Saw this report out of Colorado about a homeless tent city with a sign out front "Welcome to Obamaville":
http://www.kjct8.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=4374680&at1=News&h1=Obamaville
Quite obviously whoever paid for the sign did not know it was Bush's fault these people are homeless.
So, I'm sure you blamed Reagan for the recession and double digit unemployment in his first two years in office.
If you didn't, then that makes you a hypocrite. :P
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/21/us/reaganville-folds-up-after-4-month-protest.html
The 1982 Recession
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande06.html
When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.
The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.
The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)
As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely.
With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and an advocate of supply side economics, fearing future deficits "as high as $200 billion," urged the president to cut taxes.
While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored
Quote from: USRufnex on December 12, 2009, 09:43:17 PM
(Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)
No big surprise there. The upper income brackets still paid more in taxes than the lower income brackets, except those rich enough to find the loopholes.
$10,000 -25% = $7500
$2000 - 25% = $1500
I suppose there are some who think everyone should have (in my example) received a $2500 tax cut.
Then you agree with Dick Cheney's assertion that "deficits don't matter?"
Or do they only matter when Dems are in office?
When George W. Bush won the electoral college to become president in 2000, he told us he was reducing taxes because the country was running a surplus-- "It's YOUR money, you should keep it" was his rallying cry..... then after 9/11 we invaded Afganistan and then invaded Iraq..... yet the Bush administration wanted to make the Bush tax cuts "permanent."
I believe our MSM has been so manipulated by anti-tax thinktanks (Hoover and Cato) over the past couple of decades that traditional Republican conservatives who believe in paying down the deficit only get their voices heard when Dems are in power. And when Dems are in power, because of these anti-tax thinktanks, their only politically palatable options are to tax the wealthy, no matter what the FACTS ARE when it comes to total tax burden for all of us....
Reagan raised taxes on me during a recession, and froze the minimum wage..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?
Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter's fault.
Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan's term, following tax cuts and deregulation.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm
Quote from: USRufnex on December 13, 2009, 11:09:48 AM
Reagan raised taxes on me during a recession, and froze the minimum wage..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?
My guess is that your taxable income went up because you lost your college grant and had to find a job with taxable income. My taxes went up under Reagan too. My income went from less than $5000/yr to 5 figures because I graduated from college and got a job.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 13, 2009, 11:09:48 AM
..... where is the "liberal" media to remind us of these inconvenient truths?
They are busy not reminding you that Obama got his nearly $1 TRILLION stimulus bill that he promised if passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. Remember that Mr. History? Now he is talking about another stimulus which implicitly infers that the first one failed. Still won't matter to you since your bottom-feeding rear end will not be paying for it.
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2009, 12:18:23 PM
They are busy not reminding you that Obama got his nearly $1 TRILLION stimulus bill that he promised if passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. Remember that Mr. History? Now he is talking about another stimulus which implicitly infers that the first one failed. Still won't matter to you since your bottom-feeding rear end will not be paying for it.
It wouldn't have, if the stimulus hadn't been a watered down piece of junk. More stimulus was required as far more money was destroyed in the collapse than was dumped into the economy by the government.
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2009, 01:59:32 PM
It wouldn't have, if the stimulus hadn't been a watered down piece of junk. More stimulus was required as far more money was destroyed in the collapse than was dumped into the economy by the government.
So you, too, agree that the first stimulus failed. Nearly a trillion dollars down the sh!tter. You blame the failure on the stimulus being "watered down" (whose fault was that). It's not that millions and millions of stimulus money went to: map rabbit crap, study sex lives of college women, bug research, a turtle tunnel, and on and on and on.
In other news, it appears the dem-controlled congress wants to raise the debt ceiling $1.8 trillion dollars. Fortunately we know President Obama will stop that from happening based on statements he made while he was a senator when repubs controlled congress (because Obama has no history of saying one thing and doing another--oh wait):
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060316-5#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060316-5.xmlElementm27m0m0m
Same as Hooverville.....
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2009, 02:21:09 PM
So you, too, agree that the first stimulus failed. Nearly a trillion dollars down the sh!tter. You blame the failure on the stimulus being "watered down" (whose fault was that). It's not that millions and millions of stimulus money went to: map rabbit crap, study sex lives of college women, bug research, a turtle tunnel, and on and on and on.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
First off, the stimulus didn't "fail," it had quite a lot of impact. (nor is it finished)
Secondly, something you don't get is that it what it's spent on isn't really very important. Keeping researchers at work is just as important as keeping everyone else at work. Spend the money, it gets into the economy. Even a trillion bucks worth of hookers and blow would do the job, although quite suboptimally, since it's better if it goes to infrastructure and the like to continue employing people in the US, preferably the productive taxpaying people in the US. (There's a better 'force multiplier,' if you will, in productive work than there is in buying things on the black market, but both contribute to the economy)
Lastly, your attempt at casting Obama as against his own opinion is nothing more than an attempt at false equivalence between taking on large debts during good economic times for wars and taking on large debts during an economic downturn
to save the country from a depression. One is like drawing on your HELOC to buy hookers, blow, and a $10,000 TV (or file a lawsuit against your neighbor because you don't like his tree..whatever). The other is like drawing on a HELOC to insulate your house and fix your leaky roof. Two completely different things when it comes to being responsible with your money.
Not to say that I agree or disagree with associating a conglomeration of homeless folks with President Obama, but wouldn't the obvious thing to call them be "Barry-O's"?
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2009, 07:34:05 PM
First off, the stimulus didn't "fail," it had quite a lot of impact. (nor is it finished)
Oh the stimulus sure had "quite an impact" all right. Our grandchildren will be paying for those scientists mapping rat poop or studying sexual behaviors of college freshman women and the other BS pork projects masquerading as stimulus. It also impacted the unemployment figures, since stimulus passed the economy lost nearly 3.5 million jobs. Yeah, the stimulus bill has been successful. Love this video which pretty much sums up my position:
You are operating under the impression that by simply giving money to certain people in the form of salary, regardless of what they do to earn it, that the economy is stimulated. Never mind that people must take that money and actually spend it somewhere (which is not happening), but the money is a product of taking money from someone else through taxation and out of the economy. Sounds like your idea of stimulus is wealth redistribution.
As to your final point, your attempt to cover Obama's rear end over his anticipated support of raising the debt ceiling an almost $2 trillion in light of his statements as a senator that raising debt ceilings evidences poor leadership, is so strained and contrived that it cannot be taken seriously. Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2009, 08:51:33 PM
Oh the stimulus sure had "quite an impact" all right. Our grandchildren will be paying for those scientists mapping rat poop or studying sexual behaviors of college freshman women and the other BS pork projects masquerading as stimulus. It also impacted the unemployment figures, since stimulus passed the economy lost nearly 3.5 million jobs. Yeah, the stimulus bill has been successful. Love this video which pretty much sums up my position:
You are operating under the impression that by simply giving money to certain people in the form of salary, regardless of what they do to earn it, that the economy is stimulated. Never mind that people must take that money and actually spend it somewhere (which is not happening), but the money is a product of taking money from someone else through taxation and out of the economy. Sounds like your idea of stimulus is wealth redistribution.
As to your final point, your attempt to cover Obama's rear end over his anticipated support of raising the debt ceiling an almost $2 trillion in light of his statements as a senator that raising debt ceilings evidences poor leadership, is so strained and contrived that it cannot be taken seriously. Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.
There are responsible ways to spend money and irresponsible ways to spend money. I don't think you're seriously trying to argue that isn't the case. Your values regarding what is a responsible use of money and Obama's may not agree, but that's irrelevant. To me (and possibly Obama, I don't know the man), a war funded by debt is irresponsible. Reducing the damage done by an economic collapse is a responsible use of money. So to me, Obama's position is quite consistent and rational. (And probably to him, too)
His 'truthfulness' or whatever should be judged by his own view on the subject, not yours. If his views don't align with yours, that doesn't mean he was being untruthful, it means he disagrees with you.
