Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Financial => Topic started by: JustKari on November 13, 2012, 10:25:39 AM

Title: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: JustKari on November 13, 2012, 10:25:39 AM
Jay Carney is speaking right now and referring to the "supposed fiscal cliff".  Isn't the fiscal cliff a known entity?  Taxes breaks will expire, new taxes are set to raise, this will happen, right?   Is this plausible to deny?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on November 13, 2012, 12:29:43 PM
The business community doesn't seem to think it's a fable.

Wealthy Dump Assets Amid Worries About Going Over 'Cliff'

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49792979 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49792979)
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: aniso on November 13, 2012, 05:27:18 PM
I wonder if he Thinks all those layoffs occurring within a day were "supposed layoffs due to obamacare"
Title: inconceivable
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:31:55 AM
mmmm, if "300 billion in tax increases (or tax cut expiration) and 300 billion in spending cuts" is a fiscal cliff in a growing economy, what is a 1.7 trillion dollar (or 1.4 trillion if you want) spending cut in an economy collapsing at -8.9% rate?

fiscal abyss?
fiscal cliffs of insanity?

can you believe that Q4 2008 GDP was -8.9 %, job losses were 2.1 million for Nov 08 to Jan 09 and starting  1/20/2009, one party was screaming to balance the budget by cutting spending.  Lucky for America, republicans were only pandering to their base. 
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 12:55:07 PM
They call it a "supposed" fiscal cliff, because according to king Obama, if we eliminate the debt ceiling and give him unlimited spending power, there will be no more cliff, and everybody will live happily ever after.
Title: Re: inconceivable
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 01:00:09 PM
mmmm, if "300 billion in tax increases (or tax cut expiration) and 300 billion in spending cuts" is a fiscal cliff in a growing economy, what is a 1.7 trillion dollar (or 1.4 trillion if you want) spending cut in an economy collapsing at -8.9% rate?

fiscal abyss?
fiscal cliffs of insanity?

can you believe that Q4 2008 GDP was -8.9 %, job losses were 2.1 million for Nov 08 to Jan 09 and starting  1/20/2009, one party was screaming to balance the budget by cutting spending.  Lucky for America, republicans were only pandering to their base.

Despite the fact that all you want to do is argue, I'll give you that one.

Bush should have raised taxes somewhere, along with government cuts, to pay for the war. We should have been paying for it from day 1.
Title: Re: inconceivable
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:03:06 PM
mmmm, if "300 billion in tax increases (or tax cut expiration) and 300 billion in spending cuts" is a fiscal cliff in a growing economy, what is a 1.7 trillion dollar (or 1.4 trillion if you want) spending cut in an economy collapsing at -8.9% rate?

fiscal abyss?
fiscal cliffs of insanity?

can you believe that Q4 2008 GDP was -8.9 %, job losses were 2.1 million for Nov 08 to Jan 09 and starting  1/20/2009, one party was screaming to balance the budget by cutting spending.  Lucky for America, republicans were only pandering to their base.
Yet somehow killing industry is going to grow the economy?
Title: you and solar have been a big help
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 01:21:39 PM
"Bush should have raised taxes somewhere, along with government cuts, to pay for the war"

but he didnt so why even bother posting that. kram, what I did was compare a previous republican narrative (cut 1.4 trillion in spending to balance the budget in the depths of the worst recession since the depression) to the thread topic of 'fiscal cliff'.  how convenient you are not addressing my point.   

"Despite the fact that all you want to do is argue, I'll give you that one"

give me one what?  I like to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance of the republicans and their base.   Now if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion in cuts is a fiscal cliff, what is "cut 1.4 trillion in spending to balance the budget in the depths of the worst recession since the depression"? 

should I wait up?

Title: Re: you and solar have been a big help
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
"Bush should have raised taxes somewhere, along with government cuts, to pay for the war"

but he didnt so why even bother posting that. kram, what I did was compare a previous republican narrative (cut 1.4 trillion in spending to balance the budget in the depths of the worst recession since the depression) to the thread topic of 'fiscal cliff'.  how convenient you are not addressing my point.   

"Despite the fact that all you want to do is argue, I'll give you that one"

give me one what?  I like to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance of the republicans and their base.   Now if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion in cuts is a fiscal cliff, what is "cut 1.4 trillion in spending to balance the budget in the depths of the worst recession since the depression"? 

should I wait up?
Yet spent nearly a trillion on a failed green energy industry while killing the coal industry.
So tell me again, how he is cutting spending?
Title: I bet he still cant follow it
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 02:38:44 PM
"Yet spent nearly a trillion on a failed green energy industry while killing the coal industry.
So tell me again, how he is cutting spending?"

er uh solar, you are not really following the point.   But dont worry, I deal with republicans all the time. What you have to do is read what I post very slowly. You have an emotional need to believe what I post is not true so your brain will trick you. 

Lets review
Thread topic was about the fiscal cliff. 
the fiscal cliff is the commonly held belief by literally every economist and politcian that that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts could push the economy into recession.  (see Britain's triple dip recession as proof)
So I reminded the board that on Jan 20, 2009, republicans became concerned about deficits and started screaming to cut spending to balance the budget.

So using the Budget Deficit of 1.4 trillion, (treas dept says 1.9 trillion), what would a 1.4 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP. 

If you want, we could use the projected budget deficit of 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over.  what would a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP. 
Title: Re: I bet he still cant follow it
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 05:53:25 PM
"Yet spent nearly a trillion on a failed green energy industry while killing the coal industry.
So tell me again, how he is cutting spending?"

er uh solar, you are not really following the point.   But dont worry, I deal with republicans all the time. What you have to do is read what I post very slowly. You have an emotional need to believe what I post is not true so your brain will trick you. 

Lets review
Thread topic was about the fiscal cliff. 
the fiscal cliff is the commonly held belief by literally every economist and politcian that that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts could push the economy into recession.  (see Britain's triple dip recession as proof)
So I reminded the board that on Jan 20, 2009, republicans became concerned about deficits and started screaming to cut spending to balance the budget.

So using the Budget Deficit of 1.4 trillion, (treas dept says 1.9 trillion), what would a 1.4 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP. 

If you want, we could use the projected budget deficit of 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over.  what would a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP.
You live in La La land, unless we cut spending, there is no such thing as balancing the budget.
What part of wasting nearly a trillion on a failed energy policy and killing the coal industry, do you not understand?

If you don't have any money in your account, you don't write checks, it's that simple and you definitely don't close your most productive business.

And for you information, I'm not a damned Pub! I'm a Conservative.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: The Boo Man... on January 27, 2013, 06:19:49 PM
Verne doesn't understand that every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken of of the private sector.
Title: the "supposed" brave little pubs won't answer
Post by: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:34:01 AM
Verne doesn't understand that every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken of of the private sector.

They call it a "supposed" fiscal cliff, because according to king Obama, if we eliminate the debt ceiling and give him unlimited spending power, there will be no more cliff, and everybody will live happily ever after.

ah the silly little pubs with their silly litte deflections.  I asked a straightforward question. If you cant answer why bother posting? Ah but the silly little pubs cant help themselves, they have to say something anything to the clever Vern. He thinks he so smart.     

again for the brave little pubs, what would a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP?   
Title: Re: the "supposed" brave little pubs won't answer
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 08:11:08 AM
ah the silly little pubs with their silly litte deflections.  I asked a straightforward question. If you cant answer why bother posting? Ah but the silly little pubs cant help themselves, they have to say something anything to the clever Vern. He thinks he so smart.     

again for the brave little pubs, what would a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut do to an economy with -8.9 % GDP?
Get over yourself and your need to justify Hussein taking us over the edge.
You do not direct this thread let alone forum, nor do you dictate who answers what questions.
However, I asked you a question and you completely ignored it, not wise.

So let me ask, do you think Husein is using good policy to print money, borrow money endlessly all the while running up the tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?

It really is a simple question, no catch, no twist of words, just a straight forward question.
Title: Vern Lost In LaLa Land
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 09:07:45 AM
"Yet spent nearly a trillion on a failed green energy industry while killing the coal industry.
So tell me again, how he is cutting spending?"

Case in point, proof your master is killing the producers of income and the jobs that go along with it.

Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced yesterday that it was cancelling the project.

“Chase Power … has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,” Chase CEO Dave Freysinger told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Freysinger made it very clear who was responsible for the projects death. “The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-epa-kills-power-plant-3900-jobs-in-texas/article/2519575#.UQavKIYsssz (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-epa-kills-power-plant-3900-jobs-in-texas/article/2519575#.UQavKIYsssz)
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on January 28, 2013, 02:14:43 PM
er uh solar, you've yet to get the point.  kram got it (I didnt realize it the first time I read it).   The thread is about the fiscal cliff. Its not about energy, coal or green initiatives.

anyhoo, I  asked about the 'fiscal cliff of insanity' that republicans screamed we needed in 2009.  Republicans knew "cutting spending" was not an option in that economy.  That type of spending cut would almost guarantee a depression.  what does that say about them? The only two conclusions are 1 they are dangerously stupid or 2 they assumed their base was stupid.  Why would anybody support such ignorance or deceit?
 
