What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, you misrepresented the Republicans...

No, you read what it was you wanted to read, as is your wont.

“I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking, If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?” - Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

The Party of No. No new ideas. No plan. No future. Like petulant children stomping their feet and refusing to cooperate with, well, anyone or anything. Social luddites ruled by irrational fear of anything different than what's "traditional".. Sexuality, skin color, culture, etc. etc..
 
Still trying to tie the current administration to "those godless commies" I see. :rolleyes:

This tactic of the "right" was explained very well in an article I read recently..

The right’s need for enemies is coded in its political DNA. Without enemies to defeat, vanquish and even destroy, the right would suffer an existential crisis. For Goldwater it was the Communist menace; for Wallace, integrationists and intellectuals; for Nixon, liberals, antiwar activists and black radicals; for Reagan, labor, welfare queens and the Evil Empire; for Gingrich and his cohorts it was gays, feminists, welfare mothers and the Democrats; during the Bush years, it was Islam, immigrants, gays and abortionists; For the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it’s all of the above.
 
hey, can you list the drugs you take? I mean really.....do you get most of your drugs from the street?




Still trying to tie the current administration to "those godless commies" I see. :rolleyes:

This tactic of the "right" was explained very well in an article I read recently..

The right’s need for enemies is coded in its political DNA. Without enemies to defeat, vanquish and even destroy, the right would suffer an existential crisis. For Goldwater it was the Communist menace; for Wallace, integrationists and intellectuals; for Nixon, liberals, antiwar activists and black radicals; for Reagan, labor, welfare queens and the Evil Empire; for Gingrich and his cohorts it was gays, feminists, welfare mothers and the Democrats; during the Bush years, it was Islam, immigrants, gays and abortionists; For the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it’s all of the above.
 
Obama's ideas are certainly not new.


That's why this thread will be a ten-year project. Most of us who have been looking into economics understand what happened to Japan's attempts to have government stimulate their economy.

Read Bastiat.

Those "old, tired, outdated ideas" are what turned us into the paragon of economies and the further away from them we venture, the more anemic our economy becomes. After two years, this should be painfully apparent to all but the most hard-core of partisan loyalists to the New Democratic Party, the one controlled by the Statists (Marxists and Socialists - Hell, they don't even bother to hide it anymore, but in case you forgot...)
__________________
The US economy for a long period of time was the engine of world economic growth. We were sucking in imports from all across the world financed by huge amounts of consumer debt. Because of the financial crisis, but also because that debt was fundamentally unsustainable, the United States is not going to be able to serve in that same capacity to that same extent.
Barack Hussein Obama

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Barack Hussein Obama
Strasbourg, France

We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that.
Michelle Obama

“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.
Ron Bloom
Car Czar

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."
Max Baucus

"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
...
"You know we're going to control the insurance companies."

Joe Biden

"It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it. ... I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
Barney Frank

“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.”
Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark, Jr. (D)

"It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything — the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do."
John Yarmuth (D)

“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Nancy Pelosi (D) (on being asked, can you find it in The Constitution?)
 
hey, can you list the drugs you take? I mean really.....do you get most of your drugs from the street?

Trying out some new material Jen? Well, I guess one baseless accusation is as good as the next huh? Just a variation on your same old theme..

Boooring.
 
Still trying to tie the current administration to "those godless commies" I see. :rolleyes:

This tactic of the "right" was explained very well in an article I read recently..

The right’s need for enemies is coded in its political DNA. Without enemies to defeat, vanquish and even destroy, the right would suffer an existential crisis. For Goldwater it was the Communist menace; for Wallace, integrationists and intellectuals; for Nixon, liberals, antiwar activists and black radicals; for Reagan, labor, welfare queens and the Evil Empire; for Gingrich and his cohorts it was gays, feminists, welfare mothers and the Democrats; during the Bush years, it was Islam, immigrants, gays and abortionists; For the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it’s all of the above.

