LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
PS, we all note your change of direction.

Word went out in DNC memos to stop talking up the economy, to ignore it (we wonder why that would be) and KILL ROMNEY, and guess what, that's exactly what you have done; decided to stop talking up all those positive indicators and go after Romney on every specious, but serious charge the DNC could invent...
 
U_D, many solid economists now say we are in recessionary territory...


Comment? or are we too busy following marching orders too?


After all, it's not like Romney didn't turn around the Olympics or anything...
 
I love the smell of political panic in the morning...


The Obama team didn't think they would have to pull out these dirty tricks until after Labor Day, but they just can't seem to get any real separation from Governor Romney.

;) ;)
 
Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car
By Seton Motley | July 17, 2012 | 09:54


The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama - allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every turn covering up - rather than covering - the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the charging cable? All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out.

In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt sales increase.

GM's Volt Sales Up in June

Surprising June Sales for Volt

Chevy Volt Leads US Plug-In Car Sales

Chevy Volt Sales Increases

Volt Records Second-Best Sales Month

The Press has for the most part failed to mention how pathetic this “second-best sales month” actually is. And even when one Dinosaur does, the unwarranted enthusiasm is palpable.

GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011

Wow. Huge number.

The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective.

The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable 400-lb. electric battery. Which makes it $17,000, rather than the Volt’s $41,000.

Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes - more than ten times the number of Volts. And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648.

But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up.

And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price:

According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped.

Get that? GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt.

So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars advertising it, does it not? No ideological or campaign intent there, eh President Obama?

Look, I get it, it’s fun. I just spent $1 million - of your money - advertising free air. On which my profit margin is just as good as GM’s is on the Volt.

Only my ads didn’t have a song, or a dance. We just aren’t as cool as the Volt.

I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to inspire the production of cars before it even existed.

I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to offer the exact same technology as a car from 1991. And the exact same electric battery range as a car from 1897.

We’re talking retro-grade cool.

But wait - there’s so much more.

(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” - as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000 per Volt sold.

And that excruciating pain is ongoing. Again, a Volt sold makes GM no money - but costs We the Taxpayers a $7,500 bribe - I mean “incentive.” Oh - and President Obama wants to jack that bribe to $10,000 per.

I guess it’s good news after all that Volt sales remain so anemic.

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt - and keep the $7,500 bribe cash. How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

Keep all of this outrageousness in mind when next the Jurassic Press joins with the Obama Administration in celebrating the Chevy Volt.

But it (allegedly) helps President Obama get reelected. And nothing would make the Press happier - and for that there’s (almost?) nothing they won’t do.
Click to expand...



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-...-costs-taxpayers-hundreds-thous#ixzz20yJWYzHl
 
So, if Team Obama bomb out, what will you do? How will you fill your hours on Lit?
Who will become the focus of your bitch and moan chorus?
 
fair_warning said:
So, if Team Obama bomb out, what will you do? How will you fill your hours on Lit?
Who will become the focus of your bitch and moan chorus?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

That's when it gets really fun. Then it's a repeat of the Bush years and these guys will do another 180!

When Obama was elected their views on the economy, like spending and deficits turned on a dime, same for lobbyists, secrecy, and executive orders not to mention spending ceilings and endless war...

I'll get to watch them try and side with me!

Byron In Exile said:
I bitched about Bush for six years, and through all that time the Republicans on this board never trashed me the way the Democrats do now that "their guy" is "in charge."

They were angry when Bush was President, but they seem even more angry now that Obama is President.

Maybe it's just disappointment.
Click to expand...

Maybe, it's who they really are and have been all along.
A_J, the Wiser

~giggle~
 
Eine Kleine Merc Musik

Obama: The Bane of Capital
By Dov Fischer
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital? How about Obama -- the Bane of Capital?

With all the talk of Bain Capital, let us consider the bane of capital. Speaking at a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia, President Barack Obama set business owners straight: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." Powerful stuff. "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. ... If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

This from a person who told his supporters that his nomination marked the moment when the waters of the great oceans would recede and when the earth's temperature would cool. So now one wonders whether Obama really did win that election. He didn't build the voting machines. He didn't create the cars that brought voters to polling places. He didn't create the pens that wrote the checks for his campaign. Someone else did that. So he didn't win that election. Someone else did.

The thing is, he does not know how to create a productive job that adds value because he never built a business. He never filed the corporate-compliance documents, was never posed with obligations to leap through endless hoops of government red tape to sell a product. He does not know. He never built a factory, never went to a fabricator to have manufacturing machines built to specifications. The only fabrication he knows is falsifying his life story -- one cannot call such novels a "biography" or an "autobiography," but only a "life story." So he can fabricate facts in his life story. He can fabricate claims against Romney that fly against the truth. But he does not know how to fabricate a machine. Someone else made that happen.