And yes, by paying someone money, the economy is stimulated. If they hoard the money, it is less stimulated than if they do not, of course. That's why spending on infrastructure projects is one of the better uses. We get stuff that will be with us 20 or 50 or however many years and we give money to people who are more likely to spend it.
I don't know what's so hard about making the logical connection between spending money and retained jobs. Pretty simple: Spent money = increased demand = increased workforce needs = less unemployment. That's pretty much a fact. Where there is room for debate is how much increased spending increases employment. (above the baseline..we'd probably be at 13 or 14% unemployment if not for the stimulus)
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2009, 08:51:33 PM
Really, raising the debt ceiling for alleged altruistic reasons (to save us from a depression) demonstrates good leadership but raising the debt ceiling to fight the stupid war on terror demonstrates poor leadership. Okay, go with that.
Man, that is lame.
Are you even trying to troll effectively anymore?
Quote from: nathanm on December 13, 2009, 09:10:56 PM
There are responsible ways to spend money and irresponsible ways to spend money. I don't think you're seriously trying to argue that isn't the case. Your values regarding what is a responsible use of money and Obama's may not agree, but that's irrelevant. To me (and possibly Obama, I don't know the man), a war funded by debt is irresponsible. Reducing the damage done by an economic collapse is a responsible use of money. So to me, Obama's position is quite consistent and rational. (And probably to him, too)
His 'truthfulness' or whatever should be judged by his own view on the subject, not yours. If his views don't align with yours, that doesn't mean he was being untruthful, it means he disagrees with you.
And yes, by paying someone money, the economy is stimulated. If they hoard the money, it is less stimulated than if they do not, of course. That's why spending on infrastructure projects is one of the better uses. We get stuff that will be with us 20 or 50 or however many years and we give money to people who are more likely to spend it.
I don't know what's so hard about making the logical connection between spending money and retained jobs. Pretty simple: Spent money = increased demand = increased workforce needs = less unemployment. That's pretty much a fact. Where there is room for debate is how much increased spending increases employment. (above the baseline..we'd probably be at 13 or 14% unemployment if not for the stimulus)
So what do you do, refuse to fight back until we have enough cash to fight a war? Which conflict has the United States ever been in that had a predictable end date and fixed projected costs so we could know how much to save up for. We'd be speaking Japanese in the western 1/2 of the U.S. and German in the eastern half if we didn't fund WWII by debt. I think we are all pretty much in agreement that invading Iraq was a costly mess. Let's move along from there and ask then, why if President Obama is so fiscally responsible, did he just authorize sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. We certainly don't have the cash on hand to do that without raising debt.
You are way over-simplifying how a stimulus is supposed to work. By all accounts, this has in no way lived up to the promise that was sold to us originally.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2009, 12:42:35 AM
So what do you do, refuse to fight back until we have enough cash to fight a war? Which conflict has the United States ever been in that had a predictable end date and fixed projected costs so we could know how much to save up for. We'd be speaking Japanese in the western 1/2 of the U.S. and German in the eastern half if we didn't fund WWII by debt. I think we are all pretty much in agreement that invading Iraq was a costly mess. Let's move along from there and ask then, why if President Obama is so fiscally responsible, did he just authorize sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. We certainly don't have the cash on hand to do that without raising debt.
You are way over-simplifying how a stimulus is supposed to work. By all accounts, this has in no way lived up to the promise that was sold to us originally.
I didn't say that at all. Iraq was a completely optional war. If someone is actively bombing us or whatever, that's a completely different situation. Yet another fine example of false equivalence there. Wars of aggression should not be bought with debt. They, by definition, are no immediate imperative.
Note I didn't say that Obama was fiscally responsible, I said that his position is internally consistent. I don't particularly agree with the decision to escalate the war in advance of the withdrawal, however, I at least understand the motivation.
And really, I'm not oversimplifying how stimulus works. You conjure money (by borrowing it) and spend it to artificially maintain the economy while whatever structural reforms are made and the private sector gets back on its feet. Pretty simple.
While it hasn't lived up to the goal of keeping unemployment below 10%, it defies logic to believe that it hasn't had a major impact on employment. The fact of the matter is that 4 or 5 trillion dollars vanished last fall and we only replaced a trillion or so (actually, not even that much yet). Thankfully, all the money the government has thrown around has been enough to stave off significant deflation. That way lies madness.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2009, 12:42:35 AM
So what do you do, refuse to fight back until we have enough cash to fight a war?
Iraq being an alleged "petri dish" (your words) is not a good enough reason to start a war.
Afghanistan is a justifiable war because that's where bin Laden and al-Qaida were. Iraq was not justifiable because neither one was there. It's that simple.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 14, 2009, 12:42:35 AM
You are way over-simplifying how a stimulus is supposed to work. By all accounts, this has in no way lived up to the promise that was sold to us originally.
But doing nothing, whether it's TARP or the stimulus, would have made the recession far worse, with jobless levels approaching Depression-era levels. Even a deficit hawk like Coburn admitted this in a town-hall meeting while defending his "yes" vote on TARP.
Without the stimulus, I'm fairly certain, from reading a lot about it, you'd be looking at jobless rates in the high teens. Having lived in a region 25 years ago that saw 17 percent unemployment, I can tell you that such a situation is extremely ugly and despairing, and I have no desire to see that again.
When you've got a country that's suddenly has less cash on hand and the economy is threatening to go into an outright panic, the last thing you need to do is to tighten up the federal purse strings and make the situation far worse.
I'm as sympathetic to deficit hawks as the next person. But there's a time and a place to cut federal spending, and right now ain't it.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 14, 2009, 09:19:21 AM
But doing nothing, whether it's TARP or the stimulus, would have made the recession far worse, with jobless levels approaching Depression-era levels. Even a deficit hawk like Coburn admitted this in a town-hall meeting while defending his "yes" vote on TARP.
Without the stimulus, I'm fairly certain, from reading a lot about it, you'd be looking at jobless rates in the high teens. Having lived in a region 25 years ago that saw 17 percent unemployment, I can tell you that such a situation is extremely ugly and despairing, and I have no desire to see that again.
When you've got a country that's suddenly has less cash on hand and the economy is threatening to go into an outright panic, the last thing you need to do is to tighten up the federal purse strings and make the situation far worse.
I'm as sympathetic to deficit hawks as the next person. But there's a time and a place to cut federal spending, and right now ain't it.
As much as we dislike war (I don't know anyone that "likes" it other than military contractors and the occasional kook), many people tend to forget it unfortunately becomes an important engine in the economy. Not all of the billions spent on a foreign war winds up in the countries where we have a presence. A large chunk goes right into the economy here at home. I'm not trying to justify warfare one way or the other by that comment, but this is a reality which is often over-looked.
Not all segments are being well-served by the stimulus. The construction industry has gotten a disproportionate amount of stimulus funding in the way of road projects, water treatment plants, work on military bases, etc. As a result we will wind up with better infrastructure and this was a formula that worked under the WPA model, but unfortunately, construction type jobs don't help those displaced from IT or financial careers, per se. The whole premise of number of jobs saved or created by the stimulus is an absolute group grope if you've really been reading up on the topic and finding out about job creation in counties and congressional districts which don't exist and how few jobs are created per $1mm spent.
If you believe the "stimulus" is anything more than vote buying and quid-pro-quo, I'll sell you back that beach front property in Oakhurst I recently bought from you.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 14, 2009, 09:09:08 AM
Iraq being an alleged "petri dish" (your words) is not a good enough reason to start a war.
The world would certainly be a lot better place if Saddam were still in charge.
You can fill in the ways:
1.
This sign was posted in Colorado Springs, which is ultra-conservative, a "little Oklahoma" if you will
If the beach in Oakhurst has a swim up bar, I'm sold.
Look, there's no way to craft a perfectly "fair" stimulus package, ie one that serves every industry. They got the most money out the door in the quickest manner they could, and honestly it still wasn't quick enough or as wide based as they needed. It was a pile for everyone, from the people who didn't want it at all to the people who wanted much more (this, btw, is Obama's curse: to please none of the people none of the time).
