138 posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_economy_greenspan
But my concerns are crazy right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Greenspan is a reeeeeeeally great guy...he's only wanted the best for us....except for this one flaw...
I didn't say your concerns were crazy. I said you were crazy to think that the Republicans or tea party had any interest in, or plan to, reduce the deficit. What are their plans, bro? What are they going to do? You voted for those fools strictly because the economy was bad and Obama didn't solve it in two years. And you voted for the guys who created the crisis in the first place. You give a shit about the deficit now, sure. But you admit to not caring a bit when Bush cut taxes twice, thereby adding almost 3 trillion to the deficit. And the guys you voted for are already waffling on any sort of major cuts. What are they tackling? You give me a list of their big fat cuts.
I can give you the list I see:
Cutting "pork": - $16 billion a year.
Cutting "Obamacare": + 13.8 billion a year (yes, that's a PLUS)
The net result of the Republicans agenda: a savings of $2.2 billion a year.
What's the deficit again, per year?
Your new heroes have a glorious opportunity here, with the deficit commission preliminary report, to show they have some spine and have a plan and are willing to cause serious pain to get the deficit under control. And I can just about guarantee you they will waffle under the pressure and do jack and shit.
Hookbender — Nov 14, 2010http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_economy_greenspan
But my concerns are crazy right?
Have you read into the subject at all ?
Greenspan was Fed Chairman for 20 years up till 2006.
Aside from the Clinton years - he has considered running a deficit for 20 years normal.
He is one of the ground zeros exhibit A's after the Financial crisis.
He is right though, the bond markets are the boss - and the US is playing fast and loose with QE2.
and deficits need to be brought under control.
But he wasn't right back 4 years ago when the credit bubble was peaking into madness of the subprime.
I just don't have a lot of time for the fuckers who created the uncontrolled skid off the road having the gall to back seat drive the driver trying to recover it.
Fuck them - they failed
The best part is that we're willing to put everything right back into the hands of "business" again, too. And "business" is getting carte blanche from the American people. It's the perfect crime. They got hella rich making bad loans, packaging em up, selling em off, and then betting against them, they nearly bankrupted the country, they cost a couple million people their jobs, then got rehired to do it all over again.
Only in America.
charger — Nov 15, 2010I didn't say your concerns were crazy. I said you were crazy to think that the Republicans or tea party had any interest in, or plan to, reduce the deficit. What are their plans, bro? What are they going to do? You voted for those fools strictly because the economy was bad and Obama didn't solve it in two years. And you voted for the guys who created the crisis in the first place. You give a shit about the deficit now, sure. But you admit to not caring a bit when Bush cut taxes twice, thereby adding almost 3 trillion to the deficit. And the guys you voted for are already waffling on any sort of major cuts. What are they tackling? You give me a list of their big fat cuts.
I can give you the list I see:
Cutting "pork": - $16 billion a year.
Cutting "Obamacare": + 13.8 billion a year (yes, that's a PLUS)
The net result of the Republicans agenda: a savings of $2.2 billion a year.
What's the deficit again, per year?
Your new heroes have a glorious opportunity here, with the deficit commission preliminary report, to show they have some spine and have a plan and are willing to cause serious pain to get the deficit under control. And I can just about guarantee you they will waffle under the pressure and do jack and shit.
I never said republicans could fix or would fix anything. I just am into punishing the guilty party of not performing. I don't give a shit if their republican or democrat. Remember I said that. Name one fool your talking about that I voted for, besides possibly Bush. Like current. And let me correct you again, bro...I said I didn't realize that the deficits could cause such huge problems. I was ignorant of the damage deficits like the current one caused. Had nothing to do with caring or not caring. I simply ignored them and didn't know better.
The point of the article is that deficits like the one we have, cause huge problems. Not that Greenspan is some type of hero or genius or something.
What is the damage which has been caused by the current deficit, as you see it?
Hookbender — Nov 16, 2010
I just am into punishing the guilty party of not performing. I don't give a shit if their republican or democrat.
I call that shit.
You can't judge this stuff in little bitesized convenient windows of time like that.
The bad decisions can take years to cook, and so can good ones.
You have to spread your view wider than a few years and take into account the weather.
You have taken notice in the middle of a hurricane, and are demanding that the house be rebuilt in the storm.
There are plenty of actions to fuck the economy from the Presidents perspective.
It is a huge balancing act, a subtle and difficult one.
Stopping spending -
Let's say you magically reduce spending.
so long as it doesn't do this
0. Reduce spending by a Xbn
1. Reduce economic activity so that the tax falls by more than Xbn and starts a deflation cycle
2. Depresses Asset prices so that the fucked banks are more fucked and even bigger liabilities.
3. End up spending more on social security
Goto 0
This situation needs to be managed by smart people.
How do you pick a group to punish due to lack of performance after the last few years?