I have to assume others also get the point and that explains the lack of posts in response to my posts. 
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: JustKari on January 28, 2013, 02:34:34 PM
er uh solar, you've yet to get the point.  kram got it (I didnt realize it the first time I read it).   The thread is about the fiscal cliff. Its not about energy, coal or green initiatives.

anyhoo, I  asked about the 'fiscal cliff of insanity' that republicans screamed we needed in 2009.  Republicans knew "cutting spending" was not an option in that economy.  That type of spending cut would almost guarantee a depression.  what does that say about them? The only two conclusions are 1 they are dangerously stupid or 2 they assumed their base was stupid.  Why would anybody support such ignorance or deceit?
 
I have to assume others also get the point and that explains the lack of posts in response to my posts.

In 2009 pubs, headed by Paul Ryan, proposed freezing any raise in spending for five years.  A moot point however since Demonrats were in control of both house and senate.  They didn't pass that, or any budget since.  You have no point, you are not getting responses because you are a Bush banger, and you are boring beyond belief.  Your talking points and distortions are nothing new here.  Boring, boring, boring.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 03:02:34 PM
er uh solar, you've yet to get the point.  kram got it (I didnt realize it the first time I read it).   The thread is about the fiscal cliff. Its not about energy, coal or green initiatives.

anyhoo, I  asked about the 'fiscal cliff of insanity' that republicans screamed we needed in 2009.  Republicans knew "cutting spending" was not an option in that economy.  That type of spending cut would almost guarantee a depression.  what does that say about them? The only two conclusions are 1 they are dangerously stupid or 2 they assumed their base was stupid.  Why would anybody support such ignorance or deceit?
 
I have to assume others also get the point and that explains the lack of posts in response to my posts.
You are looking like a fool, you are blaming the tire for losing air, instead of the nail creating the puncture.
I really don't give a damn about your warped myopic view on the issue, the problem is OVERSPENDING, can you get that through your tiny little brain for a second?

One other point, sentences start with Capital letters.

Now why does it even matter what either party does, until they cut spending?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
In 2009 pubs, headed by Paul Ryan, proposed freezing any raise in spending for five years.  A moot point however since Demonrats were in control of both house and senate.  They didn't pass that, or any budget since.  You have no point, you are not getting responses because you are a Bush banger, and you are boring beyond belief.  Your talking points and distortions are nothing new here.  Boring, boring, boring.
But facts are irrelevant when he delves into one tiny issue, the fact that the Dims skirted the Constitution for four years is of no consequence, it's somehow the fault of the GOP, regardless of construct.
He completely ignores the reason we are even discussing the fiscal cliff, the fact that Husein spent more than any POTUS in history, is of no importance.
Title: wasnt that nice of me to answer your question
Post by: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:16:46 PM
In 2009 pubs, headed by Paul Ryan, proposed freezing any raise in spending for five years.  A moot point however since Demonrats were in control of both house and senate.  They didn't pass that, or any budget since.  You have no point, you are not getting responses because you are a Bush banger, and you are boring beyond belief.  Your talking points and distortions are nothing new here.  Boring, boring, boring.

sari kari, the official pub proposal was to limit spending increases to inflation for the the non defense discretionary budget.  Also I'll need lots of liquor to try to make me forget pub and pub screaming we needed to cut spending at the peak of the Great Bush Recession.  Every day at the other forums I visit pub after pub screamed "WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING" " THE WORLD IS ENDING" " THE DOLLAR WILL COLLAPSE" "WE'LL HAVE RUNAWAY INFLATION" "DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER"

oh and the answer to your question is its the "supposed fiscal cliff" because economists are just pretty sure it would have caused a recession.  The automatic tax increases and spending cuts were real.  The effect of them was the "supposed" part.   The fact that you didnt get that proves you too thought it would cause a recession. that explains why you are now trying to spin away the republican narrative at the peak of the Great Bush Recession to "oh, pubs were only talking about a spending freeze"
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
National Propaganda Radio says going over the cliff would be good.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166650238/why-a-fiscal-cliff-failure-could-help-the-economy (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166650238/why-a-fiscal-cliff-failure-could-help-the-economy)

I'm sure the illegal failure to pass a budget in the senate didn't help matters. Who would that be?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
Vern, easy question. How did we get to the point of a fiscal cliff?
And don't even say Bush's Fault". :rolleyes:
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: The Boo Man... on January 28, 2013, 04:26:34 PM
There should be a rule against posting outdated talking points...
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
There should be a rule against posting outdated talking points...
We do have a rule regarding stupid though.
But most usually figure that one out on their own, though, some apparently aren't smart enough to realize just how big of a fool they truly are.

He seems nice enough, just very well informed though. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: walkstall on January 28, 2013, 09:09:43 PM
We do have a rule regarding stupid though.
But most usually figure that one out on their own, though, some apparently aren't smart enough to realize just how big of a fool they truly are.

He seems nice enough, just very well informed though. :rolleyes:

er uh solar.  :popcorn:
Title: try to focus people.
Post by: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:35:51 AM
Vern, easy question. How did we get to the point of a fiscal cliff?
And don't even say Bush's Fault". :rolleyes:

the deficits are bush's fault.  the 'fiscal cliff' is house republican's fault. 

"To recap:

1) House Republicans created a fake crisis around the debt ceiling.
 2) House Republicans demanded spending cuts, and the creation of a Supercommittee to end their fake crisis
 3) House Republicans undermined the Supercommittee negotiations, causing the committee to fail
 4) House Republicans are now trying to blame President Obama for the automatic spending cuts triggered by the Supercommittee failure.

None of this ever would’ve come to pass if Repubicans hadn’t created the fake debt ceiling crisis in the first place. They set this thing in motion, and now they own it.
"

National Propaganda Radio says going over the cliff would be good.

there's that thing again when pubs really want to believe something it must be true.  A guy on NPR said it might be good because it "the lack of a deal would do a lot to help erase the federal deficit." He didnt deny the possibility of a recession.  Thats his opinion. See how your brain thinks it means its NPR's opinion.  Oh thats right, you guys are used to fox and the other 'conservative entertainment sources'. Their stuff is scripted but you think its real.

Now what does any of that have to do with pub after pub screaming to cut spending to balance the budget at the peak of the Great Bush Recession?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 04:26:43 AM
er uh solar.  :popcorn:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I was too hungry to be posting. Damn stomach, brain connection thing.
Title: Re: try to focus people.
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 04:37:08 AM
the deficits are bush's fault.  the 'fiscal cliff' is house republican's fault. 

"To recap:

1) House Republicans created a fake crisis around the debt ceiling.
 2) House Republicans demanded spending cuts, and the creation of a Supercommittee to end their fake crisis
 3) House Republicans undermined the Supercommittee negotiations, causing the committee to fail
 4) House Republicans are now trying to blame President Obama for the automatic spending cuts triggered by the Supercommittee failure.

None of this ever would’ve come to pass if Repubicans hadn’t created the fake debt ceiling crisis in the first place. They set this thing in motion, and now they own it.
"

there's that thing again when pubs really want to believe something it must be true.  A guy on NPR said it might be good because it "the lack of a deal would do a lot to help erase the federal deficit." He didnt deny the possibility of a recession.  Thats his opinion. See how your brain thinks it means its NPR's opinion.  Oh thats right, you guys are used to fox and the other 'conservative entertainment sources'. Their stuff is scripted but you think its real.

Now what does any of that have to do with pub after pub screaming to cut spending to balance the budget at the peak of the Great Bush Recession?
So all that borrowing before Bush and after Bush is totally irrelevant?
What special kind of idiot is so blind, that reality can't seep in through that blindfold you wear?

I swear, you are now starting to look like you have a serious mental disorder, and I mean that.
Think about it for just a moment, let this sink in, the Husein administration never once in the first term presented a budget, yet somehow, in your warped world, Bush caused Husein's trillion dollar deficits?

Come on man, no single individual is that stupid or biased, even we here know quite well both party's are to blame for the deficit, not one single individual.

Are you two people? Because no person by them self is this stupid.
Title: oh, its called a 'freudian slip'
Post by: Vern on January 29, 2013, 02:27:33 PM
solar, thanks for proving a theory I had about you. You asked who I blamed for the Fiscal Cliff (congrats on your first thread related post).  I show it's the house republicans fault and magic presto, you try to make the thread about me. 

keep up the work
Title: Re: oh, its called a 'freudian slip'
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 06:16:15 PM
solar, thanks for proving a theory I had about you. You asked who I blamed for the Fiscal Cliff (congrats on your first thread related post).  I show it's the house republicans fault and magic presto, you try to make the thread about me. 

keep up the work
No wonder you don't understand the subject, you have a serious comprehension issue.
I never asked you any such question, but nice attempt at a dodge with an insult.
Now pay close attention, I'll pote it again.