I agree with you to a point. There's not a lot of white collar stimulus going around, but I'm not sure you could pull something like that off when you have yahoos like Guido hollering about scientists "mapping rat poop" or "studying the sexual behaviors of co-eds." Despite all that, Obama pushed through billions of dollars to digitize our medical records, and that's certainly not done by guys driving steamrollers.
But nathan made the core point that no one on the right really wants to address: trillions of dollars evaporated overnight. How do you fix that? That's money gone from not only business but governments large and small too. Things that make us a stable nation went away in a puff of smoke, and while I don't think anyone believed it was an existential threat it definitely would've been a body blow. So is the answer . . . tax cuts?
Quote from: we vs us on December 14, 2009, 10:21:24 PM
But nathan made the core point that no one on the right really wants to address: trillions of dollars evaporated overnight. How do you fix that? That's money gone from not only business but governments large and small too. Things that make us a stable nation went away in a puff of smoke, and while I don't think anyone believed it was an existential threat it definitely would've been a body blow. So is the answer . . . tax cuts?
We could try doing something about all those "law-abiding illegals" you support living in this country.
Quote from: guido911 on December 15, 2009, 09:30:41 AM
We could try doing something about all those "law-abiding illegals" you support living in this country.
Which will immediately help the economy how?
Go ahead.... be impatient. It fits.
Quote from: guido911 on December 13, 2009, 12:18:23 PM
They are busy not reminding you that Obama got his nearly $1 TRILLION stimulus bill that he promised if passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. Remember that Mr. History? Now he is talking about another stimulus which implicitly infers that the first one failed. Still won't matter to you since your bottom-feeding rear end will not be paying for it.
Dear Wannabe-turdblossom,
Here's the real story....
President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This YearJune 16, 2009 4:39 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-predicts-unemployment-will-hit-10-this-year.html
Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report: In an interview with Bloomberg News' Al Hunt today, President Obama says he thinks unemployment will hit 10% this year.
Will unemployment reach 10%? asks Hunt.
"Yes," says the president.
Before the end of this year? asks Hunt.
"Yes," says the president."I think that what you've seen is that the pace of job loss has slowed," Mr. Obama says, "and I think that the economy is going to turn around. But as you know, jobs are a lagging indicator. And we've got to produce 150,000 jobs every month just to keep pace."
But, he said, "we will end up seeing recovery shortly."
In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package.
(When asked about this discrepancy, one of the authors of the study – Jared Bernstein, the top economic adviser to Vice President Biden – recently said that "when we made our initial estimates, that was before we had fourth-quarter results on GDP, which we later found out was contracting at an annual rate of 6 percent, far worse than we expected at that time." The bottom line, Bernstein said, is that without the stimulus the unemployment rate "would have been between 1.5 and 2 points higher than it otherwise will be.")Hunt's interview with the president today was scheduled as a way of setting up the president's announcement tomorrow of greater financial regulations and a new government organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which will have a mission to regulate credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services, and to protect consumers who use those institutions.
Does Wall Street "get it"? Hunt asks the president.
"Wall Street seems to maybe have a shorter memory about how close we were to the abyss than I would have expected," the president says, chuckling. "All we're doing is cleaning up after the mess that was made."
-Jake Tapper and Karen Travers
AUGUST 20, 2009
Stimulus Remains Unpopular Even as It Boosts Growth http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125070781745443839.html
The case that fiscal stimulus was a mistake altogether is weak. A decade ago, economists counseled that politicians should leave recession-fighting to the Federal Reserve and its interest-rate cuts. With the average length of a post-World War II recession at 10 months, downturns usually ended before Congress acted.
This time was, truly, different. The recession was more than a year old when Mr. Obama took office, the Fed already had cut interest rates to zero and the economy was still in free fall.
Wall Street Journal Debunks Wall Street Journal on Recovery ActPosted by Jared Bernstein on December 01, 2009 at 02:55 PM EST
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/wall-street-journal-debunks-wall-street-journal-recovery-act
There's a new report out from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the economic impact of the Recovery Act. I'll get to the findings in a second, but somebody over at the Wall St. Journal's editorial page has a whole lot of explaining to do.
Here what CBO found:
Between its inception in February of this year and the end of September, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has:
* Saved or Created up to 1.6 Million Jobs (midpoint estimate: 1.1 million)
* Added up to 3.2% to the Growth of Real GDP (midpoint estimate: 2.2%)
* Reduced the Unemployment Rate by as Much as 0.9 Percentage Points (midpoint estimate: 0.6 ppt)
Now, these numbers may look familiar to you... they're about what we and other analysts have been citing all along (e.g., see Tables seven and eight in this CEA report).
On the other hand, if you read the Wall St. Journal, these numbers will surprise you. Or, to be more precise, if you read the editorial page, you'll be in the dark. If you read the front page in today's WSJ, you'll learn the facts about the CBO report noted above in the context of an article that documents the importance of stimulus projects to construction workers. In fact, the article worries about jobs cuts once the stimulus fades.
So, how does this square with lines like these from Journal editorials?
"No matter how hard or imaginatively the administration spins, the reality is that the stimulus has been the economic bust that critics predicted it would be." –November 19, 2009
"...the largest obstacle to turning this recovery into a durable expansion is now the very 'stimulus' programs that were sold as a way to ensure recovery." –October 30, 2009
"We aren't getting much bang for our $787 billion stimulus bucks." –November 25, 2009
"It's hard to imagine a more complete repudiation of Keynesian stimulus than the evidence of the last year's job market." –November 7, 2009
"[The Recovery Act has not] made even the smallest dent in employment." –November 7, 2009
"The White House says the stimulus created as many as one million new jobs, but this is single-entry economic bookkeeping." –November 7, 2009
They don't square at all, of course, because the editorial board is more interested in scoring political points by discrediting the Recovery Act's jobs impact than they are in reading their own paper's reporting. And let's be clear: while the new CBO findings are a welcome addition, these facts have been out there for months, including from an earlier CBO report last March (their updated findings are actually slightly improved).
We're not asking for a free ride. We have and will continue to take great pains to provide information about the impact of the Recovery Act with more transparency than has ever been associated with a project of this magnitude. Editorialists have every right to use that information to evaluate the impact of the act and to suggest ways that its performance could be improved upon.
But I doubt you'll see that from the WSJ. Unless, that is, they start reading their own reporting.
Jared Bernstein is Chief Economist to Vice President Biden and Executive Director of the Middle Class Task Forcehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/?page=1
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 14, 2009, 09:02:23 PM
The world would certainly be a lot better place if Saddam were still in charge.
You can fill in the ways:
1.
See, I thought we were fighting Iraq because they had a hand in 9/11?..... oh, wait..... weapons of mass destruction?..... oh wait..... the smoking gun becomes a "mushroom cloud?"......
The world would certainly be a lot better place if Ahmadinejad were still in charge.
You can fill in the ways.
1.
****U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009
U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion
Hey Ruf,
Go Google yourself. ;)
XOXO,
Conan
Quote from: USRufnex on December 15, 2009, 08:50:44 PM
See, I thought we were fighting Iraq because they had a hand in 9/11?..... oh, wait..... weapons of mass destruction?..... oh wait..... the smoking gun becomes a "mushroom cloud?"......
The world would certainly be a lot better place if Ahmadinejad were still in charge.
You can fill in the ways.
1.
****U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009
U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion
Are you saying that the monthly spending in Iraq is down $4.7 billion/mo because Ahmadinejad is still in charge in Iran? Sounds like more "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" to me. I don't see the relationship between Ahmadinejad and my question about if the world would be better if Saddam were still running Iraq.
With regard to Saddam, I was thinking of:
$10,000 bonuses to families of suicide bombers that went to Israel
The swamp gas that accidently killed a lot of Iraqi citizens
The money the US spent protecting the no-fly zones (admittedly a lot less than the war) and the reason for them in the first place.
One of the historical persons whose philosophy that Saddam believed in was a World War II leader whose name we cannot say here because it is politically incorrect.
