gore could land in his Jet and promote cutting back on energy use, etc......

We're fucked guys, just hope China allows us to do what we love for a living once their currency becomes the global coin......
I figure 2020........

I love bashing the elites..


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2011)

These discussions always seem to revert to "one or the other" types of debates.

That's not what I'm advocating: I already said government programs have their place (many times, in fact). However, you'll never convince me that many things aren't handled much better at the local level. Remember "Think Globally Act Locally"? Where did that movement go, by the way...?

Sure - you can increase taxes and send more money to Uncle Sam. However, the problem with that is that folks think their job is done and they forget to follow-up and see if anything is actually going on. Then when they realize they're actually paying for wars and interest on the debt, they get riled up. Well, if you send a bunch of cash off to someone and never follow up, don't be pissed when they're spending it on things you don't care about (or worse, things you actively dislike).

It's an abdication of responsibility - I cringe every time I hear someone say "I want the government to take more of my money and give it to XYZ". Well, you still have your money, so go give it to XYZ!!! There are all sorts of worthy causes that have the same focus as the government programs (education, unemployment, etc.). And most of the time, these programs are much more efficiently administered at the local level. Plus, you get to decide where the money goes. If you're not interested in fighting wars, or building turtle tunnels, or whatever, then you have the option to avoid paying for those when you bypass the government.

The argument that we need to force people to pay because they otherwise would not doesn't hold water: half of all Americans already pay no taxes, so the government programs aren't getting any money from those people, anyway. The remaining half includes, of course, the wealthy who pay the vast majority of taxes. The wealthy also do the vast majority of charitable giving. So all you're doing by reducing reliance on government is giving them the choice of where to spend their money, and freeing up cash so their charitable contributions can increase and be used more efficiently.

Again, of course we need government programs. But don't assume that government is always the best way to realize the goals you have for your donations to society.

Don't just send a check to someone (government or private) and assume your job is done. Sure, that's the easy thing to do, but the world will be better off if you get a bit more involved.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2011)

josejherring @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> I've found that undeniably the best way to implement programs for the poor, hungry needy as well as other Civic programs is at the city level of government.


I agree - and would add education to that list.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2011)

What I want is for the federal government to lend money to the states interest free, to be paid back when the unemployment level goes back down to normal. The cuts that are going on are disgusting. California is closing 70 state parks, firing teachers, cutting classes - it's criminal.

Meanwhile, Richard, yes - the federal government really does need to do that socialist-sounding thing: redistribute the wealth. WE ARE IN A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. Taxing the rich isn't the only solution to the massive income inequality we have, but it's a big part of it.

Why do you and so many other people not understand that? We need a more progressive tax structure to ensure the continued success of our country!


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 14, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> josejherring @ Sun Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I've found that undeniably the best way to implement programs for the poor, hungry needy as well as other Civic programs is at the city level of government.
> ...



The best way for what? To save money? Or to make sure there is a universal safety net?

How about people who live in Appalachia, or the Ozarks? Not a lot of cities there.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 14, 2011)

Anyone watch This Week? Nick's guy Paul Krugman was on there. He was pretty effective. Saying Obama and Geithner had no real plans and were weak leaders. He also ripped into the whole super committee and debt plan. He was saying that with the Feds keeping interest rates at zero, now is the time to actually borrow and spend in large amounts, as it also assumes another two full yeas of recession otherwise. He said something like $7 trillion could be absorbed without much of a long term problem when compared to growth. The money could be spent putting people back to work and rebuliding the country, and when the economy goes up and interest rates rise, then we cut off the spigot. Says debt isn't the problem, at all, and restrictions won't fix it. The problem is growth and cash flow - or lack there of in the free market. What we're doing is following the austerity measures of what you see in Europe, and our leaders seem to be accepting poverty and a flat economy for all except the top 1% is the only solution, which is a huge mistake. 
 
It was a pretty compelling argument and left the others there somewhat scratching their chins, or wondering about very small items, when Krugman is talking about a radical fundamental shift. I'm starting to think he's right. Like 98% right. We have a commerce problem. A growth and cash flow problem as much as anything, not a debt problem, and demand side economics is the solution, at least for the next foreseeable future. 

If Geithner doesn't grow a pair, I think Obama should can him and put Krugman as Sec of Treasury and have them both use the bully pulpit to get this going.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 14, 2011)

I think the incredible Paul Krugman is better outside the box than inside. Obama is a very bought man - too bad.


----------



## P.T. (Aug 14, 2011)

A small point that I have found many don't know about.

The Fed doesn't actually set interest rates.
They set the overnight rate that banks pay.

All other rates are set in the marker place by buyers and sellers.
The Fed certainly sets the tone and the rate where money enters the system with the overnight rate.