Start the fire up first,
Then after deep deliberation over all competing opinions on the matter, discussions of Kenyes vs Smith, the historical record of the Presidents.
You identify the occupant of the whitehouse.
If it were a republican whitehouse - well - you have to blame them as well, for straying from the path,
So you form another nutcase party that represents nobody who has ever got elected and become unpopular before,
like a new church, cleansed of sin and able to argue that same shit all over again - differently :)
But obviously - how you go about picking is subjective - that's just mine :)
The tea-minority will be able to vote their "principles" and not have to accomplish anything.
fingers — Nov 16, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/0#5 date=1289868502]
I just am into punishing the guilty party of not performing. I don't give a shit if their republican or democrat.
I call that shit.
You can't judge this stuff in little bitesized convenient windows of time like that.
The bad decisions can take years to cook, and so can good ones.
You have to spread your view wider than a few years and take into account the weather.
You have taken notice in the middle of a hurricane, and are demanding that the house be rebuilt in the storm.
Call it what you want. Thats how I roll. ;D
I know republicans preach a load of shit about small government and less spending, but don't come close to doing it. Thats backed by your chart, the famous one. ;D The dems spend huge chunks of dough on attemting to help people but it has absolutely no accountability and they undo everything republicans do, especially the military, then the republicans come back in and spend the hell out of money on doing the shit again, as in building back up the military for example. Its a cycle. Say one thing, do another. Well fuck that. Do what you say or get voted out. Thats how I roll. During a 4 year term you should start to see results and especially an 8 year term.
The problem with these fuckers is they will say and do anything to get elected, but won't say and do anything to better America. Their to worried about getting re-elected and helping out their friends and shit.
Obama has done nothng but spend money since he's been in office. That may prove to be a good thing down the road. But right now, I think its fucking stupid as hell. I very well may be absolutely wrong, even in a world with no absolutes. ;D But thats how I roll. ;D
I really don't care about what people think about my opinions on what should be done because I know they probably aren't any worse than the actions of the fuckers actually in office. ;D
BINGEWOOD — Nov 16, 2010How do you pick a group to punish due to lack of performance after the last few years?
I'm concerned about the deficit and the actual cost of healthcare, the purchase of private business or businesses like GM etc. I blame Obama because he made the call. Its his watch. The housing market is just left to the buzzards. The economy sucks, unemployment has shown no improvement to speak of. Just to name a few.
He has 2 more years to impress me with his decision making. In 2 years I will examine the situation again, and vote based on that. Thats how.
You're into punishing people after two years of trying to fix a complete and utter disaster.
And you're into rewarding the people who caused the disaster once they've had a two year break.
Smart.
S'how he rolls. He's just "keepin' it real"...Chris Rock style!
Smashing economies! Bankrupting people! Causing a home foreclosure crisis! Beginning a massive economic spiral of doom that leads to a 2-year recession!
That's just how Republicans roll.
Hookbender — Nov 16, 2010I really don't care about what people think about my opinions on what should be done because I know they probably aren't any worse than the actions of the fuckers actually in office. ;D
Don't underestimate yourself.
You could be far more honest in your manifesto than a politician.
You have a set of half baked ill informed ideas
you could guarantee that you would wreck things.
:)
charger — Nov 16, 2010You're into punishing people after two years of trying to fix a complete and utter disaster.
And you're into rewarding the people who caused the disaster once they've had a two year break.
Smart.
4 years. Obama will have had 4 years to produce results by the time I punish him. ;D
fingers — Nov 17, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/0#12 date=1289881207]I really don't care about what people think about my opinions on what should be done because I know they probably aren't any worse than the actions of the fuckers actually in office. ;D
Don't underestimate yourself.
You could be far more honest in your manifesto than a politician.
You have a set of half baked ill informed ideas
you could guarantee that you would wreck things.
:)
Stop spending, and cut spending. That isn't going to do any harm my friend. It's not some wild idea. Pretty basic need at the moment.
And honesty? Wow. That would surely destroy America. ::)
A bit like Chauncey Gardener after a lobotomy...
Hookbender — Nov 17, 2010[quote author=charger link=1289778639/0#14 date=1289930341]You're into punishing people after two years of trying to fix a complete and utter disaster.
And you're into rewarding the people who caused the disaster once they've had a two year break.
Smart.
4 years. Obama will have had 4 years to produce results by the time I punish him. ;D
But no reward for massive failure like the GOP gets? Interesting. I guess there's a double standard at work.
Yeah, I voted for Obama, remember? ;)
The scapegoat vote...pretty punk rock of you!
Wait, didn't you vote fer bush twice?
You voted for him because you got swept up in the tide of history. You knew it would be nowhere close in your state, McCain got more than 50% more votes in Alabama. It would be like me voting for McCain--Obama got 65% more votes than McCain in California.
