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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

“Is GM falling into old, bad habits?” asked one industry analyst when the backlog data for General Motors was made public yesterday. The bailed-out automaker now has a growing inventory in its truck lines of 122 days worth of sales, nearly twice that of its non-bailout domestic competitor Ford Motors for similar lines. With sales flattening in the auto market, GM has now returned to the high inventory of its pre-bailout condition:

The Detroit-based automaker, 33 percent owned by the U.S. after its 2009 bankruptcy, has 280,000 Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups on dealers’ lots around the country. If sales continue at June’s rate, that would be enough to last until November.

After GM’s truck inventory swelled to 122 days worth of average sales, the company said 100 to 110 will be normal going forward for such a large and complex line of vehicles, compared with 60 to 70 days for most models. Peter Nesvold, a Jefferies & Co. analyst, isn’t convinced.Ford Motor Co. (F), which makes similar trucks, is running at 79 days, and Nesvold says GM averaged 78 days on hand at year end from 2002 to 2010.

“It’s unbelievable that after this huge taxpayer bailout and the bankruptcy that we’re right back to where we were,” Nesvold, who has a “hold” rating on the stock, said in a telephone interview. “There’s no credibility.” In a research note he asked: “Is GM falling into old, bad habits?”

GM says that the answer to the question is “no,” but there are other similarities noted by Bloomberg in this analysis. A former chief sales analyst calls GM’s line “dated,” and now predicts that GM will have to heavily discount in the fall to move the moribund inventory. The pickup line hasn’t changed since 2006. Ford, in contrast, began offering a V-6 engine on its trucks as an option and has been rewarded with significant movement in inventory.

The federal bailout of GM only made sense if the automaker’s difficulties entirely sprang from the financial collapse (caused mainly by government intervention in housing and financial markets through Fannie and Freddie junk bonds), and had been both competitive and profitable without it. That was obviously not the case; GM had struggled for years against foreign and domestic competition. The bailout forced GM to make some long-needed changes, such as consolidation of its product lines, as well as allowed the company to benefit from a politically-engineered bankruptcy that left the legacy benefit issues largely on the backs of taxpayers.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/05/uh-oh-gm-backlog-looking-a-lot-like-2008/

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This is what happens when you intrude on the market's corrective mechanisms and try to defeat them; you only forestall and create a bigger problem...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let's give the president and his base the benefit of the doubt. President Obama honestly thought that his smash-mouth press conference on Wednesday June 29th and his obsession over the Obama-Reid-Pelosi corporate jet stimulus tax credit was nothing more than good presidential leadership. No doubt the gay marriage advocates think that their arm-twisting victory on gay marriage in the New York State Senate was nothing more than a principled effort to right an age-old injustice. Ditto the smash-mouth chappies on MSNBC.

Does the playground bully think he is a bully? Certainly not. He just thinks that the kids he bullies around are losers.

The reason for civility in politics and manners in individuals is not just that it's the right thing to do. The bigger reason is that polite people and civil politicians avoid making unnecessary enemies. For politicians, enemies become a real problem when they add up to more than 49 percent of the vote.

Rage and protest are all very well when you are in opposition -- as our Democrat friends ably demonstrated through the eight long years of the Bush administration. But rage and smash-mouth politics from the governing party is just plain thuggery. When you pack the National Labor Relations Board with your cronies (see Boeing) and the National Mediation Council with your pals (see Delta) to harass non-union corporations and employees and change the rules without benefit of Congress then ordinary people start to get angry and fearful. They know they don't have much power, and the mainstream media doesn't give a fig for them. What can they do

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/democrats_heading_for_the_cliff.html

Go on a virtual strike...

Who is John Galt?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So where is the private sector, to step in and save the day like Underdog?

Held down under the fear of creeping Fascism, spanked like the GM bondholders, or the shaken-down BP, or the Private Jet industry, stimulated to produce and then vilified for doing so, or the coal industry; yeah you can build it, but I will bankrupt you...

