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

[MeeMie]

your dismissive arrogance is why you are so easy to dismiss as a critical thinker.

there's nuance and in between to almost every argument and almost every philosophy. i am pretty certain that my posts bear out my belief in that.

you deal in absolutes though. you can't reconcile your diatribe about prop 8 in california and hayek, though. you're picking and choosing what suits you with no apparent rational consistency.

Speak for yourself.

Throwing insults around is not a convincing argument; nor is rash judgement and name calling.

I would guess there are many more these days who disagree with your critical thinking (read here: obama sycophant thinking).



. .

 

[cjh]

Speak for yourself.

Throwing insults around is not a convincing arguement; nor is rash judgement and name calling.

I would guess there are many more these days who disagree with your critical thinking (read here: obama sycophant thinking).

so tell me, is "lib loonie" convincing argument? rash judgment? name calling?

 

[MeeMie]

so tell me, is "lib loonie" convincing argument? rash judgment? name calling?

"lib loonie" ?

Link me saying that exact phrase.


Loonie certainly is a convincing argument:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38069529&postcount=6530 *

* kudos to the Cap'n




. . .

 

[cjh]

"lib loonie" ?

Link me saying that exact phrase.


Loonie certainly is a convincing argument:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38069529&postcount=6530 *

* kudos to the Cap'n




. . .

excuse me for misquoting you. loonie. that's it.

http://forum.literotica.com/search.php?searchid=19025406

you've truly chastised me. now being informed that your preferred line of argument is "loonie" and not "lib loonie," i see that in fact that your many posts in which you raise that are convincing argument, are not name calling, and are not instances of rash judgment.

my humblest apologies.

 

[mercury14]

None of which invalidates the answer to her question; nor his answer.


. .

Nobody cares. The fact is that Mo honestly think default wouldn't hurt us. Therefore he's an idiot.

 

[RightField]

Conventional Wisdom Frames a Faulty Storyline to Suit Obama on Debt
Peter Wehner 07.19.2011 - 4:16 PM

In his interview with Don Imus, CBS’s Bob Schieffer said that today’s vote on The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 is a “total waste of time, the votes aren’t there to get the thing passed. Whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing, and so it’s kind of part of this little Kabuki dance that we go through.”

Schieffer represents the Conventional Wisdom about as well as anyone — and in this case, the CW seems to be that the GOP plan is a “total waste of time,” unreasonable, unserious, and inflexible, while anything President Obama demands is fair, balanced, thoughtful and Solomon-like. But exactly why is it that Republicans should be expected to embrace higher taxes when, say, Obamacare is considered untouchable?

Says who?

Obamacare, after all, is highly unpopular, extremely expensive, and deeply damaging to the national interest. But because it’s Obama’s signature domestic piece of legislation, the rest of us are supposed to view it as some kind of legislative masterpiece? Sorry, but I for one don’t accept those ground rules.

And why should the GOP be expected to cede ground on taxes when the White House, beginning a few weeks ago, began to privately pull back from structural reforms to entitlement programs? Why is it that a serious if imperfect plan (see Keith Hennessey’s fine analysis here): is deemed a “total waste of time” instead of the president’s veto threat being characterized as dismissive, intransigent, and irresponsible – especially since the president himself has yet to offer anything more than vague promises, shifting commitments, and banalities?

The answer is obvious: Most of the commentators framing this debate are acting on liberal precepts. They accept, in the main, Obama’s view of the world. And so they believe his negotiating position is fairly reasonable while the Republican approach is utterly irresponsible. What makes this whole thing somewhat amusing is people like Schieffer are so blind to their biases they don’t consider themselves anything other than objective. And so the storyline of this debate is that Obama has offered compromises and Republicans have been obstinate.

Let me offer another storyline for consideration: During an unprecedented two-year spending binge, the Republican Party has offered a concrete plan to raise the debt ceiling without raising taxes. But Barack Obama, a man of the left, has stubbornly insisted that taxes be raised — not because they are economically helpful but because higher taxes are part of the liberal catechism.

The mainstream media won’t accept this narrative, of course – but the public might be more open to it than most people–including some Republicans–might think.

 

[RightField]

Edward Morrissey
Where in the world is President Obama's debt plan?

