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.
O'FENDY

Tell me

What is WRONG with me calling em NIGGERS??????????????????


Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings: Most Blacks Think Obama “Has Been Treated Unfairly”…


Unlike his predecessor, Obama has been given a free pass by the lapdog MSM. Secondly, the way he’s been treated by his critics has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with racism and everything to do with incompetence and his reliance on failed Keynesian economic policies.

(RCP) — “There’s another thing the press seems to not get. A lot of African-Americans that I’ve talked to, most of them say that they ‘feel this President has been treated unfairly.’ They believe he has done every single thing in his power to try to create jobs, to try to make sure this economy moves forward. He’s gone against just fierce opposition. I think, I mean if you look at the evidence, that’s true. He’s accomplished a lot in the short time he’s been President. But the fact is, it has not been easy and will not continue to be easy,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said on “Morning Joe” this morning.
 
busybody said:
O'FENDY

Tell me

What is WRONG with me calling em NIGGERS??????????????????


Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings: Most Blacks Think Obama “Has Been Treated Unfairly”…


Unlike his predecessor, Obama has been given a free pass by the lapdog MSM. Secondly, the way he’s been treated by his critics has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with racism and everything to do with incompetence and his reliance on failed Keynesian economic policies.

(RCP) — “There’s another thing the press seems to not get. A lot of African-Americans that I’ve talked to, most of them say that they ‘feel this President has been treated unfairly.’ They believe he has done every single thing in his power to try to create jobs, to try to make sure this economy moves forward. He’s gone against just fierce opposition. I think, I mean if you look at the evidence, that’s true. He’s accomplished a lot in the short time he’s been President. But the fact is, it has not been easy and will not continue to be easy,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said on “Morning Joe” this morning.
Click to expand...

He must have created her job. :)
 
Wanted: More bite from Obama the Great Nibbler

Labor boss Richard Trumka is not one to nibble around the edges.

He declined a plate of bacon and eggs when sitting down to breakfast with a group of reporters this week because, the AFL-CIO president explained, he was concerned he might spit out a mouthful if he didn’t like a question. The stains on his Brooks Brothers necktie suggested this was more than a theoretical possibility.

So perhaps it should not be a surprise that Trumka has lost patience with the Great Nibbler in our civic life, President Obama. The president, he complained, has been doing “little nibbly things around the edge that aren’t going to make a difference and aren’t going to solve the problem” with the economy. Obama, he protested, decided to “work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle-class programs like Social Security.” And, Trumka accused, Obama has limited his proposals to “those little things that he thinks others will immediately accept.”

Without bolder action on the economy, Trumka told the gathering, organized by the Christian Science Monitor, “I think he doesn’t become a leader anymore, and he’s being a follower.”

This is harsh criticism of a Democratic president from a natural ally — and it’s backed up by labor’s plans to create its own “super PAC” rather than give money to the Democrats. The criticism is justified, as the former miner outlined it, because Obama is on his way to a failed presidency if he doesn’t change course with the rollout of his new jobs program next month.

washington post
 
busybody said:
HEY NIGGER

You asshole NIGGERS are NEVER satisfied

Time to put you back in cages

READ THIS NIGGER, FROM FELLOW NIGGER

Holder: “It’s Obvious We Have Not Reached The Promised Land”…


Obviously.

(Politico) — Attorney General Eric Holder declared the work of Martin Luther King Jr. “incomplete” on Thursday and called for a recommitment to the civil rights leader’s efforts to expand economic opportunity and justice.

“Despite all that he has achieved in recent years, the work of strengthening our nation and empowering all of our fellow citizens is incomplete,” Holder told a group of black rights leaders in Washington to honor King. “It is obvious we have not yet reached the promised land that Dr. King spoke of.”

Holder spoke at an $85-a-plate luncheon for the new memorial that is scheduled to be dedicated in King’s honor this weekend on the National Mall.

President Obama is expected to speak at the dedication on Sunday, but questions have been raised about whether the dedication may be canceled because of the hurricane making its way up the East Coast.
Click to expand...

He is right, blacks are falling back, not forward. Funny, Holder didnt mention that Obama has failed blacks on a large scale. Perhaps he is too stupid to realize that....
 
Beco said:
He is right, blacks are falling back, not forward. Funny, Holder didnt mention that Obama has failed blacks on a large scale. Perhaps he is too stupid to realize that....
Click to expand...

Ahhh. A cheerleader's lips never discriminate on the balls he sucks on, it seems...
 