I asked you a question and you completely ignored it, not wise.

So let me ask, do you think Husein is using good policy to print money, borrow money endlessly all the while running up the tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?

It really is a simple question, no catch, no twist of words, just a straight forward question.


Now, can you answer that without a dodge this time?
It may be your last chance.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 06:25:35 PM
Viewing politics, the economy, money, taxes, spending, and war through the partisan lense provided by the media, culture and the powers that be, is a sure path to being forever distracted and confused.

The parties are the same.

Money is debt.

And politics is theatre.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 06:53:33 PM
Viewing politics, the economy, money, taxes, spending, and war through the partisan lense provided by the media, culture and powers that be, is a sure path to being forever distracted and confused.

The parties are the same.

Money is debt.

And politics is theatre.
True, and by design.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 07:02:08 PM
True, and by design.

No doubt.

The best thing I ever did, or one of them, was completely tuning out of mainstream tv.

Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 07:12:52 PM
No doubt.

The best thing I ever did, or one of them, was completely tuning out of mainstream tv.
Same here, it is pablum for the masses, anyway those so ignorant they haven't the ability to discern truth.
I'm always amazed to hear people parrot the nightly news as if they said something intelligent. Even the video of the days events is so heavily edited, you don't know what the truth is.

One thing I used to do in my 30s was turn down the sound and watch just the emotion being presented, all in a way to sway the individual to their side, by repeating certain clips for maximum emotional effect.
I haven't watched network news in nearly a decade, maybe a few times just to see how bad it had gotten, and yes, it's gotten worse.
Title: is he wordsmithing? or just dumb?
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 03:59:40 AM

Vern, easy question. How did we get to the point of a fiscal cliff?
And don't even say Bush's Fault". :rolleyes:

No wonder you don't understand the subject, you have a serious comprehension issue.
I never asked you any such question, but nice attempt at a dodge with an insult.
Now pay close attention, I'll pote it again.

Now, can you answer that without a dodge this time?
It may be your last chance.

as I clearly pointed out, we got to the fiscal cliff because republicans created a fake crisis about raising the debt limit. they have an ignorant base to pander to.  So they have to talk tough, shuffle some papers and act angry.   
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: supsalemgr on January 30, 2013, 04:29:03 AM
Vern clearly has no intention of answering Solar's question. Typical.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 04:53:47 AM
Vern clearly has no intention of answering Solar's question. Typical.

Vern has a bad case of tunnel vision. His hatred of republicans prevents him from seeing the larger picture. :wink:
Title: Re: is he wordsmithing? or just dumb?
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 05:18:58 AM
as I clearly pointed out, we got to the fiscal cliff because republicans created a fake crisis about raising the debt limit. they have an ignorant base to pander to.  So they have to talk tough, shuffle some papers and act angry.
Vern, I know this is probably a stupid question, considering you're a lib, but is it pure bias that prohibits you from seeing any fault from those on the left, or simply the fact that you're a dumb fuck?

I Never Asked Who Was To Blame. Get that through your thick skull!

Now I will ask one last time for an honest answer, do you think Husein is using good policy to print money, borrow money endlessly all the while running up the tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?

It really is a simple question, no catch, no twist of words, just a straight forward question.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 05:39:04 AM
Vern has a bad case of tunnel vision. His hatred of republicans prevents him from seeing the larger picture. :wink:
Oh, I think he sees it quite clearly, and an honest debater would answer it, but Vernice is not an honest person, even claims the right are all ignorant and easily led.

When quite the opposite is true and Vernice is a glaring example of the blind and ignorant allegiance that is the majority of the left.
I love when these idiots show their hypocrisy and willing sacrifice to the Marxist, it only strengthens our case that the Free market system is the best system when Govt stays out of it.
Title: I dont mind the cursing. I know the withdrawl from fantasy can be hard on pubs
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 09:13:45 AM

I Never Asked Who Was To Blame. Get that through your thick skull!


Actually it was the only thread related question you asked.

Vern, easy question. How did we get to the point of a fiscal cliff?
And don't even say Bush's Fault". :rolleyes:

Mmmm, as I’m kinda new to the forum, what constitutes a ‘lie’ around here.  Seems like he did ask me.  Anyhoo I first interpreted it as “who’s to blame”. Solar whined and whined so I interpreted it as “why we had a fiscal cliff.”  My answer is the same, republicans created a fake crisis about raising the debt limit. 

And that’s another problem with questions especially from solar. He cant post a clear statement and now his questions are vague and dont have defintive answers. (geez it took taxed 3 posts to get his simple question straight). Questions are just a timesuck used by people who really have no clue. As far as your other question solar, besides not being thread related, its based on a mish mosh of lies, spin and whatever personal delusions you have.  So no you silly silly pub, its not a straight forward question. 

Here are some simple guidelines  to follow to make your make your learning process faster (and more fun)

Make clear simple points and back them up
Don’t ask questions (other than rhetorical)
Stop making it about me.

Whats funny solar is all three of those quidelines preclude you from posting.
Title: Re: I dont mind the cursing. I know the withdrawl from fantasy can be hard on pubs
Post by: supsalemgr on January 30, 2013, 09:26:03 AM
Actually it was the only thread related question you asked.

Mmmm, as I’m kinda new to the forum, what constitutes a ‘lie’ around here.  Seems like he did ask me.  Anyhoo I first interpreted it as “who’s to blame”. Solar whined and whined so I interpreted it as “why we had a fiscal cliff.”  My answer is the same, republicans created a fake crisis about raising the debt limit. 

And that’s another problem with questions especially from solar. He cant post a clear statement and now his questions are vague and dont have defintive answers. (geez it took taxed 3 posts to get his simple question straight). Questions are just a timesuck used by people who really have no clue. As far as your other question solar, besides not being thread related, its based on a mish mosh of lies, spin and whatever personal delusions you have.  So no you silly silly pub, its not a straight forward question. 

Here are some simple guidelines  to follow to make your make your learning process faster (and more fun)

Make clear simple points and back them up
Don’t ask questions (other than rhetorical)
Stop making it about me.

Whats funny solar is all three of those quidelines preclude you from posting.

Me thinks Vern enjoys chasing his own tail.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: JustKari on January 30, 2013, 09:39:21 AM
I guess, according to Vern, we need to tell Harry Reid that the fiscal cliff was a boogie man.  :rolleyes:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50305493/ns/business-careers/#.UQlZiL_LTXc (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50305493/ns/business-careers/#.UQlZiL_LTXc)

Quote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Democrat in the Senate warned on Thursday that the United States looks to be headed over the "fiscal cliff" of tax hikes and spending cuts that will start next week if squabbling politicians do not reach a deal.
Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate in a speech that "it looks like that is where we're headed.
He called on the Republicans who control the House of Representatives to prevent the worst of the fiscal shock by getting behind a Senate bill to extend existing tax cuts for all except those households earning more than $250,000 a year.

Title: Re: I dont mind the cursing. I know the withdrawl from fantasy can be hard on pubs
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Me thinks Vern enjoys chasing his own tail.
Vernice knows that answering, throws his argument in the trash, unless he lies, then he looks like the fool he is.
Is it a catch 22? Probably, but that's how honest debate works, and if he is unwilling to debate honestly, then I see no reason to allow him to continue polluting the forum.
Title: Re: I dont mind the cursing. I know the withdrawl from fantasy can be hard on pubs
Post by: supsalemgr on January 30, 2013, 10:21:56 AM
Vernice knows that answering, throws his argument in the trash, unless he lies, then he looks like the fool he is.
Is it a catch 22? Probably, but that's how honest debate works, and if he is unwilling to debate honestly, then I see no reason to allow him to continue polluting the forum.

Agree
Title: Re: I dont mind the cursing. I know the withdrawl from fantasy can be hard on pubs
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 10:31:10 AM
Agree
Sad, I really hate booting people, but we demand the same honesty from the Right, I see no reason to bend the rules for the left, even though that's what they're used to.

I'll wait for his response, though I expect more of the tap dancing tail chasing act.
Title: You guys need a 'private' chat area for solar and supsale.
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 03:09:21 PM
I guess, according to Vern, we need to tell Harry Reid that the fiscal cliff was a boogie man.  :rolleyes:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50305493/ns/business-careers/#.UQlZiL_LTXc (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50305493/ns/business-careers/#.UQlZiL_LTXc)

kari, I'm not following your point.  I've never denied the fiscal cliff. In fact I'm the one who explained your question. Have you forgotten already?.  I agree, if we let automatic tax increases and spending cuts of that size, its would probably have caused a recession. So you are not responding to anything I posted. It must be something you imagined. 

kari, please make clear points.  dont be like solar. In a thread about the fiscal cliff, he's babbled about coal and me.  And when he finally posted something thread related, he denied it. 
Title: I post facts.
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 04:09:32 PM
solar, I have mostly ignored you because your questions made no sense. In this question,  your 'assumption' is that President Obama is killing industry.  My 401k begs to differ.  Guess who cut my 401k value in half? (its rhetorical)

Yet somehow killing industry is going to grow the economy?

this question makes no absolutely no sense because I made no such claim. I even explained to you clearly how you were not following the point.