As the nation careens toward an August 2 debt-ceiling deadline, the president fails to offer any concrete solutions
Posted on July 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM

Four times in the past three weeks, President Barack Obama has gone to the national media in order to warn about an oncoming fiscal catastrophe if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by August 2. The fourth appearance, on Tuesday, was at the daily White House press briefing, where Obama refused to take questions from reporters. Instead, Press Secretary Jay Carney had to provide the answer to the same questions that the White House correspondents have asked at all three previous press conferences — where is Obama's deficit plan?

The president has long positioned himself as the "adult in the room" on deficits, but his leadership has been singularly lacking. Over a year ago, Obama launched the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find a set of policies that would reduce deficits and stabilize the federal government's financial standing. The panel of eight Republicans and ten Democrats, chaired by former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, met throughout 2010 as spending and debt issues became the key to the midterm elections. In December, the panel presented its findings to the White House, and later to the nation on the commission website.

 

[MeeMie]

excuse me for misquoting you. loonie. that's it.

http://forum.literotica.com/search.php?searchid=19025406

you've truly chastised me. now being informed that your preferred line of argument is "loonie" and not "lib loonie," i see that in fact that your many posts in which you raise that are convincing argument, are not name calling, and are not instances of rash judgment.

my humblest apologies.

Apology accepted.

Now that you realize "loonie" is an acceptable term for radical liberals, as illustrated in the link provided.

Not much different than someone of your literary caliber ragging on a conservative by calling him a "wing nut":

when do you think you'll break out of the reactionary wing nut minor leagues and hit the majors?

 

[MeeMie]

Nobody cares. The fact is that Mo honestly think default wouldn't hurt us. Therefore he's an idiot.

Obviously YOU did when you had to point out that his degree was a BACHELOR'S ...
oh excuse me, that was your pseudo alt that said that, wasn't it?

 

[richard_daily]

Apology accepted.

Now that you realize "loonie" is an acceptable term for radical liberals, as illustrated in the link provided.

Not much different than someone of your literary caliber ragging on a conservative by calling him a "wing nut":

Hey Meemie, you're a brainless shit fuck...

and it's not because you're conservative... although it obviously doens't help.

 

[koalabear]

Hey Meemie, I'm a brainless shit fuck...

and it's not because I'm progressive... although it obviously doens't help.

Spell check can be your friend, Chihuahua Dunce.

 

[richard_daily]

Spell check can be your friend, Chihuahua Dunce.

rent-a-date can be your friend.... In fact, it's your only option.

 

[koalabear]

rent-a-date can be your friend.... In fact, it's your only option.

Look it's back, yip for us Chihuahua.

 

[richard_daily]

Look it's back, yip for us Chihuahua.

You must be so very very lonely...

 

[koalabear]

You must be so very very lonely...

Says the single guy trolling Lit for Zoloft users, Loser Chihuahua.

 

[RightField]

In case you missed it on the other thread:

Editorial: Gang Of Six Plan: A $3.1 Tril Tax Hike
Investors Business Daily
Posted 07/20/2011 06:54 PM ET

National Debt: No wonder President Obama has so heartily endorsed the "Gang of Six" deficit plan. Just like everything Obama has offered so far, it's short on details and long on tax hikes.

Soon after the "Gang of Six" — a bipartisan group of senators that has been trying for months to put together a deficit reduction plan — issued its new proposal, President Obama praised it as "a very significant step" that represents "the potential for bipartisan consensus."

What it really represents is Washington at its worst.

The "plan" Obama was praising isn't a plan at all, but a few pages of bullet points with vague concepts, promises of future cuts, and confusing, and at times contradictory, numbers.

And what details it does contain show that the gang has employed some of the most egregious budget tricks available to make the spending cuts look bigger and tax hikes smaller than they actually are.

The best example of this is the plan's tax proposal, which alternately boasts that it cuts taxes by $1.5 trillion and raises them by $1 trillion, but which more likely will result in taxes going up by more than $3 trillion.

According to the outline, the $1.5 trillion in "tax relief" is how the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan.