In today's environment, success requires cultivating the oligarchy and political class as much as quality products and services. Small fish can go unnoticed for a while, but big ones must conform to the ruling class.

Where government rules and regulations can ruin your business, relationships with the oligarchy may be the difference between success and failure. The contrasts between Mr. Buffet and Bill Gates illustrate this issue.

Mr. Buffett was always sophisticated. His father, Howard Buffett, was a four-term congressman. Politically, Howard was a precursor to Ron Paul. Warren's politics are the opposite of his father's and Ron Paul's. He supported Obama in the last presidential campaign.

Bill Gates was the consummate geek. He knew nothing of politics and cared less. He was exclusively product-oriented and quickly became successful. His success attracted the solons of the Potomac. They saw a pot of money in Microsoft and wanted some of it.

Gates' ignorance of politics changed when the Washington gang began to strong-arm Microsoft. The Department of Justice brought anti-trust action(s). Mr. Gates was forced to pay political tribute to the rulers lest his company be under continuous assault. Much like a mom-and-pop business pays protection to the Mafia, Gates began to make political contributions.

Mr. Buffett knew that no one with wealth could safely ignore the oligarchy. He knew that government controlled the economy and could make or break a company. He cultivated the oligarchy from the beginning.

Mr. Gates showed that success can be attained without Washington, but not sustained after some level. High-profile wealth attracts the parasites. Success cannot be maintained without proper tribute.

An apolitical, successful person in today's world is a contradiction. Major successes must join the club. Many businesses consider this protection ("contributions") so important that they pay it to both parties. That way, regardless of who wins, they may be protected.

Mr. Buffett leans Democrat with mildly socialistic views. Whether these are true beliefs or merely reflect a pragmatism regarding wealth protection is moot. Mr. Gates is now properly in line. He is less vocal and quietly pays his protection money to the Washington gang.

Who Benefits?

The question of who benefits more from the unhealthy relationship between corporations and politicians is complex and unanswerable. The relationship is both a protection racket and a symbiotic one.

Corporations pay, but they also benefit via favorable rules, tax exemptions, etc. The political class benefits via increased power over society and the economy. Taxpayers and consumers are clear losers.

Warren Buffett allowed himself to be used by Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. He was a useful prop who provided Obama with economic credibility. What considerations did he receive as a result? That answer is unknown.

Paul Volcker was also used by Obama. As a retiree, Mr. Volcker may have considered it his civic duty to help. Both Volcker and Buffett were quietly and quickly discarded after Obama's election. They had served a political purpose. Obama never intended them to have economic input.

Warren Buffet has reappeared with support for higher taxes on wealthy individuals. This position is incredibly disingenuous. Buffet has always sought to minimize his personal taxes. Presumably that is how Berkshire Hathaway behaves as well. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty to shareholders.

It is not an accident or fluke of the tax code that Mr. Buffett pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. He designs his affairs to produce that outcome. Buffett admitted as much. According to the American Thinker, "he thinks he has better ideas for how to spend his dollars than the government, and would do a better job of it, too."

What About the BAC Deal?

Did Mr. Buffet make the investment in BAC based on Smithian self-interest? Or did he do it because it was in the interests of the ruling class?

Phoenix Capital Research questioned Buffet's recent BAC move from an investment perspective:

For starters, Buffett didn't even spend 24 hours studying BAC before buying it. And I can tell you point blank that no one, certainly not Buffett, has a clue about BAC's real balance sheet risk. The mere notion of due diligence or sound investing analysis here is absurd.
Click to expand...
Moreover, the fact Buffett plowed $3-5 billion (depending on how the deal was structured) with so little research tells you what this was: a political move, and nothing more.

Buffet is terribly bright and shrewd despite the "aw shucks" Omaha mien. As a businessman, he is hard-nosed, despite his avuncular performances on CNBC and at stockholder meetings. He is analytical and does not make decisions without thorough analysis.

Phoenix reached the conclusion that:

The powers that be called on THE financial figurehead for the uber-bull crowd just as they did in September 2008 and October 2008 (the time of Buffett's "Buy America" op-ed in the New York Times).
Click to expand...
To be sure, the whole thing smells of desperation. The fact Buffett didn't even buy BAC on the market but got a sweetheart deal only tells you how twisted the whole thing is (if he really thought BAC was a great deal why didn't he buy in the open market like the rest of us "high tax payers.").

It should be noted that Buffett's only other "quick" decision was an investment in Goldman Sachs back in September of 2008. The GS investment is still "underwater" after three years. What motivated this investment is also moot.