When the Gov't, a State or city, or a private company wants to borrow money they offers bonds and an interest rate they think people will accept for the loan of their money.
If they set it at 2% and don't sell enough or they don't sell fast enough they will raise the rate until people re willing to buy.

If they sell very easily, the borrower may decide to try lowering the rate they will pay on later bond issues and see if people still buy.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 14, 2011)

Anybody buying REITS after the Fed statement?


----------



## P.T. (Aug 14, 2011)

I had some and sold them when the market started going nuts.

I looked at some charts and saw the downside potential that they hit a few years ago.

I intend to get back in once I see some stability.


----------



## rgames (Aug 14, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> What Meanwhile, Richard, yes - the federal government really does need to do that socialist-sounding thing: redistribute the wealth. WE ARE IN A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. Taxing the rich isn't the only solution to the massive income inequality we have, but it's a big part of it.
> 
> Why do you and so many other people not understand that? We need a more progressive tax structure to ensure the continued success of our country!


In the short term that is a solution, but it will require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

In the long term, however, that approach will still fail: we need to get back to a more cost-constrained lifestyle in this country. We've basically spent the last 20 years living beyond our means and building a huge pile of debt. All we've done in the last few years is shift that debt from citizens to the government. But it's still there, and we still have to pay for it. People often miss that point.

Constraining costs means constraining personal costs (houses, cars, etc.) as well as government costs. Constraining personal costs is easy: live within your means. Constraining government costs requires two activities: reducing expenditures and making government more efficient. For many activities, that means moving the focus away from the federal government and into state and local governments.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 14, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > What Meanwhile, Richard, yes - the federal government really does need to do that socialist-sounding thing: redistribute the wealth. WE ARE IN A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. Taxing the rich isn't the only solution to the massive income inequality we have, but it's a big part of it.
> ...



You're suggesting we don't buy things we can't afford? What are you, some sort of Socialist??? YOU,sir, are SCREWING with my Apple stock!


----------



## robh (Aug 15, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Aug 14 said:


> . . . live within your means.
> 
> rgames


How un-American!  

Rob


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2011)

And you know what, Snowleopard? Krugman is only the most visible and possibly the most articulate economist saying that. He's far from alone, and what he's saying is hardly radical.

***



> We've basically spent the last 20 years living beyond our means and building a huge pile of debt



Balderdash. We've had plenty of growth; the problem is that the gains have all gone to the very top, and that's why people borrowed to keep going. That stopped all of a sudden, and we're left with two economies: one for the very, very top elite and one for everyone else.

Meanwhile I also suspect you're confusing government debt with personal debt. The latter is the problem, not the former.

Now, there's the other issue that we (the US) use such a high percentage of the world's resources. That can't continue. But it's a separate issue.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 15, 2011)

Why don't we hear Obama and the wealthy politicians blaming ClubFed for not giving them a bigger stimulus....?

Answer:

It's campaign season, and you can't bite the hands that feed you.
Also why the only politicians who are even going after ClubFed or the Pentagon, are ones who have nothing to lose.
Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and the lovely & talented Barney Franke...
They know the truth, and so do all of these other elites, but can you imagine some Tea Party commoner running against the wealthy John Kerry, and seeing the allotted money for that State going to some peasant..... 0oD 

This is why the super wealthy John Kerry will never mention going after the ClubFed/Military establishment, but it really doesn't matter what that fool says, he usually disagrees with himself more than anyone else....Well, that's what the voting records reflect....

Can you imagine a Mormon as a President, with an Evangelical VP....?
Perry will have to refrain from praying to Jesus, and go straight to man to keep Mit happy.
But knowing God speaks to them directly is most re assuring.....

God Bless The USA.... :!:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2011)

Because Club Fred doesn't have control over fiscal matters. They're in the realm of politics, not central banking.


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> And you know what, Snowleopard? Krugman is only the most visible and possibly the most articulate economist saying that. He's far from alone, and what he's saying is hardly radical.



Why is Krugman so much more brilliant than the other brilliant economists? How about Obama's other brilliant economists? Or Bush's brilliant economists? Or Clinton's briliant economists? Or Reagan's brilliant economists? or or or...

You seem to think that these guys are somehow on top of everything: they're not. They're egomaniacal windbags who love to hear themselves talk and are constantly proved wrong. Why do you continue to place such high hopes in a group of people who are constantly proved wrong? Isn't that the definition of zealotry?

Case in point: why do we have "liberal" economists and "conservative" economists? Answer: because it's all political posturing. There is no wrong or right - these guys are unencumbered by reality - it's all opinion. When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" physicist? Or a "conservative" physicist? Answer: never.