So tell me again, how he is cutting spending?

Here you  arguing a point nobody made and I’m not even sure it’s a question.

You live in La La land, unless we cut spending, there is no such thing as balancing the budget.
What part of wasting nearly a trillion on a failed energy policy and killing the coal industry, do you not understand?

Well now I understand your threat. I ignored it because I’m so used to pubs lashing out angrily to people speaking the truth, I paid it no mind (its what Jesus did).   Again its not thread related and its not related to anything I posted so I ignored it.

You do not direct this thread let alone forum, nor do you dictate who answers what questions.
However, I asked you a question and you completely ignored it, not wise.
So let me ask, do you think Husein is using good policy to print money, borrow money endlessly all the while running up the tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?
It really is a simple question, no catch, no twist of words, just a straight forward question.

Its not a straightforward question because President Obama is not borrowing money “endlessly”.  He’s reduced the deficit every year (as function of GDP) . And like all pubs you conveniently blame President Obama for FY 2009. Again its not straightforward but yes, I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy/

 And I’ve already answered your second question.  To “live within out means”,  in 2009, that would have required a 1.2 spending cut.  That is the  budget deficit President Obama inherited. And I answered it by saying if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion spending cuts is a fiscal cliff, what's a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.  (I implied it was bad. kram understood the point)
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 04:23:06 PM
solar, I have mostly ignored you because your questions made no sense. In this question,  your 'assumption' is that President Obama is killing industry.  My 401k begs to differ.  Guess who cut my 401k value in half? (its rhetorical)

this question makes no absolutely no sense because I made no such claim. I even explained to you clearly how you were not following the point.

Here you  arguing a point nobody made and I’m not even sure it’s a question.

Well now I understand your threat. I ignored it because I’m so used to pubs lashing out angrily to people speaking the truth, I paid it no mind (its what Jesus did).   Again its not thread related and its not related to anything I posted so I ignored it.

Its not a straightforward question because President Obama is not borrowing money “endlessly”.  He’s reduced the deficit every year (as function of GDP) . And like all pubs you conveniently blame President Obama for FY 2009. Again its not straightforward but yes, I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy/

 And I’ve already answered your second question.  To “live within out means”,  in 2009, that would have required a 1.2 spending cut.  That is the  budget deficit President Obama inherited. And I answered it by saying if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion spending cuts is a fiscal cliff, what's a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.  (I implied it was bad. kram understood the point)

I'm not ready to start jumping for joy, although our 401Ks are up also.

This ties in with your bubble thread.

Banks are still getting money from the fed for almost 0 interest, but instead of loaning it out and growing the economy, they are investing it in stocks. How do you suppose that Wall St is doing so well, while the economy remains shaky at best?

Money that doesn't really exist, is going through the lending institutions, directly to Wall St, creating the impression that the economy is healing.

Does it really make sense that the economy is stagnant, and stock prices keep rising?

Bubbles anyone?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 04:48:42 PM
now kram, before you get out of the market, I have to remind you that another pub 'narrative' from 2009 was the market was going to zero.  I saw no fundemental basis justifying the drop from 8000 down to 6500 (jan 2009 to mid March).  But certain 'conservatives' were screaming the end of the world. 

"
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html)

this is the perfect example of why you shouldnt get your info from editorials and especially not 'con' editorials. IN case you missed it, this 'editorial' was 6 weeks into President Obama's first term.  And it seemed to miss the 6000 point drop associated with that market crash.   As far as fundementals go, the housing glut is hitting bottom (or has already).  This recovery has had no 'housing' component. So if you assume housing will now contribute to the economy, there is no reason to assume its a bubble. 
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 05:26:32 PM
now kram, before you get out of the market, I have to remind you that another pub 'narrative' from 2009 was the market was going to zero.  I saw no fundemental basis justifying the drop from 8000 down to 6500 (jan 2009 to mid March).  But certain 'conservatives' were screaming the end of the world. 

"
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html)

this is the perfect example of why you shouldnt get your info from editorials and especially not 'con' editorials. IN case you missed it, this 'editorial' was 6 weeks into President Obama's first term.  And it seemed to miss the 6000 point drop associated with that market crash.   As far as fundementals go, the housing glut is hitting bottom (or has already).  This recovery has had no 'housing' component. So if you assume housing will now contribute to the economy, there is no reason to assume its a bubble.

I consider myself a conservative, but not part of a mind numbed club. I agree with libertarians a lot, and even liberals from time to time.

I try to pay attention, and I find it ironic that Obama ran for his first term, on finding and punishing corrupt bankers and Wall St people. Here we are today; not only have no arrests been made, but Obama points to Wall St as the sure sign of a recovering economy. Add to that, that free fed money is being funneled through the banks, directly into the stock market, and I must say, it looks like a bullshit con job to me.
Title: reflecting is always better than deflecting
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 05:49:43 PM

I try to pay attention, and I find it ironic that Obama ran for his first term, on finding and punishing corrupt bankers and Wall St people. Here we are today; not only have no arrests been made, but Obama points to Wall St as the sure sign of a recovering economy.

sorry kram, I dont recall that.  Are you posting something you heard on the radio? like that editorial I posted,  I dont find the 'conservative entertainment complex' very factual. that editorial completely ignored the first 6000 point drop of that market crash. Were they trying to 'inform' you or scare you?

 besides, you are deflecting from the very topic you brought up: a possible stock bubble.  Instead of deflecting you should reflecting on the things you've been told vs what actually happened. 

 
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 07:46:50 PM
solar, I have mostly ignored you because your questions made no sense. In this question,  your 'assumption' is that President Obama is killing industry.  My 401k begs to differ.  Guess who cut my 401k value in half? (its rhetorical)

this question makes no absolutely no sense because I made no such claim. I even explained to you clearly how you were not following the point.

Here you  arguing a point nobody made and I’m not even sure it’s a question.

Well now I understand your threat. I ignored it because I’m so used to pubs lashing out angrily to people speaking the truth, I paid it no mind (its what Jesus did).   Again its not thread related and its not related to anything I posted so I ignored it.

Its not a straightforward question because President Obama is not borrowing money “endlessly”.  He’s reduced the deficit every year (as function of GDP) . And like all pubs you conveniently blame President Obama for FY 2009. Again its not straightforward but yes, I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy/

 And I’ve already answered your second question.  To “live within out means”,  in 2009, that would have required a 1.2 spending cut.  That is the  budget deficit President Obama inherited. And I answered it by saying if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion spending cuts is a fiscal cliff, what's a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.  (I implied it was bad. kram understood the point)
Oh Jeezus what a mess!
First off he hasn't had a budget in 3 years, so how can you say he isn't wasting money, and all you have is 2009?
Does Qe3 mean anything to you, auto bailout, nearly a trillion to green energy bull shit, giving money to Chinese industry, extending unemployment, food stamps.
Absolutely none of that has been or ever will be paid back.
And you have the audacity to tell me he is balancing the budget? Maybe it works in the liberal world, but inflation is about to bite us in the ass and all you can do is say you agree with his overspending policy, a policy that is wrecking the economy.
And yes he did kill the coal industry, just like he said he would, which is driving energy prices even higher.

Are you really so biased that you can't see the damage he's doing, that is, unless you're a Fabian socialist just like him?
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: The Boo Man... on January 30, 2013, 07:48:50 PM
Oh Jeezus what a mess!
First off he hasn't had a budget in 3 years, so how can you say he isn't wasting money, and all you have is 2009?
Does Qe3 mean anything to you, auto bailout, nearly a trillion to green energy bull shit, giving money to Chinese industry, extending unemployment, food stamps.
Absolutely none of that has been or ever will be paid back.
And you have the audacity to tell me he is balancing the budget? Maybe it works in the liberal world, but inflation is about to bite us in the ass and all you can do is say you agree with his overspending policy, a policy that is wrecking the economy.
And yes he did kill the coal industry, just like he said he would, which is driving energy prices even higher.

Are you really so biased that you can't see the damage he's doing, that is, unless you're a Fabian socialist just like him?

