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

[4est_4est_Gump]

Thick as a Brick...


Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion…,

 

[busybody..]

recently 79% of GM sales have gone to US gov............they will be BK soon after election

 

[busybody..]

AJ lives in soundbyte land. He prefers things dumbed-down as much as possible to avoid looking at reality.

As Dr. Chu done anything to raise gas prices to levels in Europe? No not even close. But AJ has a sound byte and that's ll the proof he needs.

Excellent point DOOFUS..........he has done nuthin

Lets close DOE and save billions

 

[Adre]

AJ lives in soundbyte land. He prefers things dumbed-down as much as possible to avoid looking at reality.

As Dr. Chu done anything to raise gas prices to levels in Europe? No not even close. But AJ has a sound byte and that's ll the proof he needs.

Like a good friend of mine who believes every issue can be reduced to a bumper sticker. Bumper stickers are true, dammit!

 

[Sean]

the hard Left is firmly in control and they proved it at their convention by taking God and Jerusalem out and then putting it back in by force because of the overnights when the independents and moderates learned the details of the platform thanks to the reporting of the alternative media because the bigs were not going to say a word about it...

That's your proof that the "hard left" is in control of the Dems? Seriously?

 

[Adre]

That's your proof that the "hard left" is in control of the Dems? Seriously?

It's lousy proof, but it's the only proof he's got

 

[TheOlderGuy]

The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession

The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but because of the recession. The deficit more than doubled between 2008 and 2009, as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits. The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.

 

[Busybody]

Like a good friend of mine who believes every issue can be reduced to a bumper sticker. Bumper stickers are true, dammit!

You mean like

HOPE n CHANGE

Right? DOOFUS II?

 

[Busybody]

The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession

The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but because of the recession. The deficit more than doubled between 2008 and 2009, as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits. The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.

anther BLIND TURD

 

[TheOlderGuy]

The Stimulus Cost Much Less Than Bush's Wars, Tax Cuts

Republicans frequently have blamed the $787 billion stimulus for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn't that big. In contrast, the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University. The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

The Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush

When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

Republicans May Want Large Deficits For Now

The federal budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan, and that may be just the way Republicans like it. Some Republican thinkers have proposed "starving the beast": that is, cutting taxes in order to use larger deficits to justify spending cuts later. Since Republicans ultimately want lower taxes and a smaller government, what better way is there to cut spending than to make it look urgent and necessary?

 

[Beco]

Republicans May Want Large Deficits For Now

The federal budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan, and that may be just the way Republicans like it. Some Republican thinkers have proposed "starving the beast": that is, cutting taxes in order to use larger deficits to justify spending cuts later. Since Republicans ultimately want lower taxes and a smaller government, what better way is there to cut spending than to make it look urgent and necessary?

whoever wrote this is an idiot.....

 

[Busybody]

whoever wrote this is an idiot.....

no shit, Sherlock

 

[Busybody]

Interesting! can it be that the FEMINIST movement has so pissed off men they say FUCK

YOU,


CUNTS......You work your ass off....nothing we do is appreciated nd you will take our money anyway when you divorce us


Why is the participation rate of men in the workforce so low?

September 7, 2012 - 9:29 am - by Helen Smith





Daily Mail: “The 69.9 per cent labor force participation rate for men is at lowest level ever recorded.”

This statistic that I saw on Drudge got me thinking about something I read in Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Murray started looking at male employment in two towns–Fishtown and Belmont– prior to the recession and had this to say on page 181 of his book:


To sum up: There is no evidence that men without jobs in the 2000s before the 2008 recession hit were trying hard to find work but failing. It was undoubtedly true of some, but not true of the average jobless man. The simpler explanation is that white males of the 2000s were less industrious than they had been twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago, and that the decay in industriousness occurred overwhelmingly in Fishtown.





Murray points out that prime-age men are much more than three times as likely to be out of the labor force if they are unmarried. He also found that these men were spending much more of their time on leisure activities.