Now tell me, how do you explain that distinction?

You can't: you pick the side that repeats back to you what you like to hear. Reality has little bearing on what these "great thinkers" have done.

After all, Friedman got a Nobel prize in economics as well, right? So are you a fan of trickle-down economics? I gather not... but if not, why not? Isn't he equally brilliant?

Or just equally wrong?

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 15, 2011)

Just in case you really want to see what the power brokers are about, there's an intersting link here about the Rothschilds, but naturally they never get involved with politics..... :mrgreen: 

You'll really get jacked off to read about Sarah Palins' connection to the Rothschilds...
Even the Rothy gal from Chicago, a rather attractive women wih enormous wealth, is so Pro women, she backed Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary and just loves Sarah Palin. Unlike N.O.W. and other short haired womens groups, she really is pro women, not just Liberal women.

Scroll down to the end of the Rothschilds attempt to back the Confederates in exchange for the Federal Reserve seats, and you'll see these folks along with Rupert Murdoch have Palin on their payroll...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... QfU6zbKQPQ

That fact alone shows me the military / defense budget will never be cut.
Teachers, parents, fiefighters and police will wither away long before these elites let go of our sons and daughters, they actually feel as if they own them....

You can ignore these facts, the media does, that's evident, but I follow these bastards like a Hawk.
Why waste time chatting about the peasants freebies and what these paid for mouthpieces say...?

Follow the money...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2011)

In other words there's no right or wrong, eh Richard? Every position is equal.


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> In other words there's no right or wrong, eh Richard? Every position is equal.


When it comes to economics, they're usually equally wrong but nobody cares because it's a political debate. History is littered with conservative economists who were wrong. History is also littered with liberal economists who were wrong. Again, nobody cares about the track records, they only care if their recommendations match their political agendas.

Think about it: Krugman and Friedman are (roughly) polar opposites, right? Each would recommend a completely different approach at any given point in history. But each has a Nobel prize. So which one do you believe? Aren't they both equally brilliant?

Answer: you pick whichever one matches your politics.

Imagine if we did physics the same way: Dr. X says the ball will drop when you release it above the ground. Dr. Y says the ball will rise. Just like Krugman and Friedman, polar opposites in their predictions. Who's right?

In physics, you can *prove* who is right because it is a *predictive* science: whichever one is right will continue to be right. Such is not the case with economics. Don't confuse economics with predictive science and *certainly* don't place your hopes on predictions from a profession that has a long history of saying the ball will rise...

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 15, 2011)

Didn't we just have 2 1/2 years of Krugman economics.....
Millions of jobs were created............ooooops.........I mean saved.
But the Liberals actually bolstered up their distrcits, built monuments to themselves, then laid off the very people whose jobs they saved in the first place.

So yes, Krugman was right, he anticipated the Liberals would steal the first trillion for themselves, then protect the little people with the scraps.

So he was actually correct when speaking of a stimulus package twice the size....

Ankyu... _-)


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 15, 2011)

By any reasonable standard, the stimulus was badly administered. There doesn't seem to be have been any real accountability, much like the bailout of financial institutions and their carpetbagging leaders.

Even worse for the Obama administration was the lack of highly publicized and trumpeted successes. That violated one of the cardinal rules of politics-take credit and do it loudly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2011)

chimuelo, you're just trying to wind me up, right?

Because we haven't had ANY Krugman economics and you know it.

Also, aren't you tired of the nihilism? Do you really believe that every single thing any politician does is a charade?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 15, 2011)

Im sorry chief, I should have said Keynesian economics.....but it was a freudian slip since they both agree on the re circulation strategies. Which I also know work, as long as it's targeted instead of fleeced...

FWIW, Obama should be bragging about Libya as an accomplishment.
We haven't heard about it yet though.

The choice was simple....Give more money to the IMF Banks to distribute in the EU nations, or lead an invasion of Libya.
Recently a real journalist was arrrested and in his possession had information about an employee of a Swiss owned company that Bonds and insures Oil Tankers. It seems as though traffic in the Meditteranean Sea is at an all time high for Oil Tankers......Light Crude to be exact.
Can't be the Suez Canal, isn't the Romainian Fields as they have pipelines.....Lightering operations are all done at night to avoid detection. Then you have an entire American Naval Fleet as protection..
Them ClubFed guys sure got their shit together 'eh..?
Seems as though Obamas war in Libya is perfect for keeping the cash here at home from the recent TBond sell off, timed perfectly with the S & P downgrade...What better help for struggling economies than free Oil.
BP is already shipping massive drills to the Gulf Of Sidra.