He does not understand what it means to research a product for years, risking all of one's life savings and borrowing and seeking investment capital, hoping for that breakthrough that might fill a need. He does not know what it is to sell a consumer product and, one day, have an extraordinary insight that, by tweaking the product just a bit, it can open doors to satisfy millions of needs. He does not understand because he didn't build that. Someone else made that happen.

...

What did Obama create? A biography. A story about being a constitutional scholar. My uncle had to fight with John Lindsay's municipal overregulation in New York City, in the days before Office Depot and Toys R Us, to keep his small business afloat -- a business that employed him, my Dad, a guy nicknamed "Philly," and another named "Candy" -- and support four distinctly different families by being the wholesaler selling stationery supplies and board games to stationery stores and toy stores in New York City's five boroughs. Yes, others made the paper, and Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley made the games. But Uncle Iz had to risk his capital, gamble on the need for such an operation, market and build his business, and attract customers, and he regularly had to lose sleep over the possibility that the city would take it all away from him one day. And he did not worry in vain. One day, John Lindsay took away an entire street block of such small businesses to build a municipal parking lot.

Obama is the bane of capital, a political streetcar who has survived by relying on the kindness of strangers. While he wants to see Romney's taxes, I want to see how he got into Occidental College. I know how I got into Columbia University. I scored a 1450 out of 1600 on my SATs and was a straight-A student through high school, where I also was Student Body president. It would be fun to know how Obama got into Columbia. I would be willing to show my grades and SATs if he would. It would be fun to know how he paid his way through Columbia. I would be willing to publish the loans I took and the scholarships I was awarded if he would.

And then law school. I took LSATs that landed me in the highest three percent of the country's law school applicants when I made UCLA Law School. I would show him my LSAT scores if he would show his. Same for the admissions exams that got him into Harvard Law. At UCLA Law School, I had to write a killer of a law review Comment (i.e., extensive scholarly article) in order to be named chief articles editor of Law Review. It has been cited in at least seven federal legal opinions. I would be delighted to show him my Comment if he would show me the Comment or scholarly paper he wrote to become president of the Harvard Law Review. Actually, mine on FIRREA can be Googled -- written under my secular name, David -- and it can be found in legal databases like Westlaw and Lexis. Obama? Can't find a thing he authored on his own.

A person who fabricates not machines, but life stories cannot understand how much one risks when he creates a company, builds a small business, and hires workers to produce something useful for the world instead of merely "stimulating" an economy by blowing millions to pay for people to take a government job for a year or two, create new regulations, and move a pieces of paper to another office, until they are terminated because there are no resources generated by their labor to keep them at the job.

Obama is the bane of capital. He does not understand it. He does not understand the risk of capital, the possibility of capital, the magic of how America opened possibilities never before imaginable because it liberated capital for private enterprise.

And it would be a delight to see how he got into those schools.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obama_the_bane_of_capital.html
 
In a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday, Murray, the second-ranking Democrat on the do-nothing Senate Budget Committee and Chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, put her foot on the accelerator of the Democrats' doomed joy-ride, saying that her intent is to prevent any tax rate policy deal in Congress that does not include raising taxes on the "wealthy." By wealthy, Thelma and Louise mean individuals making over $200,000 per year or families earning over $250,000, a standard that Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and a handful of electorally vulnerable Senate Democrats dislike, but one they will go along with when the time comes to cast a vote.

Raising taxes on the two percent of Americans who already pay about half of all federal income taxes is what strikes Democrats as "balanced": "f we can't get a good deal -- a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share -- then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus," said Thelma.

It takes a particular sort of mind to argue that not raising taxes on Mrs. Smith represents throwing Mr. Jones under the bus. It takes a particular sort of mind to claim that the "wealthy" do not pay their "fair share" when the top one percent of earners pay more in federal income taxes than do the bottom 90 percent. Read that again; it is not a typo.

And it takes a charlatan to imply to voters that this tax hike will have a significant impact on the federal debt and deficit: Even the White House's own notoriously optimistic assumptions anticipate that the additional revenue due to raising the top two marginal income rates will represent less than seven percent of the coming decade's cumulative deficits.

It is unlikely to do even that.

As the Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell puts it, "Behind closed doors, Obama's people must realize that their class-warfare proposal won't generate as much revenue as projected. Surely they are familiar with the evidence from the 1980s, and they must know that upper-income people have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income." Perhaps Dan, despite being as cynical about politicians of both parties as anybody I know, nevertheless gives Democrats too much credit: Part of the left's "fatal conceit" is their deep belief that history is irrelevant against the force of their wills, their wisdom, and their claims of good intentions.
Click to expand...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/thelma-and-louise-economics
 
At odds with the Clinton Economy...