So, as I ponder this data, I wonder if men are going Galt, staying home and collecting unemployment or no longer need jobs because they don’t get married as often? Or is it that they just can’t get a job because the industries they work in are no longer hiring? Could the Obama administration also be part of the problem, focusing only on women’s jobs and not on those of men? Or a combination of these. What do you think?

 

[Busybody]

CONN CARROLL: The Obama Recovery Is Rapidly Descending Into The Obama Recession.



While U.S. employers did create 96,000 jobs last month, 368,000 Americans lost hope of finding a job and stopped looking for work entirely. Or as Paul Ryan said on CNBC, “For every net job created, nearly four people left the workforce.” Obama has now presided over a record 43 months of unemployment above 8 percent. . . .

In fact, as the chart below shows, the U.S. economy actually lost jobs according to the survey the Labor Department uses to calculate the unemployment rate. And not for the first time. The U.S. workforce has declined for each of the last two months as has the number of employed Americans. The Obama recovery is rapidly descending into the Obama recession.

I’m not sure there ever really was a recovery.

UPDATE: Whistling Past The Graveyard At The Democratic National Convention.“The current state of the Democratic Party is both the natural consequence of a longtime trend and the reflection of a president who is tragically unequipped to do his job.”

 

[Busybody]

TWICE as many peeps went on WELFARE/FOOD STAMPS last month


Than found jobs

DOOFUS and DOOFUS II say

What does that have to do with Obama?

 

[Busybody]

DOOFUS and DOOFUS II say what the fuck does this have to do with FUK?

Reality vs. Obama: Is It Really a Revenue Problem?
Submitted by CrownThomas on 09/08/2012 21:18 -0400




Since nobody seems to want to actually look into anything this President says or does, let's take a quick looksie into his handling of the Treasury's checkbook.

Last week President Obama accepted his nomination to run for a second term. In his speech, the comedian-in-chief had this fantastic line:

"All they had to offer was the same prescriptions they've had for the last thirty years. Have a surplus, try a tax cut. Deficit too high, try another. Feel a cold comin' on, take two tax cuts roll back some regulations and call us in the morning."

Hilarious. However, the line should have read:

"Bring in more individual income taxes per year than anyone over the past thirty years? Double down on government spending. Still creating record deficits? Make jokes about tax cuts and pretend you're not actually spending the country into bankruptcy"

Over the past thirty plus years (ironically since Nixon ended the gold standard), the U.S. has seen government spending explode, while revenue tried to keep pace. The key takeaway from the chart below (other than the fact that Keynesians have ruined the finances of the country):

- In 8 years, George W. Bush spent ~$2 Trillion more than he took in.

- In Obama's first 3 years, he has spent ~$4 Trillion more than he has taken in.

So in other words, it's taken 3 years for Obama to double GW's total deficit.

One other tidbit, this does not include any fiscal 2012 data...








By the way, over the last thirty years President Obama has taken in the most individual income tax revenue per year than any other president -- the spending, well you can see for yourself.





In summary, the problem the U.S. faces is not a revenue problem, it's simply a spending problem.



But hey, sometimes it's better to make jokes about completely ruining the country than to actually stop spending.

 

[Adre]

I can't see what he's saying but it looks like BurnaLeaf is on a real tear.

 

[Busybody]

STFU, DOOFUS II

 

[RobDownSouth]

teh Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush

When George W. Bush took office, teh federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.

Silly man! Every good conservative knows that teh Deficit began in January 2009!

 

[fuckwaffle]

I can't see what he's saying but it looks like BurnaLeaf is on a real tear.

He says you're stupid.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

whoever wrote this is an idiot.....

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

But the more you look at facts the harder it is to swallow the Republican's economic talking points.

 

[fuckwaffle]

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

But the more you look at facts the harder it is to swallow the Republican's economic talking points.

And the more you swallow what passes for facts from the Dems the harder they will fuck you in the ass.

 

[Busybody]

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

But the more you look at facts the harder it is to swallow the Republican's economic talking points.

STFU, and go back to HOWEIRD DUMB..............