Oh dear. Vera's jaw has come off....
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 07:56:25 PM
Oh dear. Vera's jaw has come off....
Yet he claims that somehow out of all that spending, with a country in the depths of an extended depression, he is balancing the budget.
I love how he has to go back three years to make an argument, as you pointed out. :laugh:
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: The Boo Man... on January 30, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
Yet he claims that somehow out of all that spending, with a country in the depths of an extended depression, he is balancing the budget.
I love how he has to go back three years to make an argument, as you pointed out. :laugh:

We're debating stuff we debated years ago. It's just as boring the second time around...
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 08:04:18 PM
Yet he claims that somehow out of all that spending, with a country in the depths of an extended depression, he is balancing the budget.
I love how he has to go back three years to make an argument, as you pointed out. :laugh:

balancing  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-cartoon-022.gif)    the     (http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk62/truckintedybehr/Smileys/bth_laughing-monkey.gif)    budget  (http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee142/toodlesbemine/AVATARS/Emoticons%20plus%20smileys/bth_lolmybuttoff.gif)
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 08:25:30 PM
We're debating stuff we debated years ago. It's just as boring the second time around...
I get tired of libs and the Bush blaming scenario, Bush did a shit load of liberal crap, but he wasn't trying to destroy the country, unlike our current imposter in chief.
Hell, I didn't even like Bush, but I can honestly say I hate Husein, even Carter is a distant second on stupid compared to Husein.
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: The Boo Man... on January 30, 2013, 08:43:04 PM
I get tired of libs and the Bush blaming scenario, Bush did a shit load of liberal crap, but he wasn't trying to destroy the country, unlike our current imposter in chief.
Hell, I didn't even like Bush, but I can honestly say I hate Husein, even Carter is a distant second on stupid compared to Husein.

I can't figure this cat out. Is she 12? Dumb? or lazy....
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 08:51:43 PM
I can't figure this cat out. Is she 12? Dumb? or lazy....
Utopian Socialist... So yeah, a preteen girl.
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Vern on January 31, 2013, 03:28:31 AM
with a country in the depths of an extended depression, he is balancing the budget.

and thats just it solar, I never said that.  Please cut and paste where I said President Obama is balancing the budget.  Dont just repeat your claim. You got all bent out of shape over something you imagined or misinterpreted.   You'd be suprised how much that happens to me.  People cant argue what I post. 
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 31, 2013, 06:45:41 AM
and thats just it solar, I never said that.  Please cut and paste where I said President Obama is balancing the budget.  Dont just repeat your claim. You got all bent out of shape over something you imagined or misinterpreted.   You'd be suprised how much that happens to me.  People cant argue what I post.
I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy/

 And I’ve already answered your second question.  To “live within out means”,  in 2009, that would have required a 1.2 spending cut.  That is the  budget deficit President Obama inherited. And I answered it by saying if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion spending cuts is a fiscal cliff, what's a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.  (I implied it was bad. kram understood the point)
[/quote]

I have to assume your post previous to this was just BS as well since this one contradicts your claim re: my earlier question.
You claimed he isn't printing money, yet we have Qe3, so I have to assume you are lying and or, stupid, which is it?
I asked you if you thought spending more than you have is a good idea, you claim he isn't, yet here we are with an open ended Qe3.
So either you have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about and got in over your head, or are genuinely stupid?
I'm going with both.
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Vern on January 31, 2013, 07:28:17 AM
I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy/

 I have to assume your post previous to this was just BS as well since this one contradicts your claim re: my earlier question.
You claimed he isn't printing money, yet we have Qe3, so I have to assume you are lying and or, stupid, which is it?
I asked you if you thought spending more than you have is a good idea, you claim he isn't, yet here we are with an open ended Qe3.
So either you have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about and got in over your head, or are genuinely stupid?
I'm going with both.

and thats exactly why I try to ignore you solar, you continue to respond to imaginary posts and not what I posted. And I objected to your non straightforward question. And please notice that you didnt cut and paste anything that backs up you are posting.

Please go back and read what I posted slowly and then see that you are 'responding' to things I did not post.
Title: Re: I post facts.
Post by: Solar on January 31, 2013, 08:22:43 AM
and thats exactly why I try to ignore you solar, you continue to respond to imaginary posts and not what I posted. And I objected to your non straightforward question. And please notice that you didnt cut and paste anything that backs up you are posting.

Please go back and read what I posted slowly and then see that you are 'responding' to things I did not post.
Those are your words son, I merely quoted what you said.

So you claim it was not a straight forward question?
Now that you've been educated on the subject of Qe3 and unending spending, I will ask again the question you didn't like and refused to answer , and I might add at your own peril, because no one likes a coward, especially an obfuscating coward.

Do you think Husein is using good policy to print money, borrow money endlessly all the while running up the tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?

And don't give me that 2009 BS, I'm talking about today, where he doesn't want a ceiling cap on borrowing.
So answer the damn question!
Title: "er uh vern, he wants you to give him the answer he wants to hear"
Post by: Vern on January 31, 2013, 09:59:23 AM
….
So answer the damn question!

Two things, this is where I answered your non straightforward question .

Its not a straightforward question because President Obama is not borrowing money “endlessly”.  He’s reduced the deficit every year (as function of GDP) . And like all pubs you conveniently blame President Obama for FY 2009. Again its not straightforward but yes, I agree with President Obama's policy of reducing the deficit prudently while growing the economy

 And I’ve already answered your second question.  To “live within out means”,  in 2009, that would have required a 1.2 spending cut.  That is the  budget deficit President Obama inherited. And I answered it by saying if 300 billion in tax increases and 300 billion spending cuts is a fiscal cliff, what's a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.  (I implied it was bad. kram understood the point)


First , I’ve claimed all along it was not a straightforward question. And you can clearly see its based on the false narrative that spending is out of control and its only a spending problem.  And I’m still waiting for you to quote where I said President Obama was balancing the budget.  I know why you haven’t cut and pasted it, do you?

Now lets look at your “live within your means” rant.  The 2012 budget deficit was 1.1 trillion.  If cutting 300 billion in spending and raising 300 billion in taxes would cause a recession, what would a 1.1 trillion dollar budget cut do?  (the answer is recession)

So I agree with President Obama’s successful policy of reducing the deficit every year while avoiding a recession (not all countries have managed that).   
Title: Re: "er uh vern, he wants you to give him the answer he wants to hear"
Post by: Solar on January 31, 2013, 10:36:42 AM
Two things, this is where I answered your non straightforward question .


First , I’ve claimed all along it was not a straightforward question. And you can clearly see its based on the false narrative that spending is out of control and its only a spending problem.  And I’m still waiting for you to quote where I said President Obama was balancing the budget.  I know why you haven’t cut and pasted it, do you?

Now lets look at your “live within your means” rant.  The 2012 budget deficit was 1.1 trillion.  If cutting 300 billion in spending and raising 300 billion in taxes would cause a recession, what would a 1.1 trillion dollar budget cut do?  (the answer is recession)

So I agree with President Obama’s successful policy of reducing the deficit every year while avoiding a recession (not all countries have managed that).
Your willing ignorance is more than obvious, your claim my question is not straight forward is a blatant lie, one you have to state in avoidance of answering.
I posted your words, they are more than clear that you believe he is doing a good job by claiming my question is a false narrative.
Even a child could deduce from your posts that you believe he balanced the budget, if you didn't think he did, you'd say so, but that would be an admittance that my narrative is correct.

Son, you are out of your league here, continuing to dance as you do only gives us more fodder to fire back at your every response.

Now if you don't think Husein balanced the budget through Qe3, then you agree his spending is out of control, and that the best avenue would be to Live Within Our Means.
Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on January 31, 2013, 12:47:18 PM
Solar

You’ve not understood one thing I’ve posted in this (or any) thread.  You started ranting at me with the false assertion that I said Obama balanced the budget.   I called you out on that statement and I clearly said don’t repeat it, cut and paste it.  And guess what you did. You repeated it.  Do you even understand why you were unable to cut and paste it?

 Ask your toadies here if I said President Obama has balanced the budget. 


And sorry, I’ve haven’t really learned anything from your Qe3 rant.  You should read my posts where I make a clear statement and back it up.  Check out the thread where I proved that the major cause of the current deficits is revenue destruction from the Great Bush Recession.


Now if you don't think Husein balanced the budget through Qe3, then you agree his spending is out of control, and that the best avenue would be to Live Within Our Means.
Thanks for playing.

do you consider that a straightforward question. I dont.  You have the false equivalency that “not balanced” equals “out of control”.   And how you pretend not to know that the biggest cause of the deficit is revenue destruction from the Great Bush REcession.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on January 31, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
Solar

You’ve not understood one thing I’ve posted in this (or any) thread.  You started ranting at me with the false assertion that I said Obama balanced the budget.   I called you out on that statement and I clearly said don’t repeat it, cut and paste it.  And guess what you did. You repeated it.  Do you even understand why you were unable to cut and paste it?

 Ask your toadies here if I said President Obama has balanced the budget. 


And sorry, I’ve haven’t really learned anything from your Qe3 rant.  You should read my posts where I make a clear statement and back it up.  Check out the thread where I proved that the major cause of the current deficits is revenue destruction from the Great Bush Recession.

do you consider that a straightforward question. I dont.  You have the false equivalency that “not balanced” equals “out of control”.   And how you pretend not to know that the biggest cause of the deficit is revenue destruction from the Great Bush REcession.
Folks, I give you a perfect example as to why we are in this mess, complete ignorance on behalf of Husein's constituency!

I see no reason to continue discussing this issue with this complete and utter fool, his hatred of Bush and his Pavlov inspired devotion to Husein borders on insanity.