What's in It for Warren?

The BAC deal looks as if Mr. Buffett was asked to assist the oligarchy at his own expense. That is unlikely. Mr. Buffett has probably protected himself with some quid pro quo arrangement. What that might be is unknown, although that information may surface before this economic nightmare ends.

Many speculative possibilities exist. Here are four:

Mr. Buffet as a high-profile individual is himself at risk. The government is now so powerful that it could, if it chose, wipe him out. His commitment to BAC may represent nothing more than an extortion payment to prevent or defer this outcome.

Mr. Buffett is a major holder of Wells Fargo (WFC), another bank on shaky grounds. Had he increased his investment in WFC, it would not have had as dramatic an effect as stepping up for BAC. Perhaps the government promised to step in if (when) WFC requires a bailout.

Mr. Buffet may have received some implicit government guarantee that backstops his investment in BAC, ensuring the continued solvency of the company.

Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company with a large number of operating companies. Could any of these be in trouble? The recent stock performance may indicate so. Standard and Poor's recently downgraded Berkshire's insurance holdings from "stable" to "negative." Perhaps the government promised to assist Berkshire in the event of trouble.
Click to expand...
Warren Buffett is no patsy. He is shrewd, smart, and motivated. The BAC deal was made only because it was in Mr. Buffett's interest to make it. The four possibilities above provide plausible reasons.

While it may have been in Buffett's interest, it was not in the Smithian concept of self-interest, at least for the rest of us.

Did Buffett Make a Mistake?

If Buffett's commitment were made for any reason other than the first one (extortion and survival), he may have made a mistake. As stated in my initial reaction to the announcement:

Big government types always assume that government is big enough to solve (or, more properly termed, "cover up") any problem. It is not. The banking system will be the Waterloo of this concept. The banking system is insolvent. In my opinion, the amount of money necessary to solve the problem exceeds government's resources. This cancerous growth on the economy will eventually kill the economy and the government.
Click to expand...
A request to Mr. Buffett to intervene is consistent with the government's Kevorkian Economic strategy. It represents another way to "extend and pretend" the myth of an economic recovery. Government has solved none of the economic problems. The banking system is arguably in worse shape than it was in 2008. Using Mr. Buffett in this fashion is likely another desperate attempt to fool voters and investors.
There is no bailout or Federal Reserve action that can turn the economy around or save the financial system. Decades of interventions have destroyed both. An implosion is inevitable. The government is out of ammunition.

Ben Bernanke will eventually commit to some new QE3 monetary expansion but it will only make matters worse. The Ponzi scheme we know as government is bankrupt. We are entering the death throes of what was once a great and prosperous economy.
The world is changing dramatically. In Peter Drucker's terminology, we are on the verge of major discontinuities. Extrapolating the past forward no longer provides a reasonable view of what lies ahead.

Entrepreneurs like Mr. Buffet do not think in terms of Apocalypse. They are optimists by nature and that is an integral reason for their success. Betting on Apocalypse is not a good bet. It happens only once, and even if you are on the right side of the bet, there is no one left to pay.

Because it is a bad bet does not mean it won't happen. The odds have shifted dramatically in favor of Economic Apocalypse. The ingrained optimism of entrepreneurs prevent most from preparing for such an event. Mr. Buffet likely misread the "Too Big to Fail" sign, which now is flashing "Too Big to Bail."

Mr. Buffet is a captive of "The Family," an organization that once joined is impossible to leave. At this stage he has no choice but to go along, even if he disagrees with the strategy.

Hang on -- it's gonna be one helluva ride!
Click to expand...
Monty Pelerin
The American Thinker
 
Remember when old Sam Walton penned a Bush-friendly op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, then invested a few billion to rescue bankrupt Enron, then hosted a Bush fundraiser, all the time getting calls from the president on economic policy? You don't remember that? Of course not. Neither Sam Walton nor the Bushies would have dared to mount such an obvious staging of crony capitalism.

Not that they would ever have thought about doing such a thing.

Why, if old Sam had done that, the entire media-culture establishment, from The Nation to the most inconsequential Hollywood scriptwriter, would have exploded in outrage. Corporate greed! Bush and his cronies! Republicans in the pockets of Big Business! The "news analysis" pieces above the fold in The New York Times would have run for months.