But what the gang conveniently leaves out is that the CBO's forecast has $4.6 trillion in tax hikes already baked into it. That's because the CBO baseline assumes all the Bush tax cuts get repealed, that every other temporary tax cut is left to expire, and that the alternative minimum tax continues to entrap millions more middle-class families each year.

Once you take that into account, the $1.5 trillion in "tax relief" turns instead into a $3.1 trillion tax increase over the next decade. (It's anyone's guess where the gang got its $1 trillion tax hike figure.)

The plan also boasts an "immediate" down payment of $500 billion in deficit reduction.

But there's nothing immediate about it at all.

These savings come mainly from a three-year cap on discretionary spending — never mind that such spending caps haven't ever worked in the past — as well as a change in the official inflation index that would cut annual Social Security benefit increases and impose a hidden tax on families by lowering the annual inflation adjustment to tax brackets.

The long-term plan doesn't appear any better.

The $2.6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years might sound like a lot, but it amounts to a mere 5% of projected federal spending. And even calling it a "cut" is a misnomer, since federal spending would continue to climb over those years, just at a very slightly slower rate.

Even the gang's $3.7 trillion deficit reduction figure is hardly anything to boast about, since the plan would still add something like $5 trillion in debt on top of the $14 trillion we've already piled up.

To be fair, there are some good items on the gang's list, including tax reform that lowers and simplifies personal income tax rates, an end to the alternative minimum tax, and cuts to the corporate tax rate. And it at least acknowledges the need for entitlement reform.

But it's far from a credible debt reduction plan.

Any plan that counts on spending cuts in the future is bogus. History has shown time and again that those cuts never materialize.

Plus, most plans take current spending levels as a given, and make "cuts" off this hugely inflated base, ignoring the fact that federal spending has rocketed upward by an astonishing 24% in just the past three years.

A credible plan would bring spending as a share of the economy back to prerecession levels. That would mean a spending cut in the neighborhood of $450 billion next year.

In addition, changes in spending and taxes should be measured against today's levels, not against some baseline that assumes government gets bigger every year. Baseline budgeting gives politicians too many chances to fudge the numbers.

And while deficits and debt are important, what matters most is the size of the federal government and economic growth.

The bigger the government, the worse growth will be, no matter whether the budget is balanced. Since 1950, federal spending has averaged 20.8% of GDP. That should be the absolute upper limit on spending going forward, although we'd prefer it to be lower still.

The fact that more and more lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are willing to sign onto the phony Gang of Six plan, and that Obama would lend it his effusive praise, is a testament to why the country is in such deep fiscal trouble.

 

[MeeMie]

Um, a BACHELOR'S degree in economics. And he never took a job in the field, meaning he has no experience in it at all. That means he's not qualified to do anything at all in the field other than maybe be a research assistant for some university.

Brooks wants the US to default. He thinks it wouldn't hurt the economy. And he uses his bachelor's degree + zero experience to dismiss the position of every single respected economist in the country. He's a moron and dangerous, worthy of a recall vote.

Nobody cares. The fact is that Mo honestly think default wouldn't hurt us. Therefore he's an idiot.

You obviously didn't watch the whole video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZXzvRvTykU

He makes a whole lot more sense than you do.... and certainly not anything like you characterize him.

"It is a serious problem not to raise the debt ceiling because certainly you'd be taking 1.5 trillion dollars out of the economy but it's a greater problem if we have a federal government insolvent in bankruptcy because we continue to mount debt on top of debt, debt on top of the American people without proposing a solution to the problem. Let's look at what everybody is talking about with these negotiations ... everything passed in November 2012 elections. Now, that ought to be a signal right there to the American people that it's not a serious solution when the goal is to put enough debt on us to distance this issue behind us to pass the election. So when we get to 2013, where are we? Well at 2013, we have another debt ceiling increase issue, just like we have now, except for that we're weakened as a country because we have 2.4 trillion dollars more converting us down and restricting our ability to cope with the problem."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Spell check can be your friend, Chihuahua Dunce.

When you can't refudiate his facts, go after his spelling, right Koalabore?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

i guess.

here is what the cato institute says about friedman in explaining "the milton friedman prize for advancing liberty."



http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/index.html

who knew reagan and thatcher were influenced by socialists?