His friendly relations with his neighbors
The games of catch he forced his citizens to play with fast moving lead projectiles for whatever reason suited him at the time
The kind, loving way he raised at least two of his sons
His humane treatment of citizens in custody of "the state"
The way he distributed humanitarian aid from the world to his people
His handling of the oil for aid (or whatever it was called)
Draining the swamp
We will never know what would have been had we and a few other countries left him alone but I don't miss him. He could have avoided the invasion by bending a bit to not just us but several countries. The main countries supporting Saddam had ... guess what... big oil contracts and military equipment contracts with Iraq. I think there were some
peaceful nuclear development contracts too. His arrogance and whatever goes with that cost him his country and life. There is no question that "our side" was ill prepared to handle events after the invasion. I won't claim to have had a better solution.
Sometime after we are all long gone, a less involved judgement will be made whether it was the right thing to do.
Dems responses on here are nothing but a big shell game. You want to blame Bush and the war for out of control spending and defend Obama and your worthless congress who are on track to blow the Bush years right out of the water. Ever heard of economies collapsing, due to hyperinflation? You can't shift this over to the war. What's next? You gonna throw your race card at me?
You can't buy your way out of a recession either. That stimulus was nothing but a big political payoff for Obama supporters, during the election. He's throwing money at jobs that underpay and are not permanent. So, no spending on the private sector, just socializing large portions of it and plans to over tax that which he can't take over. Low paying, short term jobs and pay offs to political supporters. MASSIVE incurring debts, locking our children in to servitude for at least several generations, the world bank trying to take away our AAA rating and countries wanting to move off of the dollar as a world currency. This crap isn't happening because of Bush and our recovery is hampered due to the overspending that is creating fears of hyperinflation and a new round of major taxe increases that MUST occur, due to this spending spree. We'd be on the other side of this double dipper if Obama and the other idiot Dims and their idiot supporters hadn't put us into this untenable situation. Please, get out of our free country, before it's to late and move to some socialist/commie nation, where you belong. I like the Constitution you are destroying and want our nation back from you nut cases.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 14, 2009, 09:02:23 PM
The world would certainly be a lot better place if Saddam were still in charge.
You can fill in the ways:
1.
No one argues that Saddam was a good person. However, there was no particular reason to depose him at that time. No more than there has been any time in the last quarter century, anyway.
A better time would have been in 1991, when Iraq had invaded another country. That military action made sense, and carrying it through to total defeat of Iraq would have made sense at the time also. Over a decade on, not so much.
Invading Iraq at the time we did sets the bar so low that we could justify invading most of Africa and Central Asia using that standard. Take Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as examples of countries run just as ruthlessly as Iraq under Hussein, if not worse.
Quote from: nathanm on December 16, 2009, 12:17:10 AM
No one argues that Saddam was a good person. However, there was no particular reason to depose him at that time. No more than there has been any time in the last quarter century, anyway.
A better time would have been in 1991, when Iraq had invaded another country. That military action made sense, and carrying it through to total defeat of Iraq would have made sense at the time also. Over a decade on, not so much.
Invading Iraq at the time we did sets the bar so low that we could justify invading most of Africa and Central Asia using that standard. Take Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as examples of countries run just as ruthlessly as Iraq under Hussein, if not worse.
The US and former USSR have agreed to inspection of at least some military sites. Satellite surveillance was used to verify that we chopped up a lot of military airplanes. Saddam could still be alive, killing his countrymen, torturing prisoners, committing ecological disasters, etc if he would have just agreed to inspections. Even George II would have had a difficult time justifying an invasion if Saddam had cooperated.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 16, 2009, 08:28:28 AM
if he would have just agreed to inspections. Even George II would have had a difficult time justifying an invasion if Saddam had cooperated.
There was a last minute offer to allow inspections again, but by then I guess Bush or whoever was too committed, since the offer was rejected (by the US) out of hand.
Quote from: nathanm on December 16, 2009, 05:36:35 PM
There was a last minute offer to allow inspections again, but by then I guess Bush or whoever was too committed, since the offer was rejected (by the US) out of hand.
I remember several offers to allow inspection, followed by "just kidding, keep out".
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 16, 2009, 05:51:00 PM
I remember several offers to allow inspection, followed by "just kidding, keep out".
Quote
On September 12, amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will—a message that US officials make more explicit the following week.
Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
Just for what it's worth.
Quote from: Crash Daily on December 16, 2009, 12:09:33 AM
Dems responses on here are nothing but a big shell game. You want to blame Bush and the war for out of control spending and defend Obama and your worthless congress who are on track to blow the Bush years right out of the water. Ever heard of economies collapsing, due to hyperinflation? You can't shift this over to the war. What's next? You gonna throw your race card at me?
You can't buy your way out of a recession either. That stimulus was nothing but a big political payoff for Obama supporters, during the election. He's throwing money at jobs that underpay and are not permanent. So, no spending on the private sector, just socializing large portions of it and plans to over tax that which he can't take over. Low paying, short term jobs and pay offs to political supporters. MASSIVE incurring debts, locking our children in to servitude for at least several generations, the world bank trying to take away our AAA rating and countries wanting to move off of the dollar as a world currency. This crap isn't happening because of Bush and our recovery is hampered due to the overspending that is creating fears of hyperinflation and a new round of major taxe increases that MUST occur, due to this spending spree. We'd be on the other side of this double dipper if Obama and the other idiot Dims and their idiot supporters hadn't put us into this untenable situation. Please, get out of our free country, before it's to late and move to some socialist/commie nation, where you belong. I like the Constitution you are destroying and want our nation back from you nut cases.
No. YOU leave. Your party had the last eight years in the office of the presidency and six of the last eight years in control of congress. We had an election. Your party lost this time. Quit crying in your beer, or your meth, or whatever is floating your boat this evening.....
No. YOU leave. You can't tax cut your way out of a recession. And you can't pay for a war with tax cuts, either. Since you're either too young or too stupid to remember, Reagan took deficit spending to untold new heights compared to Jimmy Carter.... and Bush took us from the balanced budgets/surpluses of the Clinton administration to non-defense discretionary spending increasing twice as fast as under George HW Bush, three times as fast as Clinton, and four times as fast as Carter.
No. YOU leave. And don't let the door hit you on your dittohead arse....
You hate democracy, you only approve of one-party rightwing psuedo-conservative rule, you spout all sorts of craziness in your childish obsessions with demonizing liberals and democrats, and you pretend to be some sort of expert on the Constitution. You are no expert, and likely have never read the Constitution. But our democratically elected president has not only read the entire constitution, he taught constitutional law as a professor and senior lecturer at one of the nation's top law schools, a school you could never gain admission to because you're too obsessed with rightist jingoism and conservative talking points.
No. YOU leave. You sound exactly as shrill as liberals sounded in 1981-83...... you have no clue what "socialist/commie" means, and I was around for the last recession that was as bad as this one. Just as many democrats have given their lives for this country as republicans... and I can guarantee you more dems have given their lives for this country than traitorous koolaid drinking dittohead chicken hawks like you and Dick Cheney. Oh, and one more thing. The North won the civil war, the south lost. Stop acting like the opposite was true and that it's the solid republican south that have some sort of corner on the patriotism market. I will forever have more respect for the TRUE PATRIOTISM of northern liberals and yankee republican moderates than I will ever have for the John Birch Society, Newsbusters, World Nut Daily, Michelle Maulkin and Ann Coulter....
Hmmm, let me help you...... crazy liberals from the early 80s....
QuoteRepubs responses are nothing but a big shell game. You want to blame Carter for the hostage crisis and for out of control spending and defend Reagan and his worthless supply-siders who are on track to blow the Carter years right out of the water. Ever heard of economies collapsing, due to unchecked debt and unemployment? You can't shift this over to the Vietnam war. What's next? You gonna throw your Jane Fonda card at me?
