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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We probably shouldn't have listened to Bush say Iraq was going to cost 80 billion dollars total. Now we're looking at 2 trillion in spending for that sucker. But keep ignoring 2 Trillion in order to insist that 550 billion + 250 billion in tax cuts is a higher number than 2 Trillion.

No Iraq war and no Bush tax cuts and our debt would have been around 11 trillion right not instead of 14+ trillion and we wouldn't be having this debt ceiling crisis.

You have a great point there, but your guy was going to have us out of all of that by now, but instead we find ourselves in a couple of costly quagmires and GITMO is still open.

The funny thing is, you never, ever complain about that spending; I guess that military socialism is pretty lucrative for you, as long as Obama keeps them stretched thin and in operation, you never ever have to go into the private sector.

How about a 90% tax on capital gains income?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Why the FUCK DO YOU LIE????????????

He never said so at all

FUCKING LIAR!

MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there.


FUCKING LYING SCUMBAG!

*chuckle*

A lot like his "reports..."

Oh, look, Moody's and the Housing Bubble:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/18/77244/how-moodys-sold-its-ratings-and.html

Another rug pull from a former administration official:

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/07/14/now-he-tells-us

Yeah, we were saved from a Depression, ri-i-i-i-i-ght...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Some woman in Obama's administration was the one who said the stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% - yet you feel justified holding responsible for what she said. How come Bush isn't responsible for the message his VP sends America? You can't have it both ways.

Because he and Biden stood by his hand-picked economic advisor...

__________________
If you ask me, I think what we're experiencing isn't in fact closer to a "growthless" recovery than to a jobless one. Because GDP started to grow more than a year and a half ago, but with the exception of just a couple of quarters, growth has not been noticeably above its trend rate of about 2-1/2 percent a year. I don't rejoice at the news that we added 216,000 jobs in March. About a hundred thousand of that 216,000 is needed every month just to keep up with the growth in the labor force. At this rate of job growth, it would take most of the decade to replace the eight 8-1/2 million jobs that were lost in the recession.
Christina Romer
Chairwoman of Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisors

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I JUST linked you to press coverage of Bush telling congress it would cost $75 billion, after you demanded proof. I give you undeniable proof and you just hold onto your misconceptions even harder. "Facts" and shit are liberal, right? Linking to coverage of Bush is liberal too apparently.

Here we go Vette, as we know it's the administration's responsibility to provide cost estimates of executive action. Please show your link of Bush's estimate of the Iraq war costing 2.7 trillion dollars. I'll even give you a 2.6 trillion dollar margin of error.

Remember Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's chief economist early on? He told reporters he thought the cost of the Iraq war would be a couple hundred billion (still way low) instead of the Bush Administration's line of $75 billion. Bush then removed him from office.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm

And last year Joe Biden confidently predicted that the summer of recovery would be adding 500 million jobs a month...

And every rosy prediction the CBO came out with during the heady, halcyon days of the Obama transformation have now been downgraded by the same CBO as just more debt...

And what do you want to talk about???

Bush.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You know who holds the government's purse string right?

hint: It's not the President.

But he's told us he will veto anything that he does not like coming out of the purse and Harry Reid is saying "damned skippy..."




Which is why McConnell says that we have to have a change in the White House.

He's a Marxist.

And I know, you're going to go livid and proclaim that's a lie. Which is fine, because in his book, he said he was a Marxist, so all you have to do, to prove me wrong, is link to the source that quotes him, or demonstrates him disavowing or refuting his Marxism...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Which entitlements would you like cut?

YOU!@

Yes, the class of government contractors that could not see the warning signs in Hassan and have NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE have no business sucking up tax dollars and pretending they can cure battle fatigue even as they support a war-lord and ever-expanding war.

Conflict of Interest!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Man, I used to think Oddball/Turd was a real nut job, but I had yet to read Mises and Rothbard...



At this point it's not a matter of if, but WHEN our government is going to inflate us out of our nest egg.

I'm damned glad I bought gold way back when...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It also pays to know where it is, and how to take it out of the ground as well.