"held down"? Wow, what a bunch of pussies.

I should have added the continual threats of higher taxation if they succeed...

2000 page laws written and passed without being read, the regulations directed within to be written by Friends of Obama, the ones who aren't Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, NAZIs, Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Democratic Socialists, Secular Humanists, Pragmatic Centrists...,

__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

... and you people should NOT be going to Las Vegas for business conferences!

Let me add...

"When you pack the National Labor Relations Board with your cronies (see Boeing) and the National Mediation Council with your pals (see Delta) to harass non-union corporations and employees and change the rules without benefit of Congress then ordinary people start to get angry and fearful."

Then they don't make plans for the future, they consolidate and go into bunker mode....

Redneck translation: They don't hire, they don't expand, they don't rescue the Fascist ruler...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That was one of the fine points in "We the Living;" as the pie shrank, the party kept engaging in purges so the top could keep its slice of pie intact...

Yes.

The flip side of this is, The People are corrupt. Thomas Jefferson vs John Adams.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The true nature of Obamanomics

President Obama bludgeoned Obamacare through Congress on the claim, backed by CBO, that it would not add to the deficit, even though it adopts or wildly expands three entitlement programs. As I discuss in my new book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, close analysis of the CBO score and additional new data indicates that, quite to the contrary, Obamacare will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over its first 20 years, and possibly more.

...

CBO made three enormous conceptual errors in scoring the program as not adding to the deficit, explained in detail in my book. The first relates to the new middle class welfare entitlement adopted by Obamacare, providing government handouts for the purchase of health insurance for families earning up to four times the poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four, indexed to grow to over $100,000 shortly.

These health insurance handouts go only to those who buy insurance on their own individually through the state based health insurance exchanges established under the legislation. Those who receive employer provided coverage are not eligible. CBO assumed that only 19 million workers will qualify for the handouts, out of a work force estimated at 162 million in 2014 mostly still receiving employer provided coverage. It consequently estimated the cost at only $450 billion over the first 10 years, or actually first 6 years of implementation of Obamacare.

But with the mandated insurance likely to cost $15,000 or more by 2016, employers will have powerful incentives to dump their employee coverage and pay the $2,000 per worker fine that applies to such termination of coverage. Employers are all the more likely to do this, and just pay their workers higher wages in place of the health coverage, precisely because the workers would then be able to get the huge welfare handouts for purchasing their insurance through the exchanges, resulting actually in a net income increase....

These are the reasons why a new study released by McKinsey & Company earlier this month concluded that Obamacare will result in “a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored heath benefits.” It found that “30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering” employer health coverage after Obamacare is implemented, and “among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent.”

In the Wall Street Journal on June 8, Grace-Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute, estimated based on the numbers in the McKinsey report that as many as 78 million Americans would lose their employer provided coverage. If those workers ended up receiving the new Obamacare exchange handouts, the estimated costs for those subsidies in the first 6 years alone would soar by 4 times, adding nearly $2 trillion to the costs and deficits of Obamacare during that time.

...

The second conceptual fallacy in the CBO score was revealed in full by the 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, released last December by the Treasury Department. It documents the total present value of the future cuts to Medicare under President Obama’s policies already enacted under current law as $15 trillion, primarily in payments to doctors and hospitals for health care provided to seniors.

Such draconian cuts in Medicare payments would create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Doctors, hospitals, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease would shut down and disappear in much of the country, and others would stop serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.

In fact, within a decade after Obamacare is implemented, Medicare’s payments to doctors and hospitals will be less than under Medicaid, where the poor face grave difficulties in finding timely treatment, and are documented to suffer worse health outcomes as a result.

...

Finally, the Obamacare tax increases won’t raise nearly the revenues that CBO projected. The capital gains tax rate would increase by close to 60 percent in 2013, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and Obamacare applying the Medicare payroll tax to capital gains as well. But over the last 40 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased, revenues have declined.