You can't tax cut your way out of a recession either. Those tax cuts were nothing but a big political payoff for Reagan supporters, during the election. He's throwing money at the rich to magically produce jobs that underpay and are not permanent. So, no spending on the public sector, just privatizing large portions of it and plans to over tax for social security solvency since he can't completely dismantle it. Low paying, short term jobs to transform our economy from manufacturing-based to service-based.... and payoffs to backdoor soft-money political supporters. MASSIVE incurring debts, locking our children in to servitude for at least several generations, all the while freezing the minimum wage. This crap isn't happening because of Carter and our recovery is hampered due to the maniacal tax cuts that will create fears of perpetual unemployment and a new round of tax increases that MUST occur, due to tax cuts for the rich and a politically motivated dept of defense spending spree for $426 claw hammers, $7,000 coffee makers, and $640 toilet seats. We'd be on the other side of this double dipper if Reagan and the other idiot Repugs and their idiot supporters hadn't put us into this untenable situation. Please, get out of our free country, before it's to late and move to some pro-fascist nation ruled by oligarchs, where you belong. I like the Constitution you are destroying and want our nation back from you nut cases.
So leave, haters of democracy.
I'm staying.
Have another drink. ::)
Quote from: USRufnex on December 16, 2009, 08:14:32 PM
and I can guarantee you more dems have given their lives for this country than traitorous koolaid drinking dittohead chicken hawks like you and Dick Cheney.
Remind me, what branch of the military did you serve again? Most assuredly a non-military serving, sex trophy citizen who owes his and his family's safety and security to those that had served would never be so audacious as to call anyone a chicken hawk.
Remind me who you think YOU are?
Per usual, you despicable partisan Republicans think you and your families are the only ones who ever served their country..... let me state this again......
"I will forever have more respect for the TRUE PATRIOTISM of northern liberals and yankee republican moderates than I will ever have for the John Birch Society, Newsbusters, World Nut Daily, Michelle Maulkin and Ann Coulter...."
Sorry I didn't get my butt shot off in 'nam like my stepdad..... go to he11, you pencil pushing psuedo-patriot.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 16, 2009, 08:30:53 PM
Remind me who you think YOU are?
Sorry I didn't get my butt shot off in 'nam like my stepdad..... go to he11, pencil pushing psuedo-patriot.
Still gravy-training off the blood of others I see. Nothing new here. And how dare you call anyone a chicken hawk you coward. Just go back to your hole and wait for your next government handout.
Quote from: guido911 on December 16, 2009, 08:33:58 PM
Still gravy-training off the blood of others I see. Nothing new here. And how dare you call anyone a chicken hawk you coward. Just go back to your hole and wait for your next government handout.
How dare YOU have more respect for someone with FIVE FRIGGIN DEFERMENTS than the families of REAL VETS who didn't tow the republican party line.....
I worked for what I got.... my family fought for this country over successive generations..... you have no clue.
Typical partisan republican HACK.
"I will forever have more respect for the TRUE PATRIOTISM of northern liberals and yankee republican moderates than I will ever have for the John Birch Society, Newsbusters, World Nut Daily, Michelle Maulkin and Ann Coulter.... and cretins like Greeeedo....."Isn't it time for you to "polish up the handle on the big front door"......
(http://www.jasonbudd.com/images/pinafore.jpg)
The Chickenhawk Hall of Shamehttp://www.nhgazette.com/display/?id=17
name:
Neal Boortz
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
April 6, 1945
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None - Absolutely None
preferred activity:
Irritating all within earshot
occupation:
Radio Blabbermouth
Boortz used to claim he had a 4-F draft deferment. Frank Kaner, a disabled former Marine, didn't buy that. And he didn't appreciate Boortz's disdain for John Kerry's service, either. So he looked into the records and unearthed the truth, which we published in 2005. Boortz was in ROTC for a while, which bought him a 1-D deferment — but he then dropped out, and neglected to tell Texas A&M. He then picked up a 3-A for his procreational prowess, before it was too late.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 16, 2009, 08:39:33 PM
How dare YOU have more respect for someone with FIVE FRIGGIN DEFERMENTS than the families of REAL VETS who didn't tow the republican party line.....
I worked for what I got.... my family fought for this country over successive generations..... you have no clue.
Typical partisan republican HACK.
"I will forever have more respect for the TRUE PATRIOTISM of northern liberals and yankee republican moderates than I will ever have for the John Birch Society, Newsbusters, World Nut Daily, Michelle Maulkin and Ann Coulter.... and cretins like Greeeedo....."
Isn't it time for you to "polish up the handle on the big front door"......
(http://www.jasonbudd.com/images/pinafore.jpg)
The Chickenhawk Hall of Shame
http://www.nhgazette.com/display/?id=17
name:
Neal Boortz
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
April 6, 1945
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None - Absolutely None
preferred activity:
Irritating all within earshot
occupation:
Radio Blabbermouth
Boortz used to claim he had a 4-F draft deferment. Frank Kaner, a disabled former Marine, didn't buy that. And he didn't appreciate Boortz's disdain for John Kerry's service, either. So he looked into the records and unearthed the truth, which we published in 2005. Boortz was in ROTC for a while, which bought him a 1-D deferment — but he then dropped out, and neglected to tell Texas A&M. He then picked up a 3-A for his procreational prowess, before it was too late.
My God, you are STILL gravy training/mooching off of others to make some meaningless point. I mean, it's "don't look at
me and my lack of military service, look over here at others who never served". That's absolute chickensh!t, especially when you call someone else a chicken hawk!
On the subject of five deferments, I am reminded of another vice president that had that many...Joe "I suddenly have asthma after five college deferments" Biden. But we will not talk about him even though he voted to authorize the Iraq war.
Quote from: guido911 on December 16, 2009, 09:18:41 PM
On the subject of five deferments, I am reminded of another vice president that had that many...Joe "I suddenly have asthma after five college deferments" Biden. But we will not talk about him even though he voted to authorize the Iraq war.
That's different. Just like Lord Monckton with his journalism degree and Al Gore with his, uh, well, ahem, career in journalism before becoming a professional politician.
Greeeeed. No, I didn't enlist. I registered for the draft and seriously considered ROTC when in high school.
I got full scholarships from wealthy people to study music.
And, YES. I can call Dick Cheney a chicken hawk.
It's a free country.
Al Gore served in the military..... so did John Kerry.... how 'bout you Conan?
..... I'm sorry y'all think 90% of scientific consensus on global warming is wrong.... you think there might be some sort of petroleum industry bias in your perspective?
I understand the arguments that the pro-global warming crowd resorts to overstating the facts, and being political about scientific evidence....
But, unlike Lord Crazypants, I don't recall Al Gore calling any of his opponents "Nazi Youth."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif
Chart of Federal Income during the 80s adjusted to constant 1996 dollars. Remember the double digit inflation of the Carter years?
Quote from: USRufnex on December 16, 2009, 10:18:06 PM
..... I'm sorry y'all think 90% of scientific consensus on global warming is wrong....
I understand the arguments that the pro-global warming crowd resorts to overstating the facts, and being political about scientific evidence....
But, unlike Lord Crazypants, I don't recall Al Gore calling any of his opponents "Nazi Youth."
The "wrong" 10% have been right before, admittedly not often.
Real facts don't need to be overstated in the long run.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 16, 2009, 10:35:41 PM
Remember the double digit inflation of the Carter years?
Which was mostly caused by the dissolution of Bretton Woods under Nixon and OPEC's fiddling with oil prices, along with the massive increase in overall employment that occurred when we went from most women not working to most women working, not anything Carter did.
Not that Carter did much, if anything, to deal with the problem, not that anything
could have been done about it. In a free market with a floating currency, when you have more dollars chasing the same number of goods inflation is the only possible result.
Quote from: guido911 on December 16, 2009, 09:18:41 PM
My God, you are STILL gravy training/mooching off of others to make some meaningless point. I mean, it's "don't look at me and my lack of military service, look over here at others who never served". That's absolute chickensh!t, especially when you call someone else a chicken hawk!
On the subject of five deferments, I am reminded of another vice president that had that many...Joe "I suddenly have asthma after five college deferments" Biden. But we will not talk about him even though he voted to authorize the Iraq war.