We have enemies. I was a Democrat, but I stopped being a socialist once I began to run my own business. The Democratic Party, is, indeed, in the hands of Statists and Collectivists. They don't even pretend to be for the individual.
__________________
Political Realists see the world as it is: ... In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of "the common good" and then acted out in life on the basis of common greed...; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.... In the world as it is, the solution of each problem inevitably creates a new one.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. ... What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.

Charles Krauthammer

I can add one Mr. Krauthammer:
Opposition to man-made Global Warming models? Denier. Creationist.
Another now...
Opposition to any of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid legislation? Tea bagger.

A_J, the Stupid
 
Spending money on infrastructure is a great investment. If only someone had thought of that 18 months ago. Such a project could have been called.... ARRA.

Woulda been a great idea. Sadly, we flushed a trillion dollars down the drain and haven't a penny to spare. Although, I am pretty curious about voting patterns in Africa. I can hardly wait for the ARRA report on that one.
 
Obama's ideas are certainly not new.


That's why this thread will be a ten-year project. Most of us who have been looking into economics understand what happened to Japan's attempts to have government stimulate their economy.

Read Bastiat.

Those "old, tired, outdated ideas" are what turned us into the paragon of economies and the further away from them we venture, the more anemic our economy becomes. After two years, this should be painfully apparent to all but the most hard-core of partisan loyalists to the New Democratic Party, the one controlled by the Statists (Marxists and Socialists - Hell, they don't even bother to hide it anymore, but in case you forgot...)

*laugh*
I love how you include yourself in "most of us" as if you have some sort of personal insight that hasn't been spoon fed to you. Followed quickly by an appeal to authority to try to cement your claim of "Classic liberal".. Typical Cap'n.

Bastiat, a member of the French elite who was supported not by the work of his own hand, but by a rather large estate left to him upon the death of his grandfather. Why would someone like this oppose social equality I wonder?

That's a fairly nice collection of partial quotes there in your Faux signature Cap'n. It looks like you've taken great care in collecting as many out of context statements as you could gather together. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Spending money on infrastructure is a great investment. If only someone had thought of that 18 months ago. Such a project could have been called.... ARRA.

Woulda been a great idea. Sadly, we flushed a trillion dollars down the drain and haven't a penny to spare. Although, I am pretty curious about voting patterns in Africa. I can hardly wait for the ARRA report on that one.

and we can thank China for yet another loan.....

but hey, why should obama stop now? lets see, it will take a min of 6-18 months for the infrastructure projects to get a green light....so this will do zero to help obama.



funny, obama said that he was gonna fight every minute of every day for the economy, then obama talked about his next vacation.
 
Okay, then I'm out here on an island telling you that the economy will not ever really recover from the new transformative change, just like I've been telling you for going on two years now that the Austrians are right about economics and the economists who look to government to control the economy are wrong.

Now BOTH sides of the argument have Nobel Laureates, but only one side owns failure and no success.

I have been looking hard and long into economics and the ones that make the most sense to me are advocates of small, local government, the kind envisioned by our founding fathers, not the social-equity economists that arose at the end of the 19th century...
__________________
"[W]hat limits ought to be set to the activity of the state," is "that the provision of security, against both external enemies and internal dissensions must constitute the purpose of the state, and occupy the circle of its activity."
Wilhelm von Humboldt
 
Last edited:
Spending money on infrastructure is a great investment. If only someone had thought of that 18 months ago. Such a project could have been called.... ARRA.

Woulda been a great idea. Sadly, we flushed a trillion dollars down the drain and haven't a penny to spare. Although, I am pretty curious about voting patterns in Africa. I can hardly wait for the ARRA report on that one.

But everyone knows that the best way to stimulate an economy is to have your window broken!

Ask U_D...
 
And everyone continues to ignore the Constitutional problem Vetteman just brought up.

What's money?
 
The party of NO!