But when savvy old Warren Buffett writes an op-ed backing up the president on taxing millionaires and billionaires, nobody turns a hair. When Warren Buffett helpfully shores up the capital at Bank of America with a cool $5 billion in preferred shares, helping to pull the administration's chestnuts out of the fire, it's no big deal. And hey, agreeing to host a fundraiser for the president is an offer that nobody could refuse.

Warren Buffett has his billions to protect. But the rest of us looking for shelter from Hurricane Obama keep wondering: do these people really not get it? Do they not understand how their taxes, their regulations, their subsidies, their bullyings, their ObamaCares are wrecking the economy?

The answer is: they don't. Our liberal friends don't look out at the economy and marvel how it was possible that in two hundred years the average Westerner went from a subsistence life in a squalid farm laborer's cottage to a comfortable suburban life with cars, air conditioning, and fluffy pillows. They don't ask that kind of question at all. Instead they tell each other something different.

But for us, the progressives say, the little people would still live in squalor while greedy businessmen made billions and lived like kings. We ended child labor. We created the eight-hour day. We invented the weekend. Our "common school" created universal literacy. We invented Social Security and Medicare. We ended the patriarchy. But for all that we'd be back in the economic dark ages.

Nice little social program you got there, liberals. Sure would be a shame if a hurricane hit it.

We conservatives thought that the economic question had been resolved in our favor back in the 1980s when President Reagan led the economy back from Keynesian stagflation to a 20-year boom. We were wrong. Maybe Bill Clinton got the message. But Barack Obama, deep in the liberal enclave of Hyde Park, didn't. Maybe the blue-dog Democrats did, but the "netroots" didn't. Maybe Big Business got the message and "re-engineered" their corporations, but Big Labor didn't. Maybe red-state governments got the message, but blue-state governments didn't.

In the end, they say, you can't fool Mother Nature. And so our liberal friends are staring into the abyss of an annus horribilis in 2012. For years and years they kept the mirage of their progressive faith alive in their hearts and convinced many Americans with their progressive revivalism. Now it is all collapsing around them, and they can't believe it.

But isn't good old Warren Buffett risking retaliation from the next Republican administration? Nah. Republicans don't believe in beating up on businessmen, even the ones that truckle to liberal politicians.

After all, Warren Buffett is just taking care of business. It's a fiduciary duty.
Click to expand...
Christopher Chantrill
The American Thinker
__________________
Obama, you see, is our nemesis. He is a totem, the logical manifestation of a warped media, the reification of some crazy — and arrogant — ideas about redistributive politics, the statist economy, and cultural and social life that permeated American life the last forty years. He is the president with a 1,000 faces that we have all seen at work, on TV, throughout American life, and at some point the odds determined that we had to have a rendezvous with him— perhaps a catharsis to teach us the wages of Keynesian debt, of a social policy contrary to human nature with its equality of result doctrines, of an all-powerful, all-growing unaccountable government, of the now hip ambiguity about past American protocols and history. Obama is the exaggeration of all the dubious ideas that arose since the 1960s — brought to fruition on his watch, delivered by mellifluous cadences by an untouchable persona.

In fact, a Barack Obama was long overdue. Had he not appeared out of nowhere in 2008, we would have surely had to invent him.
Victor Davis Hanson
 
REGIME UNCERTAINTY: Washington Examiner: Obama’s regulatory flood is drowning economic growth. “One doesn’t have to look far for an explanation of why the economy grew at an anemic 1 percent rate during the last quarter. Businesses large and small face more uncertainty today about the federal regulatory environment than at any point since the New Deal radically increased the role of the government in the nation’s economy.”:rolleyes:
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Maybe you're confused. Do you think that it's not possible that 1/3 of American children are overweight while 1/4 of them aren't getting enough to eat.

This isn't difficult math.. Where I come from 1/3 + 1/4 is still less than 1.
But I'm no mathematician.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Also consider that kids in poor families tend to eat very low quality food. This makes it quite possible for children to have both not enough to eat and yet have weight problems. One 1400 calorie fast food combo meal plus more junk food spread out over the rest of the day leads to both hunger and obesity.
 
Anyone know where the righties are with the daily market report? Dow up +2.25% and the NASDAQ surged +3.31%. Seems peculiar that a day of such movement should be accidentally not mentioned.... :rolleyes:
 
mercury14 said:
Anyone know where the righties are with the daily market report? Dow up +2.25% and the NASDAQ surged +3.31%. Seems peculiar that a day of such movement should be accidentally not mentioned.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is peculiar. Usually Koala is on top of these things and doesn't hesitate to notify us.

Especially when it's falling.
 
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
323
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
447
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
2K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top