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

[trysail]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=tI

​

 

[JenAltArmy]

Soros's autobiography, Watching Warren Beatty in Shampoo and reading AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's plan for taking the land away from farmers and giving it to the people.

omg, obama has given in. he will allow more drilling for oil.

just another example as to obama-the-jackass

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110514/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama

then againk, obama is out there selling. he's selling him self like a whore trying to get votes

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

omg, obama has given in. he will allow more drilling for oil.

just another example as to obama-the-jackass

No, this is Lucy and the football. Once is re-election is secured all that talk will come to an end.

 

[JenAltArmy]

No, this is Lucy and the football. Once is re-election is secured all that talk will come to an end.

So true, the question is will any of the oil companies bring back a deep water rig? I think not.

there is no trust or love for obama in the business world

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Kicking the father out of the home destroyed the family. It wasn't the welfare it was kicking the father out of already struggling families. It falls under the topic of moves so incredibly stupid that the only reason I'm not saying it was completely on purpose with the full intent of destroying the black family is because no whites in charge of this country have ever been racist at any point in time. Surely there must have been some reason to believe that was a good idea right? That a flood of single parent poor families was a goal why?

Well back in the day, we Socialists looked at the unwed fathers more as free-loaders who had to be forced to work, part of that pattern of the patronization of minorities.



You had to get the free-loader out of the house if you wanted your government subsidy, and the more babies you had, the more you earned, but note, there was no real effort to educate or employ, just to provide for (with someone else's dime, lord knows none of us were paying any real taxes because we rarely were in danger of doing something productive enough to award us with the burden and the soul-corruption of actual wealth*...).








* Drugs, Sex, Rock'nRoll! Down with the man! Turn on/Tune in/Drop out
Hey hey ho ho
LBJ has got to go
Hey hey...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So true, the question is will any of the oil companies bring back a deep water rig? I think not.

there is no trust or love for obama in the business world

They haven't read his book where he describes his brief stint in the corporate world as being in enemy territory...

On the other hand, Corporate America was very good to Michelle once Barack got into the Senate and steered a million dollars to her new employer who then paid her for a $300,000 a year no-show job which is still unfilled awaiting the next Senator's wife that needs a job...
__________________
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

 

[JenAltArmy]

why is it that the guys at Enron were headed to jail, yet obama is still in office?

They haven't read his book where he describes his brief stint in the corporate world as being in enemy territory...

On the other hand, Corporate America was very good to Michelle once Barack got into the Senate and steered a million dollars to her new employer who then paid her for a $300,000 a year no-show job which is still unfilled awaiting the next Senator's wife that needs a job...
__________________
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

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

why is it that the guys at Enron were headed to jail, yet obama is still in office?

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
...
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”
Frederic Bastiat

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well back in the day, we Socialists looked at the unwed fathers more as free-loaders who had to be forced to work, part of that pattern of the patronization of minorities.



You had to get the free-loader out of the house if you wanted your government subsidy, and the more babies you had, the more you earned, but note, there was no real effort to educate or employ, just to provide for (with someone else's dime, lord knows none of us were paying any real taxes because we rarely were in danger of doing something productive enough to award us with the burden and the soul-corruption of actual wealth*...).

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

So at best it was ignorance. I find it difficult to believe that the research on single parent homes was so anemic at that point that they had no idea what would happen but still. And who said unwed fathers? I'm sure a great deal of them were but I'd like stats proving that either being married would stop the father from being ejected from the home.

Yeah there was no effort made to educate or employ. So in short we didn't throw enough money at the problem. Now perhaps if you're given two choices, one where you spend nothing, one where you don't spend enough and one where you spend enough it's entirely possible that that spending nothing is superior to not spending enough.

 

[JenAltArmy]

you do realize that adding more government workers isn't a good thing, right?

that this is a tax loss, you understand that right?

So at best it was ignorance. I find it difficult to believe that the research on single parent homes was so anemic at that point that they had no idea what would happen but still. And who said unwed fathers? I'm sure a great deal of them were but I'd like stats proving that either being married would stop the father from being ejected from the home.

Yeah there was no effort made to educate or employ. So in short we didn't throw enough money at the problem. Now perhaps if you're given two choices, one where you spend nothing, one where you don't spend enough and one where you spend enough it's entirely possible that that spending nothing is superior to not spending enough.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So at best it was ignorance. I find it difficult to believe that the research on single parent homes was so anemic at that point that they had no idea what would happen but still. And who said unwed fathers? I'm sure a great deal of them were but I'd like stats proving that either being married would stop the father from being ejected from the home.

Yeah there was no effort made to educate or employ. So in short we didn't throw enough money at the problem. Now perhaps if you're given two choices, one where you spend nothing, one where you don't spend enough and one where you spend enough it's entirely possible that that spending nothing is superior to not spending enough.