But, clarity again: conservatives are standing for something simply using the word 'no'.

No you will not nationalize health care or manufacturing.
No you will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's futures for any reason, let alone paying off your supporters.
No you will not place limits on media that serve only to silence criticism against you.
No you will not engage in a foreign policy that apologizes for our actions or undermines our allies.
No you will not use the Department of Justice as a political weapon.
No you will not view our Constitution as amendable at will by a hand-picked judiciary without our consent.
No you will not cripple our industries with federal regulations designed to promote the wishful desires of the left.
No you will not play politics with our security to attempt to appeal to groups that will be beneficial to your electoral desires.

Most importantly at the top of a growing list is the direct statement of what the 'party of no' truly means.

No you will not transform our great nation into a lesser one.

;) ;)

You NO where you can find it U_D...
 
"No" stands for something. It stands for the intentions of the founders and the rock of the republic. "No" stands for America. For her ideals, her world leadership, her strength and her light. On November 2nd Americans will be faced with the question of whether they truly want to continue the current goal of "transformation." When handed a ballot I would hope they would say to themselves, the answer is no.
John Fricke
 
and to burn $100 bills to light cigars


spend baby spend.

hey obama said that he was going to fight every minute, of every day for the economy. when will obama take his next vacation?

with this new obama stimulas....how long before dime 1, hits the street?


obama is a sinking ship, glad that we have UD and the other motley fools enjoying the view with the captain.....

But everyone knows that the best way to stimulate an economy is to have your window broken!

Ask U_D...
 
What was it Letterman said?




He'll have plenty of time for vacation once his one term is up...

What I don’t understand from people like Richard Dailey, UD, Merk14, and the other left wing nuts is their lack of understand, comprehension, or realization about obama care. That obama has done absolute zero when it comes to cost for healthcare. Is it that these people just want others to pay or are clueless when it comes to business?
 
We're dealing with ratios, so at some point your concerns are irrelevant, accurate though they could certainly be.

The case was made that a $50B stimulus would produce jobs, with no quantification of how many.

The original stimulus has spent $600B or so and produced 3M jobs or so. (So they say.) It doesn't really matter how much of that $600B went to create jobs vs. something else, that was the net effect.

This new one proposes to spend $50B, so a straightforward extrapolation would be 250,000 jobs. It could certainly be different, but the programs are more similar than different to the original stimulus, so it would be something close to that, you'd expect.

But the point is not that this is the exact number, just that it's something like that, and that's not so many in the overall scheme of things.

If there were no qualifications on how many jobs were to be created, then why would you make the asinine assumption that the entire stimulus was to create jobs?

And when was the second one ever touted as to be used entirely to create jobs either?

You just make up points to fit your argument... In your mind I'm sure that you believe them, but that doesn't meant that they're true.
 
Not really. Road resurfacing is an equipment-intensive activity, most of which is almost always in use, this would just guarantee some jobs would not be lost in out-lying years. In short, if there were any shovel-ready projects in the FIRST stimulus, the one that kept us to 8% unemployment, then those jobs have already been created. So you might get a couple of pounds of jobs out of it, and again, it's Bastiat's Broken Windows fallacy.

If the roads were going to get maintenance already, then you create no jobs. If you DO create some jobs artificially, then you have robbed the private sector of capital and the jobs that would have otherwise been created, so you actually lose in the long run because you retard economic activity with "make-work."
__________________
You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?

A_J, the Stupid

Wait, so you supported the first stimulus, but not the second?

Wow, aren't you a partisan hack.
 
so then, what you are saying richard...is that obama had no plan to create jobs?

got it



If there were no qualifications on how many jobs were to be created, then why would you make the asinine assumption that the entire stimulus was to create jobs?

And when was the second one ever touted as to be used entirely to create jobs either?

You just make up points to fit your argument... In your mind I'm sure that you believe them, but that doesn't meant that they're true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top