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

[IrezumiKiss]

cuz obama says we need more tades, right?

What's a "tade?" Explain that to me, Welfare-Alt-Jen.

 

[JenAltArmy]

What's a "tade?" Explain that to me, Welfare-Alt-Jen.

just like my thread, guy wins the lottery and the state tells him to keep taking the food stamps. got to love government workers, where else could they work? too lazy to fix the issue, but that's okay right? after all it's not your money

 

[Sean Renaud]

again, you are not able to think outside of the box.

1. do you think there is wasteful spending in Gov?
2. do you think there are duplicate personal?3. do you think there is too much administration or redundant?
4. Why can’t government do “it” faster, better, and less expensive?
5. why do you accept excuses?

How fitting a typo for an alt.

 

[JenAltArmy]

How fitting a typo for an alt.

ah yes, you alt wingnut

guessing you feel that government never has nor will they ever waste money. that the process of government is streamlined and efficient

sad

 

[IrezumiKiss]

ah yes, you alt wingnut

guessing you feel that government never has nor will they ever waste money. that the process of government is streamlined and efficient

sad

If you suck my cock and I ejaculate in your mouth, but about half of my baby curd dribbles down the side of your cheek, will you waste it like big government by letting it gloop off your face, or will you be efficient and scoop it back up between your lips to slurp that sweet salty taffy like a good bitch?

 

[mercury14]

1. do you think there is wasteful spending in Gov?

Just like there is wasteful spending in corporations, personal estates, and private investment firms, yes there is wasteful spending in government.

2. do you think there are duplicate personal?

Such a bad typo that I can't respond.

3. do you think there is too much administration or redundant?

More typos. But evaluating whether there is too much administration can only be done by analyzing a given scenario, not by making one of your sweeping brain-dead generalizations.

4. Why can’t government do “it” faster, better, and less expensive

?

Like a private corporation, government does more with less all the time. Just look at cuts in government programs all around the country. My home town of Cincinnati just cut a couple hundred policemen and closed a few schools for example. Now those that remain simply do more work for the same pay.

 

[JenAltArmy]

oh poor little you, how silly and lost you are. See, if you had any real world experience what you would know, and realize the fault with your logic is that when a business don't have a positive cash flow, that business will go under.

Unlike your sick and disgusting world in government where bad leadership gets rewarded and they stick it to the tax payer to pay for all those mistakes.

That way of thinking, you and your government people think, is so freaking messed up. No wonder so many states are on the verge of bankruptcy and that obama is sending America to chapter 11

or is having a state on the verge of bankrupcy a good thing?

Just like there is wasteful spending in corporations, personal estates, and private investment firms, yes there is wasteful spending in government.




Such a bad typo that I can't respond.




More typos. But evaluating whether there is too much administration can only be done by analyzing a given scenario, not by making one of your sweeping brain-dead generalizations.


?

Like a private corporation, government does more with less all the time. Just look at cuts in government programs all around the country. My home town of Cincinnati just cut a couple hundred policemen and closed a few schools for example. Now those that remain simply do more work for the same pay.

 

[mercury14]

oh poor little you, how silly and lost you are. See, if you had any real world experience what you would know, and realize the fault with your logic is that when a business don't have a positive cash flow, that business will go under.

Unlike your sick and disgusting world in government where bad leadership gets rewarded and they stick it to the tax payer to pay for all those mistakes.

That way of thinking, you and your government people think, is so freaking messed up. No wonder so many states are on the verge of bankruptcy and that obama is sending America to chapter 11

or is having a state on the verge of bankrupcy a good thing?

Dearest Dippy Jen,

Businesses do not go under when they do not have a positive cash flow. Please learn how businesses operate before posting ever again. Really, you lack awareness of even the most basic concepts of business and free enterprise. I will say one thing about the government though, whatever public school you went to sure dealt you some irreparable damage. It should be immediately broken into pieces and tossed off the bow of the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea.

Also, you're using the term 'cash flow' incorrectly, further demonstrating your complete ignorance of the workings of a business.

Your friend and perpetual teacher,

-Merc

 

[Sonny Limatina]

If you suck my cock and I ejaculate in your mouth, but about half of my baby curd dribbles down the side of your cheek, will you waste it like big government by letting it gloop off your face, or will you be efficient and scoop it back up between your lips to slurp that sweet salty taffy like a good bitch?

Holy fuck that was funny.

 

[mercury14]

See, if you had any real world experience what you would know, and realize the fault with your logic is that when a business don't have a positive cash flow, that business will go under.

Unlike your sick and disgusting world in government where bad leadership gets rewarded and they stick it to the tax payer to pay for all those mistakes.