No, they had the best research that government could buy, research that was awarded to those who would produce the required results which is why government should get the fuck out of the energy and education business and end it's charitable activities for it pays no price for being wrong, but we sure as hell do...
__________________
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it cannot be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises

 

[Sean Renaud]

you do realize that adding more government workers isn't a good thing, right?

that this is a tax loss, you understand that right?

Nope. I don't realize that. Perhaps because it isn't true. Besides nobody said anythign about adding government workers but you. There are plenty of other ways we could have worked on it.

No, they had the best research that government could buy, research that was awarded to those who would produce the required results which is why government should get the fuck out of the energy and education business and end it's charitable activities for it pays no price for being wrong, but we sure as hell do...

So just let the poor starve? That doesn't quite sound right and getting them out of the education system would be stupid. No small part of our current problem is that they don't have enough control and it fucks shit up.

 

[JenAltArmy]

OMG! NUTS, NUTS nuts! as long as you give food to the poor, and make life easy, you will have poor!

Nope. I don't realize that. Perhaps because it isn't true. Besides nobody said anythign about adding government workers but you. There are plenty of other ways we could have worked on it.



So just let the poor starve? That doesn't quite sound right and getting them out of the education system would be stupid. No small part of our current problem is that they don't have enough control and it fucks shit up.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Obama aide, let’s just say that this will go down in history as the biggest blunder in American history. Well, next to Carter. How many billions did obama give out? How many government jobs were saved? And for what? most of these people, well their jobs are on the chopping block (AGAIN).

Sometimes you have to rip the band aide off

Nope. I don't realize that. Perhaps because it isn't true. Besides nobody said anythign about adding government workers but you. There are plenty of other ways we could have worked on it.



So just let the poor starve? That doesn't quite sound right and getting them out of the education system would be stupid. No small part of our current problem is that they don't have enough control and it fucks shit up.

 

[Sean Renaud]

OMG! NUTS, NUTS nuts! as long as you give food to the poor, and make life easy, you will have poor!

Then the number of poor prior to welfare should be lower, but it wasn't. It's remained relatively constant.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Then the number of poor prior to welfare should be lower, but it wasn't. It's remained relatively constant.

thanks to obama, we now have more people living off welfare

awesome! obama rules

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

...



So just let the poor starve? That doesn't quite sound right and getting them out of the education system would be stupid. No small part of our current problem is that they don't have enough control and it fucks shit up.

Who's going to let the poor starve?

I'm having supper with missionaries fresh back from Haiti...

I don't think most Americans would simply let their neighbors starve.

PS - We were doing a bang-up job of educating before the Federal government got involved, look at how far, how fast, we became the paragon of nations with limited Federal government. Most of what the Left does is issue slanders and present unassailable victims and search for misery in the lap of luxury and then destroys what was good in order to fix it...

 

[Sean Renaud]

thanks to Clinton and Bush, we now have more people living off welfare

awesome! obama rules

Fixed it for ya.

Who's going to let the poor starve?

I'm having supper with missionaries fresh back from Haiti...

I don't think most Americans would simply let their neighbors starve.

PS - We were doing a bang-up job of educating before the Federal government got involved, look at how far, how fast, we became the paragon of nations with limited Federal government. Most of what the Left does is issue slanders and present unassailable victims and looks for misery in the lap of luxury and then destroys what was good in order to fix it...

most Americans wouldn't be able to stop their neighbors from starving. And besides they wouldn't be neighbors at that point cus they'd be homeless first and very few of us would let our neighbors move in with us.

Wait. .you're theory is that we ruined our education system by getting the government involved. Again what actions can you point to, specifics. It seems that the lack of federal control at the very least causes problems for any students who move.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Then the number of poor prior to welfare should be lower, but it wasn't. It's remained relatively constant.

... and will always remains so, no matter how much government you throw at it and no matter how hard you work to destroy Capitalism and end "greed" to focus on "need."
__________________
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

"It’s true: greed has had a very bad press. I frankly don’t see anything wrong with greed. I think that the people who are always attacking greed would be more consistent with their position if they refused their next salary increase. I don’t see even the most Left-Wing scholar in this country scornfully burning his salary check. In other words, "greed" simply means that you are trying to relieve the nature given scarcity that man was born with. Greed will continue until the Garden of Eden arrives, when everything is superabundant, and we don’t have to worry about economics at all. We haven’t of course reached that point yet; we haven’t reached the point where everybody is burning his salary increases, or salary checks in general."
Murray N. Rothbard

 

[JenAltArmy]

I agree with you that Bush started a big spending movement, but obama put that spending policy on steroids

Fixed it for ya.



most Americans wouldn't be able to stop their neighbors from starving. And besides they wouldn't be neighbors at that point cus they'd be homeless first and very few of us would let our neighbors move in with us.