Title: no vern, only solar can ask questions
Post by: Vern on January 31, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
so solar, what you are saying is that you wont be cutting and pasting the post where I said Obama is balancing the budget anytime soon.  You remember, you repeatedly accused me of posting it. 


Title: Re: no vern, only solar can ask questions
Post by: taxed on January 31, 2013, 11:12:03 PM
so solar, what you are saying is that you wont be cutting and pasting the post where I said Obama is balancing the budget anytime soon.  You remember, you repeatedly accused me of posting it.

Vern, please take your medication before posting.  You have rambled incoherently, and are blaming Bush for inheriting Clinton's housing and tech mess.  You don't have a successful 401k, and you have no clue.  You didn't even know the Dems had the House during Carter, yet would post about Reagan.
Title: Re: no vern, only solar can ask questions
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 03:28:59 AM
.  You didn't even know the Dems had the House during Carter, yet would post about Reagan.

I didnt care about the House durng carter because the CRA had nothing to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You know, the one where bush told you it started in late 2004 because banks lowered their lending standards and Bush's regulators did nothing.  I posted the link. how could you forget?


Son, you are out of your league here, continuing to dance as you do only gives us more fodder to fire back at your every response.

yes, you guys do fire back at my every response.  and it seems to be about me instead of the facts I post.  Well sometimes its about things you imagine I post.   All cons do it because they cant argue the facts.  And that probably upsets you guys the most. I back up what I say.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 03:42:29 AM
Quote
I didnt care about the House durng carter because the CRA had nothing to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You know, the one where bush told you it started in late 2004 because banks lowered their lending standards and Bush's regulators did nothing.  I posted the link. how could you forget?

Why do you keep repeating that?

There are multiple links in your housing bubble thread that clearly show that lending standards were lowered under Clinton.

In fact, prior to your thread, I would have been inclined to agree with you. I wasn't aware of the degree to which Clinton policies contributed to the bust.

Thanks. :wink:
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: supsalemgr on February 01, 2013, 05:25:45 AM
IMHO Vern is not worth our time.
Title: Re: no vern, only solar can ask questions
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 05:56:10 AM
Vern, please take your medication before posting.  You have rambled incoherently, and are blaming Bush for inheriting Clinton's housing and tech mess.  You don't have a successful 401k, and you have no clue.  You didn't even know the Dems had the House during Carter, yet would post about Reagan.
I can't tell if it's by design that he obfuscates, or is he actually that stupid?

Then I ask him a simple straight forward question, and all he can say is Husein inherited Bush's deficit, but I thought the Dims said the recession ended after Husein took office, so that was three years ago, and still Husein is spending like a drunken sailor and not living within our means.
Now if you were in debt and running up your credit cards, most sane people would see that as a bad move, but somehow my asking him what he thinks of it, is somehow not clear, or straight forward?

So maybe I can ask another way and see if he has even one honest bone in his body. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:00:39 AM


do you consider that a straightforward question. I dont.  You have the false equivalency that “not balanced” equals “out of control”.   And how you pretend not to know that the biggest cause of the deficit is revenue destruction from the Great Bush REcession.
OK Ver let me ask it another way that even a child can understand.

Is it good policy to, borrow money endlessly all the while running up a tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?

That's a pretty straight forward question even children know the answer to, do you?
Title: solid factual links seem to upset him too
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 06:35:14 AM
solar, you know whats really funny.  You accuse of posting things I didnt post  (your claim that I said Obama balanced the budget) and then accuse of not posting things I did post. and I answered your question several times.  I even adjusted the answer using the deficit from 2012. You just dont like the answer because it doesnt fit your 'faith' based economic beliefs

Id say ask your toadies but even you know I answered it.  Lets face it solar, you dont like the facts I post.  You thought "bush tried to warn us about the bubble" and you've been ranting at me ever since.   

and if you are really really mad that we are not paying back our creditors, guess what, not paying back our creditors was one of the excuses for the Bush Tax cuts

Running surpluses without a debt, Greenspan warned, would result in the "longer-term fiscal policy issue" of a government paying off its debt, particularly long-term Treasury bonds, before the bonds mature — costing it extra money by buying back those securities from private investors before they mature. Which is very expensive — better to buy back only matured bonds, which won't be possible until at least 2011.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96747,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96747,00.html)
Title: Vernice afraid to answer simple questions
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:52:38 AM
solar, you know whats really funny.  You accuse of posting things I didnt post  (your claim that I said Obama balanced the budget) and then accuse of not posting things I did post. and I answered your question several times.  I even adjusted the answer using the deficit from 2012. You just dont like the answer because it doesnt fit your 'faith' based economic beliefs

Id say ask your toadies but even you know I answered it.  Lets face it solar, you dont like the facts I post.  You thought "bush tried to warn us about the bubble" and you've been ranting at me ever since.   

and if you are really really mad that we are not paying back our creditors, guess what, not paying back our creditors was one of the excuses for the Bush Tax cuts

Running surpluses without a debt, Greenspan warned, would result in the "longer-term fiscal policy issue" of a government paying off its debt, particularly long-term Treasury bonds, before the bonds mature — costing it extra money by buying back those securities from private investors before they mature. Which is very expensive — better to buy back only matured bonds, which won't be possible until at least 2011.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96747,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96747,00.html)
Hey dumb ass, did I say anything about politics in the question? It's just a simple yes or no question.
Are you smart enough to answer a yes or no question?

Now stop playing semantics and evasion, I'm really getting tired of it.
Now I'll ask once more, and if you notice it has nothing to do with your master, the Great Husein.

Quote
Is it good policy to, borrow money endlessly all the while running up a tab?
Or would it be better to cut back on spending and live within your means all the while paying back your creditors?
Title: sadly he wont
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 09:03:53 AM
question A. depends on how much.  The current deficits are too much. 
question B  no.   

now will you stop fixating on me and demanding I agree with your factless non thread related rhetoric? Fixate on the facts I post then maybe then you wont imagine I posted things I didn’t post.   

Case in point, I’ve proven that the vast majority of the deficit is revenue destruction but you rant and rave that spending is out of control.   Your ideology says its out of control not the facts.   
Title: Re: sadly he wont
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
question A. depends on how much.  The current deficits are too much. 

question B  no.   
Now, was that so hard? You refused to accept it because it exposes your messiah, but oncew the phrasing is changed and doesn't include Husein, you answer honestly.
What is it with you libs and your unwillingness to place any blame on him whatsoever?

Quote
now will you stop fixating on me and demanding I agree with your factless non thread related rhetoric? Fixate on the facts I post then maybe then you wont imagine I posted things I didn’t post.   
You see, there's the problem, you danced all around the issue, trying to blame one person, rather than accept the fact that both party's are to blame for this mess, and yes, Bush is equally culpable as the left, though personally I believe the left hold the majority of blame, but it takes two to create a mess years in the making by micromanaging a free mkt process.
Case in point, I’ve proven that the vast majority of the deficit is revenue destruction but you rant and rave that spending is out of control.   Your ideology says its out of control not the facts.
Wrong! It's both, you can't have revenue destruction if you have no debt. You can try, but investors will still invest in the dollar regardless.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 10:41:03 AM
no solar, it wasnt hard to answer it again and again.  .  I dont understand your fixation on me.  Lets hope you can know focus on the actual facts.


but oncew the phrasing is changed and doesn't include Husein, you answer honestly.
 

sorry solar for somebody
who claimed I said something I didnt
who claimed they didnt ask a question they did
who whined when I ignored their loaded question and then only answered it because they cowardly threatened to kick me off the board and then pretended I didnt answer it

you are a poor judge of whats honest. 
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 11:18:38 AM
no solar, it wasnt hard to answer it again and again.  .  I dont understand your fixation on me.  Lets hope you can know focus on the actual facts.


sorry solar for somebody
who claimed I said something I didnt
who claimed they didnt ask a question they did
who whined when I ignored their loaded question and then only answered it because they cowardly threatened to kick me off the board and then pretended I didnt answer it

you are a poor judge of whats honest.
Wrong son, you are purposefully being vague, and on this forum, that shit don't fly.
Blaming one person for the mess both party's are responsible for is either ignorant or simply lying.
Take a stance, admit Husein can do no wrong, he even claimed he ended the recession, so from that point forward he owns this mess, a mess that is increasingly getting worse.

Just look at the employment figures, yet he is still spending more than he is taking in, in anyone's book, that is a path to destruction, and yes, as I said before, he is destroying industry, industry that is one of the major producers in the country.
How is any of that good in your view?
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: supsalemgr on February 01, 2013, 11:46:18 AM
Wrong son, you are purposefully being vague, and on this forum, that shit don't fly.
Blaming one person for the mess both party's are responsible for is either ignorant or simply lying.
Take a stance, admit Husein can do no wrong, he even claimed he ended the recession, so from that point forward he owns this mess, a mess that is increasingly getting worse.