Similarly, the tax rate on dividends would nearly triple in 2013, due again to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the application of the Medicare payroll tax to dividends as well. The last time dividend taxes were that high, corporate dividend payments were greatly reduced. Corporations just kept the money internally for corporate investment. Corporate earnings are already subject to the 35 percent corporate income tax rate, which is on top of any tax on dividends. So revenues from the tax on dividends will decline sharply as well, exactly the opposite of what happened when President Bush cut the tax rate on dividends in 2003. CBO, of course, has a horrid record of wildly failing to estimate the revenue effects of tax changes relating to capital gains and corporate dividends in particular.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/06/obamacare-tragedy-primed-to-fu

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Meanwhile, as the President continues to use the tactics and politics of fear and economic Armageddon...

Imagine, for a moment, that you are president of the United States, the leader of the Free World, the most powerful man in the galaxy. You have been negotiating, maybe in good faith, maybe not, on the matter of raising the debt ceiling. Actually, you have had your vice president out there, doing what by all accounts is a yeoman job, negotiating budget cuts. But the talks are breaking down over issues of taxes, tax expenditures, tax breaks or "revenue enhancements." Neither the House GOP caucus nor the left wing of your own party is giving any ground. You have had it up to here with Grover Norquist and Eric Cantor and you want to get back to raising big money for your re-election campaign.*

In your heart of hearts, you, the president, don’t want to give any ground either. Not many Americans really want to take the castor oil and reform entitlements or cut their farm subsidies or close the National Parks. And what’s the worst that could happen?* You get re-elected and let the Bush tax cuts expire? Or maybe you lose, move back to Chicago and become an international rock star?

What’s a president to do?

Here’s what: Just ignore the debt ceiling. Just go ahead and keep paying those bills.

So sue me!

In other words, President Obama, the antithesis of Andrew Jackson, should, well, pull an Andrew Jackson. This would be what the French call a fait accompli.

Sure, we Republicans and conservatives would throw a snit. But aren’t many of us, including the Speaker of the House, on record opposing defaulting on our debts? Conservative carping would be mere background noise to the big news that the President has taken charge and brushed the congressional pygmies aside for the sake of the American economy and the nation’s credit in world markets.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/06/president-obamas-trump-card

Let's see if Mr. Marshall can enforce his ruling...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let's add some more post office debt to the deficit...

The United States Postal Service delivered bad news on Thursday, reporting a $3.5 billion loss for its fiscal third quarter due to lower revenues from the continuing drop in mail volume and increased costs from retiree health benefit expenses.

The USPS lost $1.1 billion more than it did during the third quarter of 2009, and has now posted net losses in 14 of its last 16 quarters. Operating revenue fell to $16 billion, $294 million less than during the same period last year, while operating expenses increased to $19.5 billion, $789 million higher than last year. Officials are projecting that the postal service could run out of cash in 2011 unless relief it is seeking from Congress is approved.

"Given current trends, we will not be able to pay all 2011 obligations," said USPS chief financial officer Joseph Corbett in a statement. "Despite ongoing aggressive cost reductions totaling over $10 billion in the last three years, it is clear that a liquidity problem is looming and must be addressed through fundamental changes requiring legislation and changes to contracts."

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08...2011-cash-crunch-looms/?icid=sphere_copyright

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/05/post-office-loses-3-5-billion-as-2011-cash-crunch-looms/

 

[busybody..]

ISM gauge of U.S. service sector drops in June


When AXED to comment, Moody's releases statement

Fuck off HON KEY JEW, we be pro tec ting DA MAN!

 

[busybody..]