Sam Prince of Citibank drove his company into ruin. He was therefore rewarded with a $140 million dollar bonus.

Please explain the following:

1) Why this system would benefit the taxpayer if it was applied in government.

2) Why Citibank didn't go under despite negative "cash flow".

 

[JenAltArmy]

Sam Prince of Citibank drove his company into ruin. He was therefore rewarded with a $140 million dollar bonus.

Please explain the following:

1) Why this system would benefit the taxpayer if it was applied in government.

2) Why Citibank didn't go under despite negative "cash flow".

omg, just that type of dumb-ass government thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

when a company runs out of money, its over. gone, bye bye.

when obama runs out of money, he gets on his knees and "heads" to China.

this is what's wrong with you ignorant left wing nuts. you have no idea about the value of money, nor how to reduce expenses (costs). all you dumb-ass thugs want to do "hit the rich with more taxes".

god, your stupid

 

[JenAltArmy]

Holy fuck that was funny.

yet, he's the only one yanking "his" chain. he might have a talent at cartoons, but he's stupid

 

[JenAltArmy]

Classic, when someone stands up to you little minded cry-babies, you want to resort to violence. Why are you such a moron?

you display the intelligence of LJ, and he's a stupid, ignorant thug

Dearest Dippy Jen,

Businesses do not go under when they do not have a positive cash flow. Please learn how businesses operate before posting ever again. Really, you lack awareness of even the most basic concepts of business and free enterprise. I will say one thing about the government though, whatever public school you went to sure dealt you some irreparable damage. It should be immediately broken into pieces and tossed off the bow of the USS Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea.

Also, you're using the term 'cash flow' incorrectly, further demonstrating your complete ignorance of the workings of a business.

Your friend and perpetual teacher,

-Merc

 

[koalabear]

'Heavy weight': Glut of foreclosed homes threatens housing market


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43132149/ns/business-us_business

 

[Beco]

Job creation limps along after recession
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.

In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.

"There's still a lot of uncertainty about the economic recovery, and many companies that would like to hire are reluctant to do so because they're not confident sales will pick up and remain strong," says Jerry Conover, director of the Indiana Business Research Center.

This unique recession has been particularly unfriendly to job-seekers, experts say. "There was too much employment in housing, and that isn't coming back — and frankly shouldn't come back," says Amar Bhide, a Tufts University professor.

The housing collapse and productivity gains on the factory floor have made it hard for the economy to absorb workers without a college degree and young people generally, says Carl Camden, president of Kelly Services, a global staffing firm. Manufacturers are producing more value than ever in the USA with a fraction of the workers needed before, he says.

How the recovery is reshaping employment:

•Winners. Health care added 449,000 jobs during the 18-month downturn and 483,000 jobs in the 22 months since.

•Losers. Construction lost 2 million jobs — 1.6 million during the recession and 400,000 during the recovery.

•Biggest swing. Auto manufacturing, saved by a government bailout, had the biggest turnaround, from a 35% job loss in the recession to a 6% gain after it ended. That means 332,000 jobs lost, followed by 42,000 recovered.

 

[trysail]

I didn't write this. The person who did write it is not dumb.

[highlights mine]

...Stanley Druckenmiller, a very successful and legendary hedge fund manager, wrote an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting that a short duration technical default on our debt, which might result if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling, might prove constructive if it shook Congress into action to develop a serious program to rein in our debt and deficits. The article was highly controversial. Needless to say, quite a few conservative investors rallied around the notion on the thesis that a serious spark that ignited action to reduce future deficits would more than overcome any short term damage created by a default that lasted less than a week. Remember, we are in May, one of those vacuum periods where there is little information. When those periods occur each quarter, the risk that analysts and commentators will take some relatively naïve thesis and go overboard with it is heightened.

So let me make it simple. We aren’t talking about horseshoes here. There is no such thing as a little default or a technical default. You either default on your debt, meaning you no longer make timely payment of principal and interest, or you don’t. There is no in-between. Once the notion of default is activated, no one can assure investors anywhere that the default will be fixed in a matter of hours or days. Even if you could give such assurances, what happens the next time?

If the U.S. defaulted on its debt, there would almost certainly be an immediate and sharp reaction in the bond and currency markets. Look as what Greece has to pay to borrow. Sure, we aren’t Greece but, so far, Greece is paying its interest and principal.

Many pretty smart guys, from Treasury Secretary Geithner to JPMorganChase CEO Jaime Dimon have properly noted that default would be a disaster and they aren’t prepared to take the chance. So what are the options available for Secretary Geithner if Congress simply refuses to raise the debt ceiling?