Just look at the employment figures, yet he is still spending more than he is taking in, in anyone's book, that is a path to destruction, and yes, as I said before, he is destroying industry, industry that is one of the major producers in the country.
How is any of that good in your view?

"he even claimed he ended the recession"

Yes, he has claimed that. Therefore, anything that has gone on since is his. So if the Q1/2013 is negative then the next recession is certainly his. I know it is a little off point, but I thought Solar really swerved into a good point with that comment.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 12:22:05 PM
"he even claimed he ended the recession"

Yes, he has claimed that. Therefore, anything that has gone on since is his. So if the Q1/2013 is negative then the next recession is certainly his. I know it is a little off point, but I thought Solar really swerved into a good point with that comment.
Thanks, but he doesn't want to accept reality, he prefers to live in the past and blame Bush for all our ills. :laugh:

And more dismal news, unless you listen to the media tout is as growth. :rolleyes:

Quote
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.3 percent), teenagers (23.4 percent), whites (7.0 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics (9.7 percent) showed little or no change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.5 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.7 million and accounted for 38.1 percent of the unemployed.
LOL, imagine that, people getting free money not working, so it ain't so? :rolleyes:

Quote
A bright spot is mining employment, which increased (+6,000) over the month; employment in this industry has risen by 23,000 over the past 3 months.
And if not for the private sector and private land, this would not have occurred under this administration.

Quote
Employment edged down in transportation and warehousing in January (-14,000). Couriers and messengers lost 19,000 jobs over the month, following strong seasonal hiring in
November and December. Air transportation employment decreased by 5,000 in January.
Shocked, I'm shocked I tell ya...[sarc off]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Title: its not straightforward, should have said "first hill on a roller coaster"
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 02:27:47 PM
Wrong son, you are purposefully being vague, and on this forum, that shit don't fly.
Blaming one person for the mess both party's are responsible for is either ignorant or simply lying.
Take a stance, admit Husein can do no wrong, he even claimed he ended the recession, so from that point forward he owns this mess, a mess that is increasingly getting worse.

Just look at the employment figures, yet he is still spending more than he is taking in, in anyone's book, that is a path to destruction, and yes, as I said before, he is destroying industry, industry that is one of the major producers in the country.
How is any of that good in your view?

what a mish mosh of delusional BS. I make clear points and I back them up.  For instance,  I documented the Bush policies from 2004 that encouraged funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. I've pointed out that bush's regulators not only didnt stop it, they encourgaged the banks to lower their lending standards.  Bush controlled the regulators. He's responsible.  to call that vague is beyond delusional.   Tell us about that "dim bill' you vaguely referred to.

President Obama ended the recession.  the dates are documented. It ended May 2009.  who knows what you believe because you've only mocked my statements. talk about vague.   

to say "a mess that is increasing getting worse" is only empty rhetoric and laughable.  And of course vague.  You want to complain about UE, go right ahead. And to scream we need to cut 1.1 trillion in spending in one thread and then complain about UE in this thread show an incredible lack of knowledge.  Here's a better link for UE. It has a graph. When does it look like UE started shooting up like a rocket?  (2 things. That is a straightforward question and I dont expect you to answer.) 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

Yes President Obama is spending more than he takes in. I've also clearly documented the effect of the Great Bush Recession's effect on revenue and spending.   

Do what I do. make a point and back it up.  If you dispute something I've said. dont 'paraphrase it'. cut and paste it and attempt to explain why its not true. You ranting that is not true proves nothing.
Title: Re: its not straightforward, should have said "first hill on a roller coaster"
Post by: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 03:11:54 PM
what a mish mosh of delusional BS. I make clear points and I back them up.  For instance,  I documented the Bush policies from 2004 that encouraged funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. I've pointed out that bush's regulators not only didnt stop it, they encourgaged the banks to lower their lending standards.  Bush controlled the regulators. He's responsible.  to call that vague is beyond delusional.   Tell us about that "dim bill' you vaguely referred to.

President Obama ended the recession.  the dates are documented. It ended May 2009.  who knows what you believe because you've only mocked my statements. talk about vague.   

to say "a mess that is increasing getting worse" is only empty rhetoric and laughable.  And of course vague.  You want to complain about UE, go right ahead. And to scream we need to cut 1.1 trillion in spending in one thread and then complain about UE in this thread show an incredible lack of knowledge.  Here's a better link for UE. It has a graph. When does it look like UE started shooting up like a rocket?  (2 things. That is a straightforward question and I dont expect you to answer.) 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

Yes President Obama is spending more than he takes in. I've also clearly documented the effect of the Great Bush Recession's effect on revenue and spending.   

Do what I do. make a point and back it up.  If you dispute something I've said. dont 'paraphrase it'. cut and paste it and attempt to explain why its not true. You ranting that is not true proves nothing.

Am I missing something?
It looks like UE shot up after Obama took power. :confused:

He was sworn in, in Jan of 09 right?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7   
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4   
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9   
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4   
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0   
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3   
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9   
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3   
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5   
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8   
2013 7.9                       
Title: sorry if I err on the side of TMI
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
Am I missing something?
It looks like UE shot up after Obama took power. :confused:

honestly kram,  it doesnt look like UE started shooting up before he took over? I find your answer less than truthful.  It was 4.7 in Nov 2007.It was fairly flat early 2008 but Bush did mail out a stimulus check.  Started creeping up in the summer then kinda shot up q4.   

Here's a link showing job losses.  sure looks like its shooting up before Jan 2009.  And it is really fair to count Jan? Shouldnt we put Jan in Bush's column.  An honest person wouldn't start counting until he actually implemented a policy or something. 

Jan - Aug 2008 job losses: 137 k per month
Oct - Sept 2008 job losses: 351 k per month
Nov - Dec 2008 job losses: 639 k per month

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf)

"Employment declined by 753,000, on average, during each of the first 3 months of the year. Between April and June,"

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/03/art2full.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/03/art2full.pdf)
Title: Re: its not straightforward, should have said "first hill on a roller coaster"
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
what a mish mosh of delusional BS. I make clear points and I back them up.  For instance,  I documented the Bush policies from 2004 that encouraged funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. I've pointed out that bush's regulators not only didnt stop it, they encourgaged the banks to lower their lending standards.  Bush controlled the regulators. He's responsible.  to call that vague is beyond delusional.   Tell us about that "dim bill' you vaguely referred to.

President Obama ended the recession.  the dates are documented. It ended May 2009.  who knows what you believe because you've only mocked my statements. talk about vague.   
Oh jeez, do you have a comprehension issue?
I said:
Take a stance, admit Husein can do no wrong, he even claimed he ended the recession, so from that point forward he owns this mess, a mess that is increasingly getting worse."
Quote
to say "a mess that is increasing getting worse" is only empty rhetoric and laughable.  And of course vague.  You want to complain about UE, go right ahead. And to scream we need to cut 1.1 trillion in spending in one thread and then complain about UE in this thread show an incredible lack of knowledge.  Here's a better link for UE. It has a graph. When does it look like UE started shooting up like a rocket?  (2 things. That is a straightforward question and I dont expect you to answer.)
 
Seriously, are you really that biased and delusional?
The UE numbers show it's rising again, more people on food stamps than at anytime in history, gas on the rise again.
Shall I go on?

Quote
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

Yes President Obama is spending more than he takes in. I've also clearly documented the effect of the Great Bush Recession's effect on revenue and spending.   

Do what I do. make a point and back it up.  If you dispute something I've said. dont 'paraphrase it'. cut and paste it and attempt to explain why its not true. You ranting that is not true proves nothing.
And that's your argument, that it's all Bush's fault? :rolleyes:

What a load of shit! Posting a link by the Govt to show revision of the previous POTUS is exactly what I would expect from this regime.
Monthly Labor Review • March 2009 That should read Revision...
Case in point, read the Bush admin narrative and compare yours to this one, and note yours
 makes quite clear a recession occurred, yet while under Bush there was no mention of a recession.

I'm not saying your link is wrong, and mine is right, what I'm saying is both are twisting and spinning the numbers to their own benefit.
Just reading the opening statement of both should prove my point, Bush admin is doing a bit of glossing, while Husein admin is doing a lot of finger point.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art2full.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art2full.pdf)
Title: Re: sorry if I err on the side of TMI
Post by: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 07:35:03 PM
honestly kram,  it doesnt look like UE started shooting up before he took over? I find your answer less than truthful.  It was 4.7 in Nov 2007.It was fairly flat early 2008 but Bush did mail out a stimulus check.  Started creeping up in the summer then kinda shot up q4.   

Here's a link showing job losses.  sure looks like its shooting up before Jan 2009.  And it is really fair to count Jan? Shouldnt we put Jan in Bush's column.  An honest person wouldn't start counting until he actually implemented a policy or something. 

Jan - Aug 2008 job losses: 137 k per month
Oct - Sept 2008 job losses: 351 k per month
Nov - Dec 2008 job losses: 639 k per month

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf)

"Employment declined by 753,000, on average, during each of the first 3 months of the year. Between April and June,"

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/03/art2full.pdf (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/03/art2full.pdf)

Well, I've conceded several times that Bush was far less than perfect. But there ain't a damned thing you can say or do to prove that Obama is not worse.