Here is where DUMMY POON

will SHIT all over the economists

Right, DUMMY POON?​

FACE FACTS

NIGGEROMICKS

DOESNT

WORK!​

“Intellectual authorities” coast to coast agree: stimulus flopped




Yesterday, David Brooks scolded Republicans for not listening to “intellectual authorities” on fiscal policy. Fair enough; I figured I’d devote some time today to the opinion of intellectual authorities on economics and public policy, and decided to focus on Harvard and Stanford for my research. Fortunately, economics professors at both top-notch bastions of intellectual authority have quite a lot to say about Obamanomics. Let’s start with Harvard’s Robert Barro, quoted in the London Telegraph as saying that government stimulus wastes money, has negative rather than positive multipliers for national economies, and only should be undertaken for specific purposes under narrow conditions:


Breaking with current economic orthodoxy, Robert Barro, Paul M Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, said large spending plans should be undertaken only if they can be justified financially on their own merits. Any other spending plans end up costing the country even more than the initial outlay as interest on the debt has to be paid and the deficit cleared.


“In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can’t just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect,” he said.


“The lesson is you want government spending only if the programmes are really worth it in terms of the usual rate of return calculations. The usual kind of calculation, not some Keynesian thing. The fact that it really is worth it to have highways and education. Classic public finance, that’s not macroeconomics.”


Turning to the $600bn (£373bn) to $800bn US package, he added it was “mainly a waste of money”. Stimulus programmes, he said, offer little more than “rearranging the timing” of economic growth. “Possibly you could make an argument that it’s worth it. But it’s going to be a negative-sum thing overall, so you have to think it’s a big benefit for boosting the recovery.”


“Rearranging the timing” has been the only real hallmark of Obamanomics. The administration has done nothing but create short-term economic incentives in an attempt to convince people that real recovery had already arrived, when instead all they did was move demand from future quarters to present. Whether it was the stimulus package that accelerated “shovel ready” public projects, Cash for Clunkers, or a series of ill-advised home buyer tax breaks that enticed buyers to commit while home prices were still too high, the Obama administration’s economic policy has entirely consisted of gimmickry rather than a focus on long-term growth.


Let’s go to the Left Coast for another view. Stanford’s John Taylor looks at Obama’s stimulus plan to determine whether a larger amount of money would have worked. He concludes that not only wouldn’t it have worked, the dollar amount is actually irrelevant, since most of the money went to non-stimulating purposes:


In sum, this empirical examination of the direct effects of the three countercyclical stimulus packages of the 2000s indicates that they did not have a positive effect on consumption and government purchases, and thus did not counter the decline in investment during the recessions as the basic Keynesian textbook model would suggest. Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers.


Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view. According to the empirical estimates of the impact of ARRA, if there had been no temporary stimulus payments to individuals or families, their total consumption would have been about the same. And if there had been no ARRA grants to states and localities, their total expenditures would have been about the same. The counterfactual simulations show that the ARRA-induced decline in state and local government purchases was larger than the increase in federal government purchases due to ARRA. In terms of the simple example of Model A versus Model B presented above, these results are evidence against the views represented by Model A, and thus against using such models to show that things would have been worse.

Others argue that the stimulus was too small, but the results do not lend support to that view either. Using the estimated equations, a counterfactual simulation of a larger stimulus package—with the proportions going to state and local grants, federal purchases, and transfers to individual the same as in ARRA—would show little change in government purchases or consumption, as the temporary funds would be largely saved.


James Pethokoukis at Reuters connects the dots:

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicare’s chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that “more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.”) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he “can’t imagine” working. “I don’t have faith in it all.” Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.


But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.


In order to accelerate growth in a real and sustainable manner, the US government has to create an investor-friendly environment. The Obama administration has done everything but do so. Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric, including the ridiculous new war on corporate-jet owners, as well as his legislation (ObamaCare, financial reform) and regulatory expansion all signal a determined hostility to capital. Moreover, the White House refusal to acknowledge the obvious deficit and debt crises with its insistence on trillion-dollar annual red ink shows that the leaders of its economic policy simply have no clue as to the damage they are doing to America’s financial standing. In that kind of environment, who would want to invest their capital and take risk in the US if they had the opportunity to use it elsewhere?

 

[RightField]

How Effective Was The 2009 Stimulus Program?
Jul. 5 2011 - 2:02 pm |
Forbes Magazine
By NICK SCHULZ

So the stimulus — the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or ARRA — is starting to wind down. What are the results?