Friedman yesterday is not the school today, and you need to note, that when I talked about their penchant for modern modeling being at the core of the school and why it is an epic fail, that I was then able to provide you with your Friedman quote about invalid assumptions; exactly what the Glow-Ball Warning crowd is guilty of...

I have many ideas that are somewhat influenced by the writings of the "socialist" Hayek. It does not mean I agree with him 100%.

You need to learn a little more economically and philosophically before you make grand, sweeping pronouncements and use Wikisourcing.

Anyone can write anything and get it entered as fact as we learned when Rush Limbaugh tried to buy a tiny piece of the Rams...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I know

lets CALL HERITAGE

(fill in the blank)


A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.


From the recession’s low point in January 2009 until April 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, the private sector created about 67,600 jobs a month. After the president signed PPACA into law, that number slowed to a meager 6,400 jobs a month — a more than 90 percent decrease or less than one-tenth the previous rate.

As the report states, correlation cannot prove causation — but the change in course is statistically measurable and testing reveals a structural break between April and May of 2010. Moreover, small-business owners have said Obamacare is a deterrent to hiring. Take Scott Womack, the owner of 12 IHOP restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, as just one example. Before Obamacare became law, he had development plans in Ohio. Now, he’s worried he won’t be able to carry out his original plans unless Obamacare is repealed. Those restaurants he planned to open would provide jobs not only for his future employees, but also for everyone involved in the construction of the restaurant buildings themselves.

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:

•Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;


•Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and


•Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.


Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.


The Heritage report recommends repeal — and comes as a welcome reminder that the health care law can’t be ignored as the president and Congress attempt to address the debt and deficit or as the nation attempts to right the still-struggling economy. Nor can it be ignored in the upcoming presidential election. Likely U.S. voters have said jobs and the economy are their No. 1 issue. That means the repeal of Obamacare should be a top priority, too.
One of the first acts of the new House at the beginning of this year was to pass a repeal bill, but, of course, that bill was blocked in the Senate and definitely didn’t receive the president’s signature. Still, repeal is possible — but it will require the election of a president who will sign a repeal bill in 2012.


That puts all the GOP presidential contenders in perspective. Even Mitt Romney, the architect of Obamneycare (Tim Pawlenty’s one pitch-perfect zing), has said he’d support repeal — and, whatever skeptics might say, he’s surely more likely to sign his name to repeal than Obama is. When the GOP does pick its candidate, voters concerned about Obamacare’s impact on jobs and the economy surely can get behind whoever the candidate is.


Otherwise, the country faces more of the same. Another Heritage report out recently showed jobs recovery will take far longer than most expect under any circumstances. According to that report, unemployment wouldn’t return to its natural rate of 5.2 percent until 2014 even if the economy immediately started adding jobs at the rate it did during the tech bubble, which was about 265,000 jobs a month. At a more realistic rate of 176,000 jobs a month, the unemployment rate wouldn’t drop to 5.2 percent until about 2018.

B-B-B-BUT b-b-b-b-busyb-b-b-body, it's going to lower our premiums, don'tcha know???

Sure, it pays for them when they're in the emergency room. When they could've been treated for a whole lot less if they'd been seeing a doctor for preventive care. And guess who pays for that expensive care through higher premiums.

AJ, this isn't rocket science. Even you can do the math. Heh.

__________________
"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."
"And it's important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like."
"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Paul Krugman

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

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Nobody cares. The fact is that Mo honestly think default wouldn't hurt us. Therefore he's an idiot.

And your degree in economics came from...

What's going to hurt us is the idea that you just raise the debt limit silly and don't worry about the size of the debt and the payments because you owe the Fed most of the money, they print it you spend it, and then you pretend to pay them off.

Let's call it "Grecian Formula."

Let us not forget, when it was Bush's turn to raise the debt limit Obama, Reid and the Democrat party were solidly in lockstep proclaiming the sheer irresponsibility of putting our debt on the shoulders of our children. Now, they don't seem to even care about Nancy's bountiful crop of grand-children...
__________________
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2006

I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

When you can't refudiate his facts, go after his spelling, right Koalabore?

Why not? it's the kind of rat-fuck tactics that you so relish in; your verbal ju-jitsu...