Besides, democrats have had substantial, (if not full), control since 2006. Blaming it all on Bush is losing steam fast. :wink:
Title: its actually 2007 but a minor point
Post by: Vern on February 02, 2013, 05:12:40 AM
Well, I've conceded several times that Bush was far less than perfect. But there ain't a damned thing you can say or do to prove that Obama is not worse.

Besides, democrats have had substantial, (if not full), control since 2006. Blaming it all on Bush is losing steam fast. :wink:

Some one brought up UE as proof of something.  Fine, lets discuss UE.  But you cant discuss UE unless you discuss the causes. So (honestly) when does it look like UE started shooting up?  So for you guys to rant that I'm just blaming bush is just your attempt to ignore the facts.  Whining dont change the facts. 

GDP__Q__year
-1.8__1__2008
+1.3__2__2008
-3.7__3__2008
-8.9__4__2008

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1)

 you saw UE, you saw job losses now you see GDP.  Looks like the economy fell off a cliff Q4.  Why did the recession accelerate to depression esque levels?

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c)



 
Title: Re: its actually 2007 but a minor point
Post by: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 05:25:55 AM
Some one brought up UE as proof of something.  Fine, lets discuss UE.  But you cant discuss UE unless you discuss the causes. So (honestly) when does it look like UE started shooting up?  So for you guys to rant that I'm just blaming bush is just your attempt to ignore the facts.  Whining dont change the facts. 

GDP__Q__year
-1.8__1__2008
+1.3__2__2008
-3.7__3__2008
-8.9__4__2008

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1)

 you saw UE, you saw job losses now you see GDP.  Looks like the economy fell off a cliff Q4.  Why did the recession accelerate to depression esque levels?

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c)



 

You really should check out this site I posted earlier.
Nothing is what it seems.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)

More here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/)

You might as well start bracing yourself now. It's getting very difficult to present this as great news...........even the mainstream media is having difficulty doing it.
Title: Some people learned a lesson about letting things fail
Post by: Vern on February 02, 2013, 05:32:05 AM
the funny thing is "you saying Obama is worse" kinda lends itself to me proving otherwise in a forum.  Which in turn upsets everybody.  So what you are saying is you have an opinon and you dont want any facts getting in the way.  Wait thats exactly what you said

But there ain't a damned thing you can say or do to prove that Obama is not worse.

So back to the facts.  The recession is getting worse.  We've bailed out the GSEs. We're bailing out the banks.   When Bush/Paulson let Lehman fail, we all cheered.  Now I have nothing but respect for Hank Paulson when but Lehman failed rich people panicked.  Money flooded out of the market.   it seems rich people didnt have the same "way to stick it to Lehman" attitude we did.  Now the Financial Commission tries to spin it was not just Bush's Lehman policy but it fails to convince

"The crisis reached seismic proportions in September with the failure of Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf)

and that pretty much explains why AIG's counterparties got 100 % on the dollar for their investments.  They were trying to put the horses back in the barn. 

Title: Re: Some people learned a lesson about letting things fail
Post by: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 05:41:26 AM
the funny thing is "you saying Obama is worse" kinda lends itself to me proving otherwise in a forum.  Which in turn upsets everybody.  So what you are saying is you have an opinon and you dont want any facts getting in the way.  Wait thats exactly what you said

So back to the facts.  The recession is getting worse.  We've bailed out the GSEs. We're bailing out the banks.   When Bush/Paulson let Lehman fail, we all cheered.  Now I have nothing but respect for Hank Paulson when but Lehman failed rich people panicked.  Money flooded out of the market.   it seems rich people didnt have the same "way to stick it to Lehman" attitude we did.  Now the Financial Commission tries to spin it was not just Bush's Lehman policy but it fails to convince

"The crisis reached seismic proportions in September with the failure of Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf)

and that pretty much explains why AIG's counterparties got 100 % on the dollar for their investments.  They were trying to put the horses back in the barn.

I get "page not found" on your link, but it doesn't matter. There should have been no bail outs for anyone...........and yet it continues.

Title: Re: its actually 2007 but a minor point
Post by: Solar on February 02, 2013, 06:07:00 AM
Some one brought up UE as proof of something.  Fine, lets discuss UE.  But you cant discuss UE unless you discuss the causes. So (honestly) when does it look like UE started shooting up?  So for you guys to rant that I'm just blaming bush is just your attempt to ignore the facts.  Whining dont change the facts. 

GDP__Q__year
-1.8__1__2008
+1.3__2__2008
-3.7__3__2008
-8.9__4__2008

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1)

 you saw UE, you saw job losses now you see GDP.  Looks like the economy fell off a cliff Q4.  Why did the recession accelerate to depression esque levels?

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp#axzz1Yy6SIL3c)



 
If you're going to use UE numbers, use all of the chart.

(http://danielamerman.com/Images/2012/Workforce/WorkE.jpg)
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on February 02, 2013, 06:07:31 AM
thanks kram. sometimes the links change

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf)

I wasnt even aware of the GSE bailout at the time. I was in favor of the bank bailout but I used to rail against the AIG bailout.  There was no way that AIG's counterparties should have gotten 100 % on the dollar.  But now I understand why they did what they did.  I was unaware what Lehman did to the economy.  Give Hank credit, he figured it out quickly. 

So while its fine for you and me to be against bailouts, preventing a depression seems more important than ideology
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on February 02, 2013, 06:23:55 AM
thanks kram. sometimes the links change

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf)

I wasnt even aware of the GSE bailout at the time. I was in favor of the bank bailout but I used to rail against the AIG bailout.  There was no way that AIG's counterparties should have gotten 100 % on the dollar.  But now I understand why they did what they did.  I was unaware what Lehman did to the economy.  Give Hank credit, he figured it out quickly. 

So while its fine for you and me to be against bailouts, preventing a depression seems more important than ideology


In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making,
it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives
such as synthetic securities.
The crisis reached seismic proportions in September  with the failure of
Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International
Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major
financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions
perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground
to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.
The financial system we examined bears little resemblance to that of our parents’
generation. The changes in the past three decades alone have been remarkable.

We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the selfcorrecting
nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses
, and
actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away
key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had
opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as
the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition,
the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what
became a race to the weakest supervisor.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 06:55:17 AM

In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making,
it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives
such as synthetic securities.
The crisis reached seismic proportions in September  with the failure of
Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International
Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major
financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions
perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground
to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.
The financial system we examined bears little resemblance to that of our parents’
generation. The changes in the past three decades alone have been remarkable.

We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the selfcorrecting
nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses
, and
actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away
key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had
opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as
the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition,
the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what
became a race to the weakest supervisor.

These conversations are a lot more clear when we don't try to put faces on bad policies.

The government sucks. I wish they would stop trying to fix things. :mad:
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on February 02, 2013, 06:56:44 AM
"fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages"

You can have low interest rates without a bubble but you cant have a bubble without toxic mortgages and 'scant' regulation. 

Scant is being nice.  It was more like 'cheering on the banks' than 'scant regulation'.   and when did the toxic mortgages start?  you know the answer. Not wanting to know doesnt make it go away.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Solar on February 02, 2013, 07:39:07 AM
These conversations are a lot more clear when we don't try to put faces on bad policies.

The government sucks. I wish they would stop trying to fix things. :mad:
Which was the point I've been trying to get across to Vern, it took years and bad policy to bring to a head the collapse.
To point the finger at one person is ludicrous and ignorant at best.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 10:17:17 AM
"fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages"

You can have low interest rates without a bubble but you cant have a bubble without toxic mortgages and 'scant' regulation. 


Tulipmania was a bubble in 16th century Holland that did not involve toxic mortgages.

And "scant" regulation, if taken to the financial system as a whole, would prevent bubbles from emerging in the first place.

Bubbles are the product of monetary manipulations, aka regulations.

I would consider interest rate targeting to be a regulation. The most important one, at that.
Quote

Scant is being nice.  It was more like 'cheering on the banks' than 'scant regulation'.   and when did the toxic mortgages start?  you know the answer. Not wanting to know doesnt make it go away.

The world wide financial system is only a few shades away from the complete central planning of capital markets.

I know this is not something commonly heard or said, but it is the case.
Title: Re: the "supposed" fiscal cliff
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 04:21:37 PM
And "scant" regulation, if taken to the financial system as a whole, would prevent bubbles from emerging in the first place.

er uh toward, I was clear. 'Scant' was being nice.  Try "non exisitent" or "cheering on the banks".  the OCC replaced 700 state regulators with 40.  And the 40 spent alot of time fighting the state regulators who tried to do their job. 

the deriviatives, bonds and CDOs  based on mortgages would not have been a problem had the bad mortgages not been written in the first place.  in 2006 over 50 % of all loans were No Doc loans.  again 'scant' is being nice.