Thankfully, despite your fantasy that this is not the case, military service is not a prerequisite to participating in our political system. Nor is military service required for reasonable opinions. You can yell and scream about how you're better than the rest of us pigs, but you're not.
Why Rufnex even continues to engage you on this subject, I'll never figure out. The board would be better off if the rest of us could ignore that bit of spittle that seems to fly from your keyboard when you get on the subject of military service.
I just thank God that my many relatives who are veterans or who still serve today don't have your attitude. I'd never be able to enjoy a holiday meal.
Quote from: nathanm on December 16, 2009, 11:46:06 PM
Not that Carter did much, if anything, to deal with the problem, not that anything could have been done about it.
Which is part of being Prez. Sometimes you're dealt a bad hand, sometimes good. We are all to quick to blame the Prez for the bad times and too quick to praise for the good, both of which may have happened almost regardless of what the Prez did.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 16, 2009, 10:18:06 PM
Greeeeed. No, I didn't enlist. I registered for the draft and seriously considered ROTC when in high school.
I got full scholarships from wealthy people to study music.
And, YES. I can call Dick Cheney a chicken hawk.
It's a free country.
Al Gore served in the military..... so did John Kerry.... how 'bout you Conan?
..... I'm sorry y'all think 90% of scientific consensus on global warming is wrong.... you think there might be some sort of petroleum industry bias in your perspective?
I understand the arguments that the pro-global warming crowd resorts to overstating the facts, and being political about scientific evidence....
But, unlike Lord Crazypants, I don't recall Al Gore calling any of his opponents "Nazi Youth."
My military service record is irrelevant to my participation in this particular thread, but since you ask, I registered for Selective Service the first day I could after my 18th birthday and no I've never served a day in my life, and yes I come from a family of veterans. I wear neither fact on my sleeve as I don't trade on it either way.
Also irrelevant is that Monckton using the term "Nazi youth" in a discussion comparing his credentials to Algore's on global warming. Neither is a climatologist and if people wish to mock Monckton for being a journalist, it's entirely ironic that the de facto leader of the global warming movement is a journalist. Or at least he was before going on the government dole and championing the causes of those who kept his campaign coffers full.
In case you haven't been reading the papers or the interwebs, Copenhagen is turning into a something between a cluster love and a total joke.
Quote from: nathanm on December 16, 2009, 11:51:19 PM
Thankfully, despite your fantasy that this is not the case, military service is not a prerequisite to participating in our political system. Nor is military service required for reasonable opinions. You can yell and scream about how you're better than the rest of us pigs, but you're not.
Why Rufnex even continues to engage you on this subject, I'll never figure out. The board would be better off if the rest of us could ignore that bit of spittle that seems to fly from your keyboard when you get on the subject of military service.
I just thank God that my many relatives who are veterans or who still serve today don't have your attitude. I'd never be able to enjoy a holiday meal.
Well thank goodness you are here to moderate an argument without invitation that has nothing to do with you. This is about a guy having his "reasonable opinion" that someone else that never served is a chickenhawk and my pointing out how hypocritical that is. Period. And by the way, usruf is an adult and does not need you or anyone else defending him so butt out band aid.
Quote from: guido911 on December 17, 2009, 09:37:18 AM
Well thank goodness you are here to moderate an argument without invitation that has nothing to do with you. This is about a guy having his "reasonable opinion" that someone else that never served is a chickenhawk and my pointing out how hypocritical that is. Period. And by the way, usruf is an adult and does not need you or anyone else defending him so butt out band aid.
Your adolescence never ceases to amaze me... :D
Quote from: guido911 on December 17, 2009, 09:37:18 AM
Well thank goodness you are here to moderate an argument without invitation that has nothing to do with you. This is about a guy having his "reasonable opinion" that someone else that never served is a chickenhawk and my pointing out how hypocritical that is. Period. And by the way, usruf is an adult and does not need you or anyone else defending him so butt out band aid.
Thankfully, this being a public forum, I can respond to any post I desire and do not require your permission. If you'd like me to 'butt out,' you might make use of the private message function when you get into pissing matches with other people.
BTW, if and when Ruf or any of us others who haven't served in the military start calling for optional wars, you're more than welcome to call us chickenhawks, because that's exactly what we would be. Why you're so invested in defended people who haven't served by beating other people over the head with your service I'll never figure out.
And apparently you need a dictionary. This word, hypocritical, does not mean what you think it does. (Hint: Being hypocritical would be calling the non-servers chickenhawks while simultaneously calling for war)
Quote from: nathanm on December 17, 2009, 12:54:43 PM
Thankfully, this being a public forum, I can respond to any post I desire and do not require your permission. If you'd like me to 'butt out,' you might make use of the private message function when you get into pissing matches with other people.
BTW, if and when Ruf or any of us others who haven't served in the military start calling for optional wars, you're more than welcome to call us chickenhawks, because that's exactly what we would be. Why you're so invested in defended people who haven't served by beating other people over the head with your service I'll never figure out.
And apparently you need a dictionary. This word, hypocritical, does not mean what you think it does. (Hint: Being hypocritical would be calling the non-servers chickenhawks while simultaneously calling for war)
Hey, feel free to be this forum's official nose-wiper for posters that get their feelings hurt. I am having difficulty understanding this sentence, could you explain: "Why you're so invested in defended people who haven't served by beating other people over the head with your service I'll never figure out." Who are the "defended people"?
Quote from: guido911 on December 17, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Hey, feel free to be this forum's official nose-wiper for posters that get their feelings hurt. I am having difficulty understanding this sentence, could you explain: "Why you're so invested in defended people who haven't served by beating other people over the head with your service I'll never figure out." Who are the "defended people"?
Replace defended with defending. You're defending people who didn't serve who are being called chickenhawks. Which is odd, given your contempt for those who express an opinion on military matters who didn't serve
He knew what you meant....
Quote from: nathanm on December 17, 2009, 05:04:20 PM
Replace defended with defending. You're defending people who didn't serve who are being called chickenhawks. Which is odd, given your contempt for those who express an opinion on military matters who didn't serve
I thought you meant "defending", but since that sentence was found in a post where you were chiding me for my poor use of language (something about a dictionary and the word "hypocrisy") I assumed that YOU would not make any grammatical mistakes in that very same post. I mean, talk about making a fool out of one's self. Can I borrow some of your verbiage? (Hint: Your attempt at being a smart a$$ is big FAIL)
Quote from: guido911 on December 17, 2009, 05:14:37 PM
I thought you meant "defending", but since that sentence was found in a post where you were chiding me for my poor use of language (something about a dictionary and the word "hypocrisy") I assumed that YOU would not make any grammatical mistakes in that very same post. I mean, talk about making a fool out of one's self. Can I borrow some of your verbiage? (Hint: Your attempt at being a smart a$$ is big FAIL)
I dare say that a typing error is of a different sort than a deliberate misuse of a word in an attempt to confuse the issues.
As long as we're off topic, I wish more people would pay attention to the differences among their, there, they're, where, wear and several other sound-alikes that I can't remember at the moment.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 18, 2009, 10:20:04 AM
As long as we're off topic, I wish more people would pay attention to the differences among their, there, they're, where, wear and several other sound-alikes that I can't remember at the moment.
Yeh, my to!
Quote from: nathanm on December 18, 2009, 01:42:44 AM
I dare say that a typing error is of a different sort than a deliberate misuse of a word in an attempt to confuse the issues.
Whatever.
From the Daily Mail...
http://splashurl.com/k6t5pda
Not so much an "Obamaville" post, as information about some future residents. This is troubling.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/one-in-four-americans-has-no-emergency-savings-1467/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top
If it weren't for daylight savings, I'd have no savings at all.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 23, 2014, 07:27:10 PM
If it weren't for daylight savings, I'd have no savings at all.
Because you are not "truly well off"?
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2014, 06:58:26 PM
Not so much an "Obamaville" post, as information about some future residents. This is troubling.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/one-in-four-americans-has-no-emergency-savings-1467/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top
Not just future, but past and present, too. There is a reason people can't save - it's the same reason that almost half don't end up with a line on the 1040 form that means money into the pot - it is the fact of the reduction in real income of 30% or more that the lower income levels have experienced over the last 40 years!