Obama is merely enacting campaign promises that you read, seemed to understand, and then voted on, yet for some reason you now believe he should have been running on the tea party platform.
charger — Nov 17, 2010You voted for him because you got swept up in the tide of history. You knew it would be nowhere close in your state, McCain got more than 50% more votes in Alabama. It would be like me voting for McCain--Obama got 65% more votes than McCain in California.
Obama is merely enacting campaign promises that you read, seemed to understand, and then voted on, yet for some reason you now believe he should have been running on the tea party platform.
I got swept up in the tide of History?????? ;D ;D ;D
I vote. I'm one person. Once my decision is made, I cast the vote. I have no control, or desire to control, any other person in the voting booth. I don't consider who'll win my state. I don't dive a damn about who'll be projected to win my state. I don't vote in a political manner. It was a pretty meaningful vote for me too, I might add. I learned a lot before the vote, and much after the vote. Sometimes it doesn't matter who wins, just how the game is played.
Nope. Not close to the tea party, but do share some of the same desires. Problem is, I share much of the other party's desires also. So, I decided to say fuck the party, concentrate on the candidate and results of what the elected official does. They know more than me. Do I see, like, or feel the results of the Presidents actions? Are those actions creating a positive or negative effect? What they say as a candidate.....are they doing it? Are they trying to do it?
Theirs no science to the world of politics. Maybe not even a "right", as in "correct", or "wrong" way of conducting it. It's all about timing, in my opinion. Whats right for the country today, may not be next week.
Timing is in the eye of the wishy-washy.
And the know it all's too.
Since the democrats are failing in the publics, voters, eyes, the know it all's, republicans, will take advantage of the moment.
They'll take advantage all right...of their voters.
No worse than the democrats.
Did you or did you not vote on Obama, then, because of the issues? I sincerely doubt that, because every single issue that he's taken on was a part of the platform he campaigned on.
If you did, why are you so disappointed now? He's enacting the platform you voted for...
Why I say you voted for his platform then expected the tea party is because now all you talk about is stopping spending, cutting the deficit. Tea party issues.
Hookbender — Nov 18, 2010No worse than the democrats.
Yes and no...the pubs have shown their love of deception time after time.
The difference, to me, and why I consider myself a democrat (small d) is that when dems push issues, it's about fairness and about helping normal people. When pubs push issues, it's about fairness for Christians, and about helping out rich people and big businesses. That to me is an underlying thread that I see in most of the issues that come up.
I hearya, intent counts for a lot but caving to the pubs/business is taking advantage of their voters. The last group of dems had 60 but some were conservatives so they didn't really have 60...add in a few key recipients of major health ins funds and we get a very middle of the road end product. This is then demonized by the right because they got what they wanted from any reform that would happen so they didn't have to vote for it. It seems as though the dems are/were a more diverse group and the pubs are a lockstep group who borg together to get things done for business.
Now, are these sides adversaries or are they all working together to do the bidding of business?
I don't know if they are all truly lockstep, or if they just believe that if they oppose everything Obama does, it will win them more seats. That might work and it might backfire. The Republicans' worst fear is that the economy actually recovers, and that, to me, is what makes me so sick about our politics. Hoping for failure for the country so you can get power and give your rich donors some tax breaks? That, to me, is straight corruption, and no worse than the asses who created mortgage-backed securities out of rubbish loans, only to then place massive bets against them.
We'll see how this new group plays it...votes will be needed on both sides.
What I foresee is not pretty.
The House will start passing wacky bills that cut little bits of money but pack a good PR punch.
The Senate will reject them.
Campaign placards already being created for 2012.
This congress in not a working congress, it's a waiting congress, waiting for 2012 and their new Republican savior.
It's looking that way but you can always hope some logic and chaos kick in. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Maybe, with time, people will see through some of the lies as they are repeated constantly and ring hollow each time...then vote on the issues and demand results. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I just hope it doesn't take a big scary to secure the fear vote.
charger — Nov 18, 2010 The Republicans' worst fear is that the economy actually recovers, and that, to me, is what makes me so sick about our politics.
I think that is true, as it would suit them electorally,
BUT Reps made similar charges against Dems in the middle of the Iraq war.
A lot of it turned into the bad war vs the good war - Iraq vs Afghanistan.
When both were unwise wars.
The real truth is that the political spectrum has elements of the truth dispersed amongst it,
people can't vote on that basis, even if they could follow it all there is no choice along that lines.
Parties are driven by blocs of interests and are essentially dogmatic entities that shuffle around against each other on a front line, like WWI.
You can only vote for at best a see saw on a bogged down battlefield.
That is true of politics generally - but US politics seems so rediculously polarised these days - the virulent right wing angry side have sabotaged it.
Turned the argument into a "Gonna get my guns" level of debate - as seen by the tea party.
People need to tire of that old baloney.