Depends on whom you ask, of course. Conservatives will say unemployment is near double-digits and growth is slow, so clearly it didn’t work. Liberals will say yes, unemployment is too high but that’s just a sign the stimulus wasn’t big enough. It worked when you think about how much higher unemployment would have been without it. And, come to think of it, we need more stimulus. Each side can find facts and models to fit its worldview.

The debate over whether stimulus worked or didn’t is too abstract to be of much help. It’s a better use of time to look at some specific stimulus programs and projects and see how they did.

Take stimulus funds for broadband. President Obama campaigned on expanding access to broadband Internet, and the stimulus afforded him an occasion for doling out federal dollars to that end.

No one is against expanded access to broadband. And in rural areas especially, where there might be less market incentive to provide access, maybe there’s a role for government to play. The question for prudent policymakers is how much such a project should cost and who should bear the cost. Surely there is some price that’s too high to justify expanding access.
In an important and eye-opening new paper, Jeffrey Eisenach and Kevin Caves of Navigant Economics, a consulting firm, recently examined ARRA’s subsidization of rural broadband. The ARRA stimulus funds for broadband constitute “the largest Federal subsidies ever provided for broadband construction in the U.S.” An explicit goal of the program was to extend broadband access to homes currently without it.

Eisenach and Caves looked at three areas that received stimulus funds, in the form of loans and direct grants, to expand broadband access in Southwestern Montana, Northwestern Kansas, and Northeastern Minnesota. The median household income in these areas is between $40,100 and $50,900. The median home prices are between $94,400 and $189,000.

So how much did it cost per unserved household to get them broadband access? A whopping $349,234, or many multiples of household income, and significantly more than the cost of a home itself.

Sadly, it’s actually worse than that. Take the Montana project. The area is not in any meaningful sense unserved or even underserved. As many as seven broadband providers, including wireless, operate in the area. Only 1.5% of all households in the region had no wireline access. And if you include 3G wireless, there were only seven households in the Montana region that could be considered without access. So the cost of extending access in the Montana case comes to about $7 million for each additional household served.

Back in the 1980s there was an uproar over wasteful Pentagon spending. The Air Force spent $7,622 on a coffee maker and the Navy spent $640 per toilet seat. That’s extremely wasteful, but at least the Pentagon arguably needed coffee makers and toilet seats. The seven households in Montana for whom taxpayers just spent $7 million each to extend broadband access probably don’t even want it.

The Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy and so it’s hardly surprising to find overpayment and waste from time to time. But to get to the truly extreme level of wasteful spending on rural broadband, you need something else entirely — an ideology. The best expression of that ideology can be found in the following quote:

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

That’s from John Maynard Keynes in his General Theory and it is the best encapsulation of the logic of stimulus spending.

No doubt that there were some worthy ARRA projects, and some dollars that were well-spent. But when a bureaucracy and political culture so thoroughly internalize the idea that spending, any spending, is “better than nothing,” the result is broadband lines at $7 million a pop.

Do you think that some of the libs will come on here and say it's narrow-minded of us to look at the bottom line again? They'll add that if we'd just get on our knees and say some more Keynesian prayers, we'll see the light and everything will be good again.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The debate over whether stimulus worked or didn’t is too abstract to be of much help. It’s a better use of time to look at some specific stimulus programs and projects and see how they did.

Do you think that some of the libs will come on here and say it's narrow-minded of us to look at the bottom line again? They'll add that if we'd just get on our knees and say some more Keynesian prayers, we'll see the light and everything will be good again.

By all means, let's cherry-pick the results! Anecdotal evidence makes it a lot easier to "prove" your point and gin up situational outrage!

 

[busybody..]

NIGGEROMICKS

vs

Real Economics

(remember when the German Treasury guy

Told Obama

Dont tell us what to do. you have NO FUCKING CLUE!​

Compare and contrast: The Ongoing German Recovery. “That is a funny result for a country committed to a near-balanced budget by 2016 and it shows the continuing importance of real factors for economic recovery.”