Actually, he has plenty of options. Right now government spending is roughly 24% of GDP. It should be closer to 18-21% but that’s a topic for another day. Revenues are running close to 15% of GDP. The 9% gap is the deficit. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, quite simply it means Treasury would have to cut spending down to 15% of GDP effective immediately. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann would love that! But even they might not love the way Geithner would have to get there in the short run. Obviously, he would have to make very drastic short term spending cuts. Checks to soldiers would be cut or deferred. That isn’t likely to sit well with many folks. The same would be true for Social Security. Elected officials know that seniors tend to vote. Medicare payments would also be cut back severely. Remember, we are talking 9% of GDP. That’s hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts literally overnight...

 

[mercury14]

omg, just that type of dumb-ass government thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

when a company runs out of money, its over. gone, bye bye.

when obama runs out of money, he gets on his knees and "heads" to China.

this is what's wrong with you ignorant left wing nuts. you have no idea about the value of money, nor how to reduce expenses (costs). all you dumb-ass thugs want to do "hit the rich with more taxes".

god, your stupid

Oops! You forgot to answer the question again!

Sam Prince of Citibank drove his company into ruin. He was therefore rewarded with a $140 million dollar bonus. Please explain how this dynamic could benefit the government.

 

[koalabear]

Oops! You forgot to answer the question again!

Sam Prince of Citibank drove his company into ruin. He was therefore rewarded with a $140 million dollar bonus. Please explain how this dynamic could benefit the government.

Citigroup bailout has netted government $12.3B in profit to date
Treasury auctions off another $300 million in Citigroup warrants, acquired during the controversial 2008 bailout

 

[JenAltArmy]

Citigroup bailout has netted government $12.3B in profit to date
Treasury auctions off another $300 million in Citigroup warrants, acquired during the controversial 2008 bailout

Don't try to tell Merk the truth as you are just wasting your time. In Merk's world all private sector enterprises are evil, and by default every CEO is a evil person.

the truth, Merk is jealous as others make more money than he does and wants to punish those in the private sector. right Merk? Government should own and control everything?

 

[mercury14]

Don't try to tell Merk the truth as you are just wasting your time. In Merk's world all private sector enterprises are evil, and by default every CEO is a evil person.

the truth, Merk is jealous as others make more money than he does and wants to punish those in the private sector. right Merk? Government should own and control everything?

So you can't answer the question?

 

[JenAltArmy]

So you can't answer the question?

when you post something, intelligent then I will. you are a government retard

 

[trysail]

...Sam Prince of Citibank...

Who? Citibank never had an officer by that name. Get your facts straight.


When an advocate can't even get the facts right, the rest of their argument is immediately suspect and usually dubious.

 

[mercury14]

when you post something, intelligent then I will. you are a government retard

I'll ask again in a way you may find more intelligent

Private sector CEOs get bonuses including golden parachutes to the tune of tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars. As demonstrated, they often get them even after they run their company into bankruptcy or worse. You often say that government should be run like a corporation and use the CEO model. Please explain how you think this would benefit us in light of the widespread corporate practice of lavishly rewarding abject failure.

 

[mercury14]

Who? Citibank never had an officer by that name. Get your facts straight.


When an advocate can't even get the facts right, the rest of their argument is immediately suspect and usually dubious.

Edit: Charles Prince. They were talking about him on the Sunday morning shows this week. There was a Sam [some last name] of another company who made out almost as well after running his company into the ground.

Forbes Magazine named Charles Prince one of the top-8 financial leaders who lacked the vision to see the financial crisis coming. Despite this is was lavishly rewarded for his work to the tune of $155 million dollars.

Then despite being a horrible failure, Citibank gave him a consulting position.

 

[JenAltArmy]

There are more crooks working in government than corrupt CEO’s. sorry, get the facts straight. What I will say is that many pay packages are tied to the value of stock so many decisions are based on making the stock more valuable. Not always the best policy.

However, who adds more value to a consumer based economy? The CEO, not some retard in government. Government sucks down resources and spits out crap

I understand your jealousy of “CEO’s” as you can never nor will you ever be in that category due to your mental condition. But thanks for trying! Socialist nut jobber


p.s. CEO's know the value of the dollar, obama only knows how to spend other people's dollar's. just a fact

I'll ask again in a way you may find more intelligent

Private sector CEOs get bonuses including golden parachutes to the tune of tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars. As demonstrated, they often get them even after they run their company into bankruptcy or worse. You often say that government should be run like a corporation and use the CEO model. Please explain how you think this would benefit us in light of the widespread corporate practice of lavishly rewarding abject failure.