You do everything you can to get people to put you on ignore and then you act like it's some kind of grand victory because they aren't tough enough for debate and what you loosely call the truth...
__________________
You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proof facts?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

Throb thread:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

One year ago today, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Despite the “Wall Street” moniker, the tentacles of Dodd-Frank’s 2,315 pages and hundreds of pending rules reach across many American streets to many types of businesses, from manufacturers that use derivatives to hedge inflation and interest rates, to small stores that extend credit through layaway plans.

Ironically, about the only two firms Dodd-Frank doesn’t touch are the two most responsible for the crisis: the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In their new book, Reckless Endangerment,*New York Times financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson and market analyst Joshua Rosner write that Fannie “led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the financial crisis of 2008.” At the end of the book, the authors note with dismay, as have many conservative critics, that the law doesn’t lay a glove on Fannie and Freddie.

...

Yet Fannie and Freddie are bigger than ever, securitizing nine out of ten home mortgages and receiving unlimited guarantees from the taxpayer, thanks to the Obama administration’s Christmas Eve bailout of 2009. And one provision of Dodd-Frank has not only slowed the momentum of reforming the GSEs, but threatens to make them even bigger.

...

The rules from Dodd-Frank’s section 941 are a multi-step process. They start with a requirement that firms originating mortgage loans retain 5 percent of the risk on their books. Because this requirement would price out many small financial institutions — the American Enterprise Institute’s Peter Wallison has written that such risk “can only be carried by a securitizer that has a substantial balance sheet” — the law creates various exemptions.

"waivers"

Not to worry, say the Obama administration and Dodd-Frank’s architects. If a loan is bought by Fannie or Freddie or insured by the FHA, none of this applies. Loan originators do not have to retain 5 percent credit risk, and borrowers do not have to meet the high down-payment requirement. Borrowers would only have to comply with these agencies’ minimal guidelines — and these guidelines may be lowered even further. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the administration is considering “having taxpayer-owned mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relax their rules for loans to investors.”

The administration also closed the door on the option of creating any exemption for private mortgage insurers if they create models to reduce risk, as some have proposed. In the Obama administration’s view, the answer is government backing for mortgages, period.

And we've seen Democrat law makers demanding that banks loan to minorities again, in the name of fairness, as outlined earlier in this thread. Big central government is not just stupid, it is terminally so...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272368/dodd-frank-s-fannie-trap-john-berlau

__________________
How can you measure the value of knowing that company books are sounder than they were before? Of no more overnight bankruptcies with the employees and retirees left holding the bag? No more disruption to entire sectors of the economy?
Michael Oxley 2002
Co-Author of Sarbanes-Oxley Law

It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.
Chris Dodd
Co-Author Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act

 

[RightField]

And your degree in economics came from...

What's going to hurt us is the idea that you just raise the debt limit silly and don't worry about the size of the debt and the payments because you owe the Fed most of the money, they print it you spend it, and then you pretend to pay them off.

Let's call it "Grecian Formula."

Let us not forget, when it was Bush's turn to raise the debt limit Obama, Reid and the Democrat party were solidly in lockstep proclaiming the sheer irresponsibility of putting our debt on the shoulders of our children. Now, they don't seem to even care about Nancy's bountiful crop of grand-children...
__________________
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2006

I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

Don't forget that Obama, Reid and Pelosi were prancing all over town talking about how the need for Bush to raise the debt limit was a "Profound lack of Leadership". Look how much they've added to the deficit since Reid and Pelosi were elected...it's well over $5Trillion and probably getting close to $7T now. The worst part is that we don't have anything to show for all that extra spending, nothing. The last time we had to spend at those levels was during WW2 and at least we had some planes, ships and other similar materials to show for it. This time there's nothing, nothing except maybe 9.2% and growing unemployment.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Yes, that is what I'm alluding to. The 180° politico-economic calculus of the Obama Party continues, everything that was bad is now good and everyone knows that every household has credit cards and a mortgage (*snicker*) and debt is no big deal, so max out the fifth and sixth credit cards and take out that third mortgage, because that's what gives you a really high credit score and make creditors love you...

Now war is good as long as it's kinetic!

Free guns for Mexico!

Debt for all!

It's Party time!​