One of the greatest bipartisan policy successes of recent decades was the 1996 welfare reform of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, enacted into law by the then Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The 1996 AFDC reforms returned the share of federal spending on the program to each state in the form of a "block grant" to be used in a new welfare program redesigned by the state based on mandatory work for the able bodied. Federal funding for AFDC previously was based on a matching formula, with the federal government giving more to each state the more it spent on the program, effectively paying the states to spend more on welfare. The key to the 1996 reforms was that the new block grants to each state were finite, not matching, so the federal funding did not vary with the amount the state spent. If a state's new program cost more, the state had to pay the extra costs itself. If the program cost less, the state could keep the savings.

With those reversed incentives for the state bureaucrats running the program, the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the predictions of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively. The reformed program was renamed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

As a result, in real dollars total federal and state spending on TANF by 2006 was down 31% from AFDC spending in 1995, and down by more than half of what it would have been under prior trends. At the same time, because of the resulting increased work by former welfare dependents, the incomes of the families formerly on the program rose by 25%, and poverty among those families plummeted. In his book on the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare (2006), Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reported, "y 2000 the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been."

This enormously successful reform grew directly out of the thinking of President Reagan and his chief welfare policy advisor, the late Robert Carleson, who developed Reagan's welfare policies going back to California. (I worked directly for Carleson in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development.)

An Impeachable Offense

But President Obama and his Marxist minions think it is oppressive to require the poor to work for welfare, as they firmly believe the poor have an unconditional right to live off of your work somehow. Consequently, last week on July 12 Obama's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a so-called regulatory guidance announcing that the Department will favorably entertain requests from states for waivers from the work requirements on the TANF block grants.

The Obama administration has no legal authority to issue any such waivers from the work requirements adopted in the 1996 reforms. It cites Section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315), which states that "the Secretary [of HHS] may waive compliance with any of the requirements" of specified parts of various laws. But as the Heritage Foundation notes, "Any provision of law that can be waived under Section 1115 must be listed in Section 1115 itself," to be one of the specified parts of various laws eligible for waiver.
Click to expand...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/obama-retracts-clinton-welfare
 
You can say that those Romney tax cuts will kill the economy, but the planned Obama tax increases make them pale, weak, and laughable in the timidity of their scope:

ON JANUARY 1, 2013, JUST 56 DAYS after the November 6 presidential election, a series of temporary tax cuts will lapse, and rates will automatically and immediately “snap back” to where they once were, in some cases more than a decade ago. These increases will add $500 billion to the nation’s tax burden in 2013, and, over the next decade, will take $5 trillion out of the economy and ship it to Washington.

At the same time, several of the new taxes passed to pay for Obamacare will conveniently begin to bite. Someone, for some reason, believed it wise to delay those taxes’ implementation until someone was safely re-elected. Of the 20 new taxes or tax hikes in Obamacare, four will take effect January 1, including a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income (on top of existing capital gains and dividend taxes) and a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, such as wheelchairs, pacemakers, and children’s braces. (If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare in its entirety, this would pare back the tax hit by $23 billion in 2013 alone.)

THE UNSETTLING LEGISLATION includes a litany of lower tax rates and higher credits that were enacted in separate packages.
The 2001 “Bush” tax cuts reduced marginal tax brackets from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent; they also doubled the per-child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.

Not only are the old rates set to return, but a family’s taxes will go up $500 for every child it has under 18.
The 2003 “Bush” tax cuts reduced rates on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent and on dividends from 35 percent to 15 percent.

When the old rates snap back and the Obamacare investment tax of 3.8 percent is added, the top capital gains rate increases to 23.8 percent, and the rate on dividends spikes to 43.4 percent.

Thus the tax on dividends will nearly triple, from 15 percent to almost 45 percent. Some argue this will drop the value of dividend-heavy stocks by one-third. Perhaps the lost value will be less than that, but the direction is emphatically down. Big time.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch limits the number of families the AMT hits to “only the rich.” The AMT was enacted in 1969 to punish 155 wealthy Americans who were paying little or no taxes—probably because they were invested in taxfree municipal bonds. The “patch” was enacted in 2001 and has been renewed every two years since. Today, 4 million families pay the AMT. Next year, without the patch, it will apply to 31 million families and rake in $56 billion. Over the next decade, the AMT will confiscate $1.7 trillion from a pool of families growing to 55 million—those too rich for Obama’s taste.

The death tax also holds a surprise for any Americans foolish enough to die a minute after midnight on New Year’s Eve. The present death tax, which confiscates 35 percent of lifetime earnings above $5 million, will become one that takes 55 percent above $1 million.

In total, the hikes lying in wait will permanently increase the tax burden (in a non-recession economy) from 18.5 percent of GDP, the last two decades’ average, to 21 percent. Thus Obama’s increase in spending from 21 percent of GDP, the last two decades’ average, to his “new normal” of 23 percent will be locked in and “paid for.”