I made a map and put it with my will. Shovel's in the shed...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Now He Tells Us
By Joseph Lawler
7.14.11 @ 12:29PM

Peter Orszag is becoming increasingly honest now that he's no longer the head of the Office of Management and Budget. Here he is on rosy scenarios:

The CBO assumes economic growth will exceed 3 percent per year from 2012 to 2016 before gradually declining to a bit more than 2 percent in 2021. What if, instead, growth remains at 2 percent to 2.5 percent for the next decade? I asked Kogan to recalculate the budget numbers assuming a constant growth rate of 2.25 percent per year, which seems a plausible hard-slog scenario.

He found that the deficit then averages more than 7 percent of GDP. By 2021, it is more than 8.5 percent of GDP and increasing.

Under these modified growth assumptions, the cumulative deficit for the next decade is $13.7 trillion. In other words, the impact from sluggish growth on the budget shortfall over the same period exceeds $2.5 trillion -- which is more than the roughly $2 trillion in deficit reduction that may wind up being agreed to as part of a deal to lift the debt ceiling.

Orszag seems to think that the less favorable outlook is the more likely one.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We were SAVED from a Depression, but we still might downgrade the US - Moody's

WASHINGTON -- As the housing market collapsed in late 2007, Moody's Investors Service, whose investment ratings were widely trusted, responded by purging analysts and executives who warned of trouble and promoting those who helped Wall Street plunge the country into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned why the company was risking its reputation by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings.

Instead, Moody's promoted executives who headed its "structured finance" division, which assisted Wall Street in packaging loans into securities for sale to investors. It also stacked its compliance department with the people who awarded the highest ratings to pools of mortgages that soon were downgraded to junk. Such products have another name now: "toxic assets."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/18/77244/how-moodys-sold-its-ratings-and.html#ixzz1SAti6cut

Merc, one really has to wonder about the "INDEPENDENCE" of your sourcing...

Now, tell us how to cure combat fatigue, what it's like to be under fire, and how to become a millionaire in the stock market.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gold is okay but I invest in capital equipment. Something like a sheetmetal brake has more utility than gold.

Where we're headed is to the Renaissance when the Medici and Borgias owned all the gold, and the Leonardos and Michaelangelos worked for them. The rest will starve.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Reminds me of when Bush sent people before Congress to scream about Freddie and Fannie and ol' Barney was more worried about protecting his boyfriend's job and Maxine was worried about protecting FDR's skin color...

 

[kbate]

I made a map and put it with my will. Shovel's in the shed...

Sadly - that will probably be the only way. Unless you actually took your gold in bullion, all you truly hold is the promise of Gold.

All of those who are buying gold held in reserve in central banks - are going to find central bank vaults guarded with tanks and infantry when they go to collect.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Gold is okay but I invest in capital equipment. Something like a sheetmetal brake has more utility than gold.

Where we're headed is to the Renaissance when the Medici and Borgias owned all the gold, and the Leonardos and Michaelangelos worked for them. The rest will starve.

I invest in guns, ammo and food...





(and medicines!)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Sadly - that will probably be the only way. Unless you actually took your gold in bullion, all you truly hold is the promise of Gold.

All of those who are buying gold held in reserve in central banks - are going to find central bank vaults guarded with tanks and infantry when they go to collect.

Gold coins and bling.




Poor man's gold: heavy chain, the links my pieces of eight...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Limbaugh and Beck must be pushing Goldline on the radio again..

All of this talk of buying gold is being caused by the TOP refusing to compromise on anything regarding the economy. Their actions are causing a run on gold as they threaten to collapse not only America's economy, but the world's.

I wonder how the Republicans think that holding the economy hostage is going to work out for them this time considering how it turned out in 1995 / 1996.

I see Gingrich is doubling down on the same stupidity he did then. Old dogs, new tricks. The Democrats have bent over backward, to the point that they appear to have no spine left, and still the insurgent Tea Party refuses any and all compromise.

Public opinion, as well as that of the GOP's corporate masters, is rapidly turning against their intransigence. We all know that public opinion means little to nothing to the TOP, but the Tea Party freshmen are about to find out who exactly it was that paid for all of the advertising and stump engagements that swept them into office.

If there had been a big fuss and media barrage prior to any of the seven times the debt ceiling was raised under Bush, polls would have reflected that too. But debt under a Republican president is no big deal, only under a Democrat. Now why do you think that might be?

 

[busybody..]

Limbaugh and Beck must be pushing Goldline on the radio again..

All of this talk of buying gold is being caused by the TOP refusing to compromise on anything regarding the economy. Their actions are causing a run on gold as they threaten to collapse not only America's economy, but the world's.