Wait. .you're theory is that we ruined our education system by getting the government involved. Again what actions can you point to, specifics. It seems that the lack of federal control at the very least causes problems for any students who move.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Fixed it for ya.



most Americans wouldn't be able to stop their neighbors from starving. And besides they wouldn't be neighbors at that point cus they'd be homeless first and very few of us would let our neighbors move in with us.

Wait. .you're theory is that we ruined our education system by getting the government involved. Again what actions can you point to, specifics. It seems that the lack of federal control at the very least causes problems for any students who move.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Even with government, food stamps and welfare, we still keep our community food pantries stocked...

(Maybe because I live in the rural heartland, I still have a high opinion of my fellow citizens.)

I don't have to point to specifics. There is a general consensus that despite all the resources we've allocated, we still have an education process; in short we could have spent nothing at the Federal level and still gotten about the same result. If we could prove that the Education Department and No Child Left Behind has showed success, then we could stop the railing about the need for more education funding...

See, the proof is easy by way of a negative proof, something I learned about when earning my degree in math which provided rigorous courses in logic and proof.

 

[Sean Renaud]

... and will always remains so, no matter how much government you throw at it and no matter how hard you work to destroy Capitalism and end "greed" to focus on "need."

Nobody is out to destroy or even damage capitalism. Or rather the amount of Americans out to harm capitalism is so insignificant that there's no point in talking about them. Yeah the poor will always remain at a fairly constant rate, you can't fix it. What you can do is elevate how the poor live so that everybody gets better results.

I agree with you that Bush started a big spending movement, but obama put that spending policy on steroids

Nope Obama has very little to do with it. It was Clinton's dereg and Bush's spending.

 

[JenAltArmy]

obama is spending like a 14 year old, with her fathers credit card

Nobody is out to destroy or even damage capitalism. Or rather the amount of Americans out to harm capitalism is so insignificant that there's no point in talking about them. Yeah the poor will always remain at a fairly constant rate, you can't fix it. What you can do is elevate how the poor live so that everybody gets better results.



Nope Obama has very little to do with it. It was Clinton's dereg and Bush's spending.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Nobody is out to destroy or even damage capitalism. Or rather the amount of Americans out to harm capitalism is so insignificant that there's no point in talking about them. Yeah the poor will always remain at a fairly constant rate, you can't fix it. What you can do is elevate how the poor live so that everybody gets better results.



...

Yes they are. Very powerful forces are always banding in order to destroy Capitalism.

And our poor have it better than almost any poor on the planet thanks to Capitalism's rising tide floating all boats.

And I would say that the worst way possible to elevate the poor is through the use of government. Government tends to political solutions and group politics in distributing altruism and limited resources and this leads to the resentment of the unfavored groups and then begins to tear away at the fabric of civil society and begins to divide deeply.
__________________
The government big enough to do something for you is big enough to do something to you. If you accept the former then you are saddled with the latter, for the two are inseperable; for is generally at the expense of to.

If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."

When your philosophy of government is based on groups, you must remember that your group can be a favored or disfavored group with equal ease and that neither status is ever permanent any more than the favors government solemnly promised to purchase your group loyalty.

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Sean Renaud]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Even with government, food stamps and welfare, we still keep our community food pantries stocked...

(Maybe because I live in the rural heartland, I still have a high opinion of my fellow citizens.)

I don't have to point to specifics. There is a general consensus that despite all the resources we've allocated, we still have an education process; in short we could have spent nothing at the Federal level and still gotten about the same result. If we could prove that the Education Department and No Child Left Behind has showed success, then we could stop the railing about the need for more education funding...

See, the proof is easy by way of a negative proof, something I learned about when earning my degree in math which provided rigorous courses in logic and proof.

No, you have to prove how the situation got worse because of these programs. If the worst you can proove is net zero then yeah that might be a good reason to cut the program but your point is proving it's harmful.

Yes they are. Very powerful forces are always banding in order to destroy Capitalism.

And our poor have it better than almost any poor on the planet thanks to Capitalism's rising tide floating all boats.

And I would say that the worst way possible to elevate the poor is through the use of government. Government tends to political solutions and group politics in distributing altruism and limited resources and this leads to the resentment of the unfavored groups and then begins to tear away at the fabric of civil society and begins to divide deeply.

No, our poor have it better because we take care of them. Capitalism doesn't raise all boats unless it's forced to. That's just the way that it is. And these forced seeking to destroy capitalism are just in your head. They aren't real, they are some freaks that even the left kicks in the face when they get the chance.