Then maybe the ideas can become the currency of politics - not the dogma
As it is needed now - the US is in massive relative decline to a new world order in the next few decades.
It was inevitable - GWB term just accelerated it by a decade.
charger — Nov 18, 2010Did you or did you not vote on Obama, then, because of the issues? I sincerely doubt that, because every single issue that he's taken on was a part of the platform he campaigned on.
If you did, why are you so disappointed now? He's enacting the platform you voted for...
Why I say you voted for his platform then expected the tea party is because now all you talk about is stopping spending, cutting the deficit. Tea party issues.
I'll put it like this Charger. If we didn't have the deficit, and unemployment was a acceptable, and the housing market wasn't so fucked up, I would agree, he's doing a decent job. Problem is, all those things are the same 2 years into his term. And the more I learn our government spends, the more pissed I get.
You like to hold past shit shit in a persons face don't ya? ;D
Look at my choice during the Bush years and during this election. No way would I vote for Kerry and I'm proud of that decision, or Gore, or McCain. Would you call these people choices? I wouldn't. Huge maybe on Kerry, but definitely not the others.
So, a good bit of the reason I voted for Obama is the other choice I had, for sure. And it's real pleasing and ahhhh, un-embarrashing, to hear our current President speak. ;D
Proud to vote for GWB - proud of his achievements over 8 years just pissed off at Obama for not reversing out of the crap he made in two.
Proud - wtf - a fecking eijit more like :)
RAFBYC
I'd do the same again in the exact same situation minus knowing what we do today, of course. But that wasn't all Bush's fault.
Some pleasant reading for you, Hook.
Kyl's START treaty stunt is a new low for the GOP
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_16641015?nclick_check=1
GM Bailout costs worthwhile. Reading this whole article might give you some much-needed perspective on why pols do the things they do, and how Obama really isn't operating in a vacuum with a credit card.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-19/gm-s-bailout-losses-worthwhile-for-obama-as-ipo-shrinks-cost.html
The U.S. sold almost half of its stake in the nations largest automaker for $33 a share -- about $10 less than it needs to break even. The remaining shares will need to sell for about $20 higher to make up the difference. GM opened at $35 and stayed within $1.11 of that price all day. Selling the remaining shares at that price would produce a loss of about $9 billion.
That may go down as a bargain. The U.S. would have lost $28.6 billion in spending on social services and missing tax revenue if not for the bailout of GM, its former lending arm and Chrysler Group LLC, according to a study released Nov. 17 by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
charger — Nov 19, 2010Some pleasant reading for you, Hook.
Kyl's START treaty stunt is a new low for the GOP
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_16641015?nclick_check=1
GM Bailout costs worthwhile. Reading this whole article might give you some much-needed perspective on why pols do the things they do, and how Obama really isn't operating in a vacuum with a credit card.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-19/gm-s-bailout-losses-worthwhile-for-obama-as-ipo-shrinks-cost.html
The U.S. sold almost half of its stake in the nations largest automaker for $33 a share -- about $10 less than it needs to break even. The remaining shares will need to sell for about $20 higher to make up the difference. GM opened at $35 and stayed within $1.11 of that price all day. Selling the remaining shares at that price would produce a loss of about $9 billion.
That may go down as a bargain. The U.S. would have lost $28.6 billion in spending on social services and missing tax revenue if not for the bailout of GM, its former lending arm and Chrysler Group LLC, according to a study released Nov. 17 by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
What's pleasant about it? The fact that GM has been labeled another too big to fail company that they decided will get bailouts time after time....by the government. Or that we will only, hopefully, lose 7 to 9 billion on the deal?
Your applauding a deal by our government that will hopefully only lose 9 billion. Think about it man.
What are we gonna be forced to do with the car industry in the future? This isn't gonna be the last time we bail out these failures. The government should have put GM and Chrysler in the hands of Ford. :D
Real pleasant Charger! I'm so pleased.
Again, the tax payers are not big business bailout companies. We should never be FORCED to do this, ever. For any reason.
BINGEWOOD — Nov 19, 2010Get his book yet?
No. But I will at some point. Been to busy.
Did you miss the math on that? At today's prices, if we sold all our GM stock, it would be a loss of 9 billion.
The US would have lost 26.8 billion in tax revenue and social services money without the bailout. Which is better: losing 9 billion, or losing 26.8 billion?
Not to mention the estimates are a million US jobs in the auto industry... some half or more of those gone? Sounds like a good idea to you?
Sometimes I think you don't even read or do the math in your head, you just react at a gut level to things.
This is why facts exist. It's too bad you don't seem to understand how to use them.
Hookbender — Nov 20, 2010
Again, the tax payers are not big business bailout companies. We should never be FORCED to do this, ever. For any reason.
Would you have preferred the financial industry be allowed to collapse? How do you think we'd be doing right now without TARP?