I wonder how the Republicans think that holding the economy hostage is going to work out for them this time considering how it turned out in 1995 / 1996.

I see Gingrich is doubling down on the same stupidity he did then. Old dogs, new tricks. The Democrats have bent over backward, to the point that they appear to have no spine left, and still the insurgent Tea Party refuses any and all compromise.

Public opinion, as well as that of the GOP's corporate masters, is rapidly turning against their intransigence. We all know that public opinion means little to nothing to the TOP, but the Tea Party freshmen are about to find out who exactly it was that paid for all of the advertising and stump engagements that swept them into office.

If there had been a big fuss and media barrage prior to any of the seven times the debt ceiling was raised under Bush, polls would have reflected that too. But debt under a Republican president is no big deal, only under a Democrat. Now why do you think that might be?

STFU LUNATIC!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Hey, partisan, I bought my gold LONG ago; we've REPEATEDLY had this conversation...

REPUBLICANS HOLDING IT HOSTAGE?

Remember, three years ago, you had them consigned to the dustbin of history, but after less than two years of Obama, they ROARED back in time for redistricting! That's on Obama's narrow shoulders dude...

President Obama is demanding a big, long-term budget deal. He won’t sign anything less, he warns, asking, “If not now, when?”

How about last December, when he ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations? How about February, when he presented a budget that increases debt by $10 trillion over the next decade? How about April, when he sought a debt-ceiling increase with zero debt reduction attached?

All of a sudden he’s a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one. He’s been saying forever that he’s prepared to discuss, engage, converse about entitlement cuts. But never once has he publicly proposed a single structural change to any entitlement.

Hasn’t the White House leaked that he’s prepared to raise the Medicare age or change the cost-of-living calculation?

Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.

Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.

As part of his pose as the forward-looking grown-up rising above all the others who play politics, Obama insists upon a long-term deal. And what is Obama’s definition of long-term? Surprise: An agreement that gets him past Nov. 6, 2012.

Nothing could be more political. It’s like his Afghan-surge wind-down date. September 2012 has no relation to any military reality on the ground. It is designed solely to position Obama favorably going into the last weeks of his reelection campaign.

Yet the Olympian, above-the-fray no-politics-here pose is succeeding. A pliant press swallows the White House story line: the great compromiser (“clearly exasperated,” sympathized a Washington Post news story) being stymied by Republican “intransigence” (the noun actually used in another front-page Post news story to describe the Republican position on taxes).

... It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.

The fat-cat tax breaks (those corporate jets) that Obama’s talking points endlessly recycle? Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of Simpson-Bowles that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits, and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months in which to to get it.

...

That’s indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto — or the Democratic Senate to block — a short-term debt-limit increase.

...

You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995–96 Gingrich–Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide....

Charles Krauthammer

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama has really fucked up the economy. 1 year ago gold was selling for around $1,200 an ounce, now its up to $1,500 and will most likely hit $1,600


when will our dumb-ass friends Merk, UD, Richard DumbassDailey, Sean and others wake up. unless all those trolls collect welfare, then they are set for life cuz obama is good for business.

why work when you can sit home and drinking budwiser while smoking camels right?

Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels

As the twin pillars of international monetary system threaten to come tumbling down in unison, gold has reclaimed its ancient status as the anchor of stability. The spot price surged to an all-time high of $1,594 an ounce in London, lifting silver to $39 in its train.

On one side of the Atlantic, the eurozone debt crisis has spread to the countries that may be too big to save - Spain and Italy - though RBS thinks a €3.5 trillion rescue fund would ensure survival of Europe's currency union.

On the other side, the recovery has sputtered out and the printing presses are being oiled again. Brinkmanship between the Congress and the White House over the US debt ceiling has compelled Moody's to warn of a "very small but rising risk" that the world's paramount power may default within two weeks. "The unthinkable is now thinkable," said Ross Norman, director of thebulliondesk.com.

Fed chair Ben Bernanke confessed to Congress that growth has failed to gain traction. "Deflationary risks might re-emerge, implying a need for additional policy support," he said.

The bar to QE3 - yet more bond purchases - is even lower than markets had thought. The new intake of hard-money men on the voting committee has not shifted Fed thinking, despite global anger at dollar debasement under QE2.