We doubled the Strategic Oil Reserves under Bush while we hustled Oil Tankers from Iraq back home.. Why do you think Nellis Air Base loves Yucca Mountain...........it ain't the supposed Nuclear Waste they got stashed there.

Afghanistan has the worlds largest Lithium deposits. I can't see how we can be mining over there, but 10 year deployments sure aren't to bring " Democracy " to a nation of Goat herders, and Poppy growers.
Besides, we whooped those wife beaters with 100 Spec Op troops, so to think we need 120,000 men to chase down 4-5000 cave dwellers is a joke.
And everytime we are an inch away from leaving Iraq we are led to believe the enemy decides to keep us there by blowing up 5 or 6 police stations all on the same day across the country........I ain't buying this bull shit.

But there's something Obama can be proud of. He helped Europe stave off a meltdown by pretending to protect Human rights..... 0oD 

Odd that so many powerful nations cannot beat a ragtag Army of thugs and Serbian mercanaries....The truth is, we like looking stupid and helpless as we drain their resources. We have the worlds finest liars representing us in DC. We should be proud.
Afterall don't we always elect the best liars to office...?

I still think Clinton raised the bar with his lies though. At least we had a President who knew where his groin was....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2011)

Afghanistan was originally about two things: 1. Bin Laden really was operating there; and 2. oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Basin (the Taliban wouldn't allow passage).


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 18, 2011)

I just saw the recent Sarah Palin....................oooops............I mean Obama Midwest Bus Tour.
His speeches are the usual meaningless crap, but I want to know which idiot is making his stage props and backdrops....?

Anyone notice the hundeds of empty Palettes they used as a backdrop....?
Maybe Im just being a little hard on these fools, but since we have no leadership from the WH, how about a little common sense, or maybe someone who actually held a job once in the real world......??

Nothing makes a company look like it's out of business more than tons of unused empty Palettes sitting around stacked up.
It shows no business, no interest in having items or goods stacked up on them...........

These clowms in DC are the worst, pathetic, over educated out of touch idiots I have ever seen.
How much of a salary of the taxpayers money does this " production manager " get.
He needs to be fired, but my guess is Rick Perry already made a deal with him, and the WH idiots never having a real job anywhere never even caught this.

Maybe the next stop will be a farm with rusty old tractors broke down behind him or something.....

I know Texans are considered rednecks, evil, Bush lovers, etc.
But I have been following Dick Armey as he is responsible for the Tea Party going from angry Mom and Pops folks to highly organized well funded movement. Whether or not they are genuine isn't the issue but where the funding comes from is what interests me.
Armey has been an Economics Professor ( :roll: ) and politician/lawyer for decades. His advice makes people money so obviously he knows a little.
University of Texas spent 1 Billion on Gold at the right time when it was 1000+, and I predict by weeks end it will rise to 1850-1900...
I will be watching to see if this gets sold, as I believe this is the Tea Party money for 2012 elections.
Sure I think out the box, but I learn more from following coincidences and money than any spoonfed cable news show....

We know where the Liberals and COnservatives get their cash.
They may as well have AFL-CIO on their podium, or GE, Chamber Of Commerce patches, etc.

These guys were the ones who rammed that campaign reform law through while the super majority was sleeping.
So I think Im sniffing up the right trail....


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 18, 2011)

here comes the double dips all over the place. no way round it as far as i can see.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 18, 2011)

At least the DOJ is going after S & P finally, it's a distraction but will add further uncertainty to the markets.
This really reeks of a desired need to force high risk capital to be shifted into less volaltile makets as in TBonds...... /\~O 

DOJ is in deep shit for the arming the Drug Cartels then promoting the clowns who initiated another failed government " controlled " program.
So it's a distraction, while serving the purpose of continued instability.

Eric Holder is the perfect patsy. George Soros obviously paid Obamas campaign to use this errand boy from the Clinton administration, in retrun for large contributions. This lackey gets bushwhacked whenever he has to testify on the hill, so it's safe to assume when he can't even prepare his own statements correctly, that he's only good at reading scripts from his real bosses.

I am glad to see Obama or whoever directed this to take place though.
Too bad they didn't do this before we gave Fannie and Freddie 350 billion more..........

These guys can't possibly be this stupid, it has to be a grand scheme hatched up at ClubFed.
At least they can retire with money, since dignity is totally absent from this equation...

At this rate the entire world will own TBonds from ClubFed.....


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 18, 2011)

its not really about the S&P downgrade to AA+. lets face it the US at AA+ is still a lot better than most countries with a AAA. its a lot to do with the merkel and sarkozy pussy footing around and not coming to a eurobond decision. if there are any more days like this one i will become deeply depressed. a lot of these euro countries really need to think about whether the eurozone is good place for them to be in right now.


----------