 

[busybody..]

If you are on Twitter, the Heritage Foundation has five questions it is asking Obama for his Twitter Townhall. The event, like all of Obama’s townhalls, is merely for show, but if he wants questions sent via Twitter, here are the five:

Your budget was rejected by Senate 97-0 & Dems haven’t produced budget in 700+ days. Where is your economic plan? #AskObama

You said your stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8%. Do you agree that was a trillion dollars wasted? #AskObama

You said it wasn’t a good idea to raise taxes in a recession but that is all you offer now to fix debt. Why? #AskObama

You’ve added more costly regulations in 2yrs than any of your predecessors, who all reviewed. When will it stop? #AskObama

Gas prices are high. We’re losing 90m barrels of oil due to your moratorium, plus jobs. Why release 30m from SPR? #AskObama

 

[garbage can]

If you are on Twitter, the Heritage Foundation has five questions it is asking Obama for his Twitter Townhall. The event, like all of Obama’s townhalls, is merely for show, but if he wants questions sent via Twitter, here are the five:

Your budget was rejected by Senate 97-0 & Dems haven’t produced budget in 700+ days. Where is your economic plan? #AskObama

You said your stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8%. Do you agree that was a trillion dollars wasted? #AskObama

You said it wasn’t a good idea to raise taxes in a recession but that is all you offer now to fix debt. Why? #AskObama

You’ve added more costly regulations in 2yrs than any of your predecessors, who all reviewed. When will it stop? #AskObama

Gas prices are high. We’re losing 90m barrels of oil due to your moratorium, plus jobs. Why release 30m from SPR? #AskObama

Only the incest and cancer man from the south can answer this.

 

[mercury14]

AJ and Rightfield, one question... Why do you get your information from sources that could give a fuck about informing their readers, as long as they persuade? Aren't you just as guilty as a left winger who gets their info from Michael Moore's website?

 

[busybody..]

^^Lunatic


Why do YOU consider a news release THIS PAST FRIDAY OLD NEWS

Why BITTERLY CLINGING to some opinion of MORE than one year ago?


I wont expect an answer

You are deranged

 

[koalabear]

AJ and Rightfield, one question... Why do you get your information from sources that could give a fuck about informing their readers, as long as they persuade? Aren't you just as guilty as a left winger who gets their info from Michael Moore's website?

Show them where to get old Moody links. Moron

 

[mercury14]

Show them where to get old Moody links. Moron

By the way, Moody's should be publishing their 1-year followup to their assessment of the stimulus. Not that its more recent conclusions will mean anything to you either though.

 

[busybody..]

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/pc-games/80081d1218425754-how-you-take-care-steam-account-retard7.jpg:

You still are POON, LOON....You still are!

 

[garbage can]

By the way, Moody's should be publishing their 1-year followup to their assessment of the stimulus. Not that its more recent conclusions will mean anything to you either though.

Merc, you refuse to listen to reality.

Oh, I noticed you were part in parcel with Zumi and Daily wanting to convince themselves that I'm a racist........... Thank you.

 

[mercury14]

So now you want to change the subject and go on the offense.

I'll counter that with a little Moody's Blues:

Portugal's long term bonds have now achieved junk-bond status...

http://www.moodys.com/research/Mood...utlook-from?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_222043

It's not IF Greece will default, it's WHEN.
__________________
I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

What's your point? No point?

 

[mercury14]

Merc, you refuse to listen to reality.

Oh, I noticed you were part in parcel with Zumi and Daily wanting to convince themselves that I'm a racist........... Thank you.

Did I call you a racist? Quote me.

 

[mercury14]

But there's no inflation going on...

Who said that? Or are you falling back on your old straw man habit?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Who said that? Or are you falling back on your old straw man habit?

Look at my initial post, yeah, the one from September '09..

The Cap'n is still waiting for the crippling inflation and economic collapse he's been waiting for since Obama was elected.