Fuelling the blaze, the emerging powers of Asia are almost all running uber-loose monetary policies. Most have negative real interest rates that push citizens out of bank accounts and into gold, or property. China is an arch-inflater. Prices are rising at 6.4pc, yet the one-year deposit rate is just 3.5pc. India's central bank is far behind the curve

"It is very scary: the flight to gold is accelerating at a faster and faster speed," said Peter Hambro, chairman of Britain's biggest pure gold listing Petropavlovsk.

"One of the big US banks texted me today to say that if QE3 actually happens, we could see gold at $5,000 and silver at $1,000. I feel terribly sorry for anybody on fixed incomes tied to a fiat currency because they are not going to be able to buy things with that paper money."

China, Russia, Brazil, India, the Mid-East petro-powers have diversified their $7 trillion reserves into euros over the last decade to limit dollar exposure. As Europe's monetary union itself faces an existential crisis, there is no other safe-haven currency able to absorb the flows. The Swiss franc, Canada's loonie, the Aussie, and Korea's won are too small.

"There is no depth of market in these other currencies, so gold is the obvious play," said Neil Mellor from BNY Mellon. Western central banks (though not the US, Germany, or Italy) sold much of their gold at the depths of the bear market a decade ago. The Bank of England wins the booby prize for selling into the bottom at €254 an ounce on Gordon Brown's orders in 1999. But Russia, China, India, the Gulf states, the Philippines, and Kazakhstan have been buying.

China is coy, revealing purchases with a long delay. It has admitted to doubling its gold reserves to 1,054 tonnes or $54bn. This is just a tiny sliver of its $3.2 trillion reserves. China's Chamber of Commerce said this should be raised eightfold to 8,000 tonnes.

Xia Bin, an adviser to China's central bank, said in June that the country's reserve strategy needs an "urgent" overhaul. Instead of buying paper IOU's from a prostrate West, China should invest in strategic assets and accumulate gold by "buying the dips".

Step by step, the world is edging towards a revived Gold Standard as it becomes clearer that Japan and the West have reached debt saturation. World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said it was time to "consider employing gold as an international reference point." The Swiss parliament is to hold hearings on a parallel "Gold Franc". Utah has recognised gold as legal tender for tax payments.

A new Gold Standard would probably be based on a variant of the 'Bancor' proposed by Keynes in the late 1940s. This was a basket of 30 commodities intended to be less deflationary than pure gold, which had compounded in the Great Depression. The idea was revived by China's central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan two years ago as a way of curbing the "credit-based" excess.

Mr Bernanke himself was grilled by Congress this week on the role of gold. Why do people by gold? "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes," he replied.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-Gold-Standard-as-world-order-unravels.html

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You'd think a bit differently if somebody offered you another brake in order to purchase yours.

*tee hee*

*tee hee*

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

why don't you take a look at past Dem presidents. Cater was a cluster fuck. Clinton would have been a cluster fuck if the tech boom didn't happen (that started under Reagan), and obama is the biggest cluster fuck causing apocalyptic economic harm to the American Tax Paying people

we must end all this spending

we must get government to act responsible with spending.

only spend the money that comes in, no more borrowing (its just that simple)

if that means less welfare - so be it
if that means one has to be 80 to collect social security - so be it
if that means we terminate 45% of all government workers - so be it

it must be done, PERIOD

Limbaugh and Beck must be pushing Goldline on the radio again..

All of this talk of buying gold is being caused by the TOP refusing to compromise on anything regarding the economy. Their actions are causing a run on gold as they threaten to collapse not only America's economy, but the world's.

I wonder how the Republicans think that holding the economy hostage is going to work out for them this time considering how it turned out in 1995 / 1996.

I see Gingrich is doubling down on the same stupidity he did then. Old dogs, new tricks. The Democrats have bent over backward, to the point that they appear to have no spine left, and still the insurgent Tea Party refuses any and all compromise.

Public opinion, as well as that of the GOP's corporate masters, is rapidly turning against their intransigence. We all know that public opinion means little to nothing to the TOP, but the Tea Party freshmen are about to find out who exactly it was that paid for all of the advertising and stump engagements that swept them into office.

If there had been a big fuss and media barrage prior to any of the seven times the debt ceiling was raised under Bush, polls would have reflected that too. But debt under a Republican president is no big deal, only under a Democrat. Now why do you think that might be?