HOW DID WE GET SUCH A COLLECTION of temporary tax rates, and why are these cuts termlimited? Two big reasons.
Click to expand...
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/waiting-for-taxmageddon
 
U_D Says Inflation? INflation? What Inflation???

So you think you’ve been paying more for groceries because your food bill is too high?
You’re right. Barack Obama is consuming fine dining while you’re putting another helping of macaroni on your plate. In 2011, with Obama’s inflation beginning to hit, prices skyrocketed for staples that you consume, according to the government:
Beef: +10.2%
Pork: +8.5%
Fish: +7.1%
Eggs: +9.2%
Dairy: +6.8%
Oils and Fats: +9.3%
Thanks to those kinds of prices, more and more people are opting to stay home for dinner – restaurants are simply too expensive. The gap between how much Americans eat out and how much they eat at home is the biggest since the mid-1970’s oil crisis.
But it isn’t working. Because unemployment is high, prices for groceries are high, and the costs that retailers didn’t pass on to their consumers in 2011 in an attempt to keep businesses afloat are being introduced now, consumers are paying the price.
The good news: Michelle has been cautioning us to eat less. Now she’ll get her wish.
Click to expand...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/17/Obama-economy-food-prices-skyrocketed-2011
 
Timmy knew what was going on in the housing bubble long before we, or Zandi found out about it...

:(

Most of the coverage of Bernanke's testimony in front of the Senate Banking Committee today has been focused on his gloomy economic outlook. That was interesting, to be sure, but it really was just further confirmation about what we already know about the economy. The most unsettling part of his testimony to me was when he acknowledged that the Fed had known about the LIBOR bank scandal four years ago. For four years he knew that banks were manipulating one of the most important financial measurements and yet Bernanke did nothing.

From The Associated Press:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke learned from news reports four years ago that banks were manipulating a key British interest rate. But Bernanke said Tuesday that the Fed was powerless to do anything beyond contacting British authorities.
Click to expand...
LIBOR, the London interbank offering rate, is the rate banks charge each other to lend money. It is the benchmark for virtually every other financial instrument, from derivatives to mortgages. My colleague Wynton Hall reported that LIBOR is used to set $800 trillion in financial instruments. Think of it as a kind of financial pi.

The Economist calls it the biggest banking scandal in history:

If attempts to manipulate LIBOR were successful—and the regulators think that Barclays did manage it, on occasion—then this would be the biggest securities fraud in history, affecting investors and borrowers around the world. That opens the door to litigation not just by the direct customers of implicated banks, but by anyone with a financial interest in LIBOR.
Click to expand...
If banks were manipulating LIBOR, as seems clear, it would have ripple effects throughout the entire financial sector. It's almost impossible to calculate the overall costs to the market. It's also impossible to calculate the irresponsibility of doing almost nothing about the manipulation.

Bernanke said that current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner briefed some US officials about the manipulation. He also said that the Fed notified the British banking authorities of the scandal, but that they didn't have the authority to do anything else. Invoking the "Joe Paterno defense", Bernanke defended his actions:

"I think the responsibility of the New York Fed was to make sure the appropriate authorities had the information, which is what they did," he said.
Click to expand...
You know who could have really used the information? Consumers. Anyone with any kind of credit product is affected by manipulations of LIBOR. I understand that Bernanke didn't have express authority to "do something" about the manipulation, as in statutory or regulatory authority. But, you know what he did have the authority to do? Call a press conference. Public outcry that bankers were gaming the financial system provides the ultimate authority to remedy the scandal.
Click to expand...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/17/bernanke-knew-about-libor-scandal-four-years-ago
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obama_the_bane_of_capital.html
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/thelma-and-louise-economics
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
At odds with the Clinton Economy...
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/obama-retracts-clinton-welfare
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
You can say that those Romney tax cuts will kill the economy, but the planned Obama tax increases make them pale, weak, and laughable in the timidity of their scope:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/waiting-for-taxmageddon
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
U_D Says Inflation? INflation? What Inflation???
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/17/Obama-economy-food-prices-skyrocketed-2011
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
Timmy knew what was going on in the houusing bubble long before we, or Zandi found out about it..
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/17/bernanke-knew-about-libor-scandal-four-years-ago
Click to expand...

4est_4est_Gump said:
The "RIGHT" to National Bankruptcy...
http://mises.org/daily/6110/The-Right-to-National-Bankruptcy
Click to expand...

Anything noteworthy happenin' in teh world today?

Nope, 7 straight cut-and-pastes from AJ...all of his "approved sources" are quoted... Breitbart, Mises, Spectator, Thinker, etc.

It's a derp thing. :rolleyes:
 
Now that Obama has shifted focus from the economy to Mitt's "economy" are people happy with 8.3...8.5% unemployment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
320
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
444
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top