It is very bad.
To Democrats, low wages are the problem...to Republicans, low wages are the solution.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 23, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
Not just future, but past and present, too. There is a reason people can't save - it's the same reason that almost half don't end up with a line on the 1040 form that means money into the pot - it is the fact of the reduction in real income of 30% or more that the lower income levels have experienced over the last 40 years!
It is very bad.
To Democrats, low wages are the problem...to Republicans, low wages are the solution.
Whatever it takes to get smaller government.
Worst president since WWII winner named!!!
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2014, 01:19:36 PM
Worst president since WWII winner named!!!
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
Horray statistics!
QuoteFrom June 24 - 30, 2014 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters with a
margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_demos_U73jabn.pdf
180,345,625 registered voters nationwide (From http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/15/voter-registrations-us-election, since census.gov is having issues), and they questioned just under 1500?
'K
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2014, 01:19:36 PM
Worst president since WWII winner named!!!
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
I don't know, I think James Buchanan was worse, but there are still a couple of years to go.
Quote from: saintnicster on July 02, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
Horray statistics!http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_demos_U73jabn.pdf
180,345,625 registered voters nationwide (From http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/15/voter-registrations-us-election, since census.gov is having issues), and they questioned just under 1500?
'K
They don't use poll samplings much bigger than that to predict elections.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
They don't use poll samplings much bigger than that to predict elections.
We should ask Fox News how that went for them.
Quote from: Townsend on July 02, 2014, 03:43:48 PM
We should ask Fox News how that went for them.
Or more pointedly, Karl Rove.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2014, 01:19:36 PM
Worst president since WWII winner named!!!
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
Tied Baby Bush!!
Successful Depends moment obtained.
Quote from: saintnicster on July 02, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
Horray statistics!http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_demos_U73jabn.pdf
180,345,625 registered voters nationwide (From http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/15/voter-registrations-us-election, since census.gov is having issues), and they questioned just under 1500?
'K
Just remember I am no fan of polls. But there are many in here that treat them as Gospel, especially those polls that rip on Oklahoma.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
Just remember I am no fan of polls. But there are many in here that treat them as Gospel, especially those polls that rip on Oklahoma.
Unless, of course, you agree with the poll. Then you jump on it like a $1 a lap dance stripper.
Quote from: Townsend on July 02, 2014, 09:03:12 PM
Unless, of course, you agree with the poll. Then you jump on it like a $1 a lap dance stripper.
Now that's a graphic visual.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/6/3/8/5/3/3/Birthday-Lap-Dance-53431351071.jpeg)
OWWW! MY EYES! GET ME A SLURPEE SPOON STRAW SO THAT I CAN GOUGE THEM OUT!
Guido got his eyes did.
Hey! Look at what Obama did for us.
Report Shows 288,000 New Jobs In Junehttp://publicradiotulsa.org/post/report-shows-288000-new-jobs-june (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/report-shows-288000-new-jobs-june)
QuoteJune was a good month for job creation, according to the new Labor Department report. Employers added 288,000 positions to payrolls and the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent.
Dow Jones Industrial Average hits 17,000 for first timehttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-28134342 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-28134342)
QuoteThe Dow Jones Industrial Average - a US stock index made up of some of the biggest global firms - has hit 17,000 for the first time.
On Thursday, investors pushed shares higher after a better-than-expected jobs report showed the US economy added 288,000 jobs in June.
Overall, low interest rates have led investors to pour money into stocks in an effort to make a profit.
That has pushed US indexes - including the S&P 500 - to new highs in 2014.
On Wednesday, the Dow closed at its 13th record high for the year, and the S&P 500 hit its 24th closing high for 2014.
Slow but steady
A string of positive economic news combined with increasing merger and acquisition activity has buoyed investor confidence on Wall Street.
Thursday's positive jobs figure capped a week of good reports globally, including news that China's manufacturing activity hit a six-month high in June.
"The economic data we continue to get is not exceptional but it is still positive," Benedict Willis of Princeton Securities told the BBC from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
Investors had been worried that rising stock prices could not be supported by actual underlying economic growth, but Mr Willis said that as long as the data remained upbeat, that should be enough to allay concerns.
He added he expected markets would continue to rise.
"Yesterday's highs are tomorrow's lows - I think the market will continue on its upside move," he said.
Low rates
Overall, investors have been pouring money into stocks over the past year and a half, partially as a result of the policies of the Federal Reserve.
The US central bank has taken extraordinary measures to keep interest rates low in an effort to encourage banks to lend and thus stimulate economic growth.
Low interest rates, however, have also meant that firms are less inclined to keep extra cash on hand where it is not earning money.
That has spurred increased merger and acquisition activity, with firms in the pharmaceutical, food processing, and technology industries all announcing strings of acquisitions in recent weeks.
Some have worried that in keeping rates so low, the Federal Reserve is encouraging a bubble in the stock market.
However on Wednesday, Fed chair Janet Yellen said in a speech in front of the International Monetary Fund that the central bank would not raise rates in an effort to deter financial excesses.
"Efforts to promote financial stability through adjustments in interest rates would increase the volatility of inflation and employment," she said.
More like, "Look what happened in spite of Obama!" 8)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 03, 2014, 11:29:30 AM
More like, "Look what happened in spite of Obama!" 8)
No no no...Yay Obama!!!
He's saving us all in the great state of Obamaville.
He's finally overcoming all those unpatriotic despicable nincompoops in Congress and the red states.
FINALLY
Quote from: Conan71 on July 03, 2014, 11:29:30 AM
More like, "Look what happened in spite of Obama!" 8)
Strange how when we finally refuse to extend unemployment benefits in December (even though Obama and his minions said it would spell economic apocalypse), all of a sudden people start going out and getting jobs?
Of course this too we can screw up if we try hard enough. Under pressure from the administration Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dean Heller (R-NV) have proposed the "Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014, also know as the "Hang Out on The Sofa Act" that would bring back the good times of 2009-2013. It's a bi-partisan effort!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 03, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
all of a sudden people start going out and getting jobs
See? Even Gaspar sees it!
Go Obama!!!
Quote from: Townsend on July 03, 2014, 12:28:17 PM
See? Even Gaspar sees it!
Go Obama!!!
Go where? He's got two more years (that's nearly 147 more rounds of golf).
Quote from: Gaspar on July 03, 2014, 12:36:31 PM
Go where? He's got two more years (that's nearly 147 more rounds of golf).
Staying in shape and working out all the nation's troubles to make us more successful!!!
Go Obama
Yay Obamaville
Quote from: Townsend on July 03, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Staying in shape and working out all the nation's troubles to make us more successful!!!
Go Obama
Yay Obamaville
Celebrate, don't faint.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_omk7dxCwoak/TDX9DZYbLhI/AAAAAAAADhE/v7sR0VMGkd4/s1600/obama%2520supporters.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 03, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
Celebrate, don't faint.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_omk7dxCwoak/TDX9DZYbLhI/AAAAAAAADhE/v7sR0VMGkd4/s1600/obama%2520supporters.jpg)
Yeah! Give it to 'em, Miggs!
Obamaville!!!
I think I just felt a tingle go up my leg!!!
Quote from: Townsend on July 03, 2014, 11:13:41 AM
Hey! Look at what Obama did for us.
Report Shows 288,000 New Jobs In June
Is that just for listening to phone calls?
;D
Quote from: patric on July 03, 2014, 03:40:33 PM
Is that just for listening to phone calls?
;D
Entire payroll of the Truth Team and Attack Watch combined!
(http://jrsalzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/attackwatch6.jpg)
Not sure if this fits in this thread, but makes one think if this will be the new American dream.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716297/Have-house-travel-Inside-Tiny-House-Movement-growing-number-Americans-rejecting-traditional-idea-home-living-simpler-cheaper-lives-result.html
Quote from: guido911 on August 05, 2014, 06:58:03 PM
Not sure if this fits in this thread, but makes one think if this will be the new American dream.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716297/Have-house-travel-Inside-Tiny-House-Movement-growing-number-Americans-rejecting-traditional-idea-home-living-simpler-cheaper-lives-result.html
It fits with the Nobama economy. People can't afford as much stuff when they live on the government dole or when they refuse to up their job skills instead of demanding $15 an hour for a pud job.
Seriously though, one of our more free-spirited friends is in the process of building a yurt off the grid near Durango to live in while she goes back to grad school there. So far, it's not been all rainbows and unicorns.
These tiny homes on wheels have a strong resemblance to "Mobile Homes". Trailer park? When I was a kid, we had a summer place that included a 8' x 37' "tiny home". It had a living/dining area, kitchen, bath, and 2 bedroom areas.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 05, 2014, 10:54:24 PM
These tiny homes on wheels have a strong resemblance to "Mobile Homes". Trailer park? When I was a kid, we had a summer place that included a 8' x 37' "tiny home". It had a living/dining area, kitchen, bath, and 2 bedroom areas.
I've thought that before. I think I'd rather start with an old Spartan or Airstream and go from there. And within a week I'd be completely homicidal from not having enough space for all my stuff and being in a 16 x 8 utility trailer framework with my wife, dog, and four cats.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 05, 2014, 10:54:24 PM
These tiny homes on wheels have a strong resemblance to "Mobile Homes". Trailer park? When I was a kid, we had a summer place that included a 8' x 37' "tiny home". It had a living/dining area, kitchen, bath, and 2 bedroom areas.
Travel trailer.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 05, 2014, 11:27:27 PM
I've thought that before. I think I'd rather start with an old Spartan or Airstream and go from there. And within a week I'd be completely homicidal from not having enough space for all my stuff and being in a 16 x 8 utility trailer framework with my wife, dog, and four cats.
Click Enter....
http://www.vintage-vacations.com/
Click Next at bottom of page....
http://www.vintage-vacations.com/46_manor_frnt_kit.htm
As made in Tulsa....
http://www.spartantrailer.com/
What you are really saying is you have too much stuff! I bet you have a mini-storage, too!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 06, 2014, 09:02:33 AM
Click Enter....
http://www.vintage-vacations.com/
Click Next at bottom of page....
http://www.vintage-vacations.com/46_manor_frnt_kit.htm
As made in Tulsa....
http://www.spartantrailer.com/
What you are really saying is you have too much stuff! I bet you have a mini-storage, too!
We had a 10 x 20 mini storage when MC first moved to Tulsa. We combined two 1400 Sq. Ft. houses into one, basically. And no garage to boot. That lasted about 9 months, then we had the 10 x 30 shed built. That lasted about a year and a half, then we bought a larger house with an oversized garage and took the 10 x 30 shed with us. So yes, you could say we have too much stuff. My storage shed is larger than these mini houses. :o
But, we do actually use our garage for it's intended purpose: parking the cars and motorcycles. We have a room in the house dedicated to the bicycles and other assorted torture devices designed to keep us fit.
I'm working on paring stuff down, it's not like we have clutter. I've got a pretty good collection of vintage Harley parts which is a long story as to how that came to be. Also family archive stuff I just need to scan, put into electronic format, and toss the hard-copies. Our intent is to get to the point we have the most boring estate sale ever when we are gone.
Quote from: guido911 on August 05, 2014, 06:58:03 PM
Not sure if this fits in this thread, but makes one think if this will be the new American dream.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716297/Have-house-travel-Inside-Tiny-House-Movement-growing-number-Americans-rejecting-traditional-idea-home-living-simpler-cheaper-lives-result.html
Goes to a recognition that volume is not a "feature" in housing. Quality, ease of use, proper design to purpose, and just about everything else before volume for volume's sake. It's the bill of goods I have mentioned before about the collusion between realtors, builders, and property tax authorities that have sold so many on the idea that square footage means quality of life. Housing that must have minimum square footage...
Your and Conan's obvious disdain for those who don't buy into it just proves how successful that sales job has been.
I and most of my friends near my age have figured out that a 2,000 + sq ft house is an albatross that only brings large unnecessary costs in time and/or money for upkeep, maintenance, ongoing work in general for no added value. Even if there are kids around! The bigger places allow a separation of family that is not healthy - mentally, emotionally, or physically! If this economy has even just a 50% rate of baby boomers wanting to get out of their McMansions, what do you suppose that is gonna do to housing in this country? Pretty much what we are seeing - slower building. Or worse.
If I had the resources to do so, I would be building a 640 acre housing area (or several/bigger) with cottage style homes, smaller lots (less yard upkeep), and better (bigger??) common areas - park like stuff. Very upscale interiors, exteriors, features, but no housing unit over 1,000 sq ft. Most in the 700 to 900 sq ft range. Limited occupancy rates. Selling for premium prices to keep the "riff-raff" out. AKA Richard O'Brien...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAzXn2Cg-38
I have half a dozen people I know who would buy in today. And I guarantee there are thousands more in Tulsa area who would love to have that available.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2014, 09:21:05 AM
We had a 10 x 20 mini storage when MC first moved to Tulsa. We combined two 1400 Sq. Ft. houses into one, basically. And no garage to boot. That lasted about 9 months, then we had the 10 x 30 shed built. That lasted about a year and a half, then we bought a larger house with an oversized garage and took the 10 x 30 shed with us. So yes, you could say we have too much stuff. My storage shed is larger than these mini houses. :o
But, we do actually use our garage for it's intended purpose: parking the cars and motorcycles. We have a room in the house dedicated to the bicycles and other assorted torture devices designed to keep us fit.
I'm working on paring stuff down, it's not like we have clutter. I've got a pretty good collection of vintage Harley parts which is a long story as to how that came to be. Also family archive stuff I just need to scan, put into electronic format, and toss the hard-copies. Our intent is to get to the point we have the most boring estate sale ever when we are gone.
You are exactly like the vast majority of suburbanites, then. I have that mini-storage thing, too. (Am recovering "hoarder"....) The house is only 1048 sq ft (30+ years) where there have been 4 kids raised (mostly girls), 3 grandkids raised (mostly boys), and 1 great grand for about a year.... Would love to have more than one bathroom!!!
If you achieve your goal of boring estate sale, then you could easily fit inside one of those Spartans at the links.... Might need a cargo trailer for bikes, etc.
I am not suggesting that everyone do the travel trailer thing - I have done that as near full timer for 9 years, combined with house (previous posts touch on how much travel I do) - it is an interesting lifestyle, but there are disadvantages. If you ever get a travel trailer for vacation use, I can probably answer about any question you might have about the care and feeding of that thing....
I do think it is really interesting how space saving has taken off so to speak. Making the most out of a small area, dual purposing and the like. I am with Conan, though, I would lose it if I were confined to a small area like that--especially by choice.
Quote from: guido911 on August 06, 2014, 12:43:18 PM
I do think it is really interesting how space saving has taken off so to speak. Making the most out of a small area, dual purposing and the like. I am with Conan, though, I would lose it if I were confined to a small area like that--especially by choice.
Am getting ready to build another house. Limited to about the same 1,000 sq ft. Will rearrange for some serious livability considerations - the second bath mentioned above!! Two bedroom limit. Other than that, won't change too much - maybe add a pantry and very definitely bring the laundry inside from the garage!! If we have visitors, they will get to stay in a spare travel trailer I have - will NOT provide any encouragement to drag out overnight visits!
The tiniest are too tiny for me...I like a 30 + ft 5th wheel for temp use - and camping! Love camping, even after all these years - since I was about 5.
The big office/workshop/garage/hobby building will be in the 50' x 70' barn I will build!! With 19' inside clearance for large trailers, rv's, project work. Maybe a small geodesic dome on the side for meditation room....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 06, 2014, 07:18:24 PM
Am getting ready to build another house....
When we were building our house, I took a lot of ideas from the book "the not so big house". I would still probably end up being bigger than what you are planning, but there is some good reference stuff there:
http://www.notsobighouse.com/