1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Unemployment rate hits 9.7%

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by CMike111, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #21
    I think that you are getting hung up on terms again. You can call it a rose if you want to. The only issue is, "does it work"? For my hometown Long Island, it certainly DID work and I watched it happen and I even participated as a vendor. I watched Grumman get contracts, and I watched people get jobs for those contracts.
    SEMrush
    And I don't understand your point about Reagan. "a small government libertarian"??? Damn, there are those labels again! Why don't you stop trying to dehumanize people with categorizations and try to understand them instead??? If I accept your definition of conservatism, then I need to classify today's liberals as people with no experience, that classify as irrelevant the experience of others. That's not a textbook definition, that's a sincere observation of behavior. Using Google is no substitute for actually rolling up your sleeves and being in the marketplace.

    Reagan cut the taxes on capital equipment. This encouraged companies to go out and buy computers, office supplies, and other equipment. I saw it happen. As a result of the spending, the government took in more taxes on capital equipment.

    Total federal revenues doubled from about $517 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1990. Revenues from income taxes climbed from $244 billion in 1980 to about $467 billion in 1990. Also, many people that were in poverty were raised to middle class. This drove the Democrats crazy because they would rather these people stayed unemployed poor Democrats, than moddle-class Republicans. I saw that happen, too.
    .
     
    Corwin, Sep 14, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    Corwin, not sure how:

    -Morphed into your decision to act like an insulting *&^%$. C'est la vie; common in some of your colleagues here; so much for a respectful dialogue.

    You don't know what Keynesianism means, then get chafed when you're provided a correction. You mischaracterize the Reagan years of a Reagan who "held the line on spending" against the "wastrel Dems, seeking to burn money" - with Reagan "really, really wanting to balance the budget," and the Dems "ruining his plans." Trying to avoid labels, since it seems to really get inside your craw:

    Nice myth that has zero to do with historical reality. Reagan was a spender, who blew the deficit out of the water - but because he spent on guns, somehow, many folks now screaming "fiscal responsibility" tend to ignore this untidy piece of history, and the paradigm has been in place ever since.

    When pressed, few even try to argue anymore that Reagan wasn't a fiscal bleeder - most just say he did it for the right reasons. You would have us believe history didn't occur. I call that mythmaking.

    Now, it seems you'd prefer to believe my points are derived from a 2 minute google search, as opposed to the study I've undertaken, or the life I've lived, and the thoughts I've owned arising from it, for close to 25 years, now. Carry on - seems you're inability remain civil finds good company, these days.

    For the rest: Brief exposition on "labels." It's how we communicate. Words are labels, nothing more. They supplant primordial grunts and grimaces, in providing a shorthand to common understanding.

    Now, most folks tend to understand what a "free market conservative" means. I maintain, one cannot be a "free market conservative," and argue for an increased presence of the government, via public policy, for an economic effect, at the same time. Simply because you buy military equipment over improved county telecommunications doesn't change the fact neither is in line with a small government conservatism.

    I won't even go into Corwin's attempted assertion here, a classic restatement of the supply side paradigm. What Corwin fails to mention is that in that same period, saw a public debt that went from $711 Billion to $2200 Billion during Reagan's tenure. An actual look at statistics from the period will yield equally damning conclusions on poverty - belying the rosy picture Corwin painted of a poor class moved into the middle class. In point of fact, the family poverty rate increased from what it had been in previous decades, reaching levels not seen since before Johnson's War on Poverty. So much for myth, v. reality.

    Now, one may say Reagan's bleed was the right bleed to make, and it isn't the federal government's job to move Americans from poverty to prosperity. All well and good. But enough of mythmaking. Reagan did bleed the federal budget, and so on, as I've shown. To have it all dismissed as a "2-minute google search," though convenient, nevertheless pales, before any real evaluation.

    Anyway, Corwin, it's a shame you chose to go down this path, when I, for one, came to you with a sincere interest in a respectful dialogue, from another viewpoint. Whatever floats your boat. I've learned It's just best to ignore this kind of behavior - so you join one other member in a select couple of folks I don't have time for any longer. So you know, if you reply, I won't see it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2009
    northpointaiki, Sep 14, 2009 IP
  3. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #23
    I don't understand. Were your questions simply a lead-in so that you can find an excuse for insults? Or do you feel cornered, so you have decided to become rude to save face?

    After reading your diatribe, I am forced to go back to my previous statement:

    Today's liberals are people with no experience, that classify as irrelevant the experience of others. That's not a textbook definition, that's a sincere observation of behavior. Using Google is no substitute for actually rolling up your sleeves and being in the marketplace.

    You are angry because my first-hand, real world experience is in direct violation with the fantasies you have contrived for yoursdelf. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies with employees of 2000+. I've set pricing, calculated margins, sold computer chips to Automotive companies and seen how cars are built. I've worked with a defense contractor, worked AS a defense contractor. All this terrifies you because you insist that reality hold to a fantasy that you do not hold yourself to. And your temper-tantrum above proves it. People that have been in the BIG marketplace can recognize others by the practicality, the realism, the economy of behavior and speech. You posses none of these things.

    And I see that classification again - more labels. The problem with labels is that they are mini-prejudices. As David Mamet once said, "When our prejudices are violated, we become angry and insulting". Obviously I've violated your prejudices. Anger is the failure of intelligence.

    I've explained just SOME of my experience. I've yet to see yours. But I will tell you this: although I expect you to become more rude, your previous post has made it extremely clear that you don't have the experience to understand what you are talking about. If your intent is to change minds, you've failed. If your intent is to posture and possibly present yourself in a batter light, you've failed. That's O.K., but the problem here is that you do not want to understand. You suspect that you are inexperienced, but you mentally judge people and situations that you do not know and have never seen face to face.

    Twenty years ago, being a liberal used to mean treating people with respect and fighting for people's freedoms and I was proud to call mydself a liberal. Today, people like you have cannibalized the word "liberal" and now people commonly associate it with someone that has no experience, no understanding, and is intolerant (like you) of anyone that dares to think differently than they are. "Liberal" is now equal to impractical solutions.
     
    Corwin, Sep 15, 2009 IP
    Mia likes this.
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    OK, I logged off, and out of morbid curiosity, I see Corwin is again calling me, basically, a snot-nosed kid without real world experience, insisting on fantasies. And then he has the balls to call me insulting.

    To begin, I find it astounding, Corwin, that you would hope people would be snowed. Beyond whatever other contributions I make here, I tend to not talk out of my ass, and do provide statistics and backup - as in my post above, my assertions are drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau, nothing more. People can see those things, I they care to go to them.

    I also don't have an issue admitting when I'm wrong - something you, and the only other person I've got on my ignore list seem to have a really difficult time with.

    Pretty basic, really. You insist Reagan was for small government, and fiscal responsibility. I state what is historically accurate - that in large part, due to his Keynesian, military buildup, the public debt mushroomed to 3x what it was prior to his taking office. Yet you retort with insults, again. You say that Reagan's policies lifted the poor into the middle class - I show that they didn't, and again provide the statistics to back it up.

    I am not even here contesting Reagan's policies - though I would, in other contexts - merely stating a fact of his presidency. Reagan's was an expensive presidency, as most, even Reagan supporters, now admit - again, they say the federal bleed was a necessary fight to make; they do not deny he bled the public debt.

    Corwin, I'm nearing 50. I'll admit I did get a later start in life, having fizzled a good part of it until my early 20's. But when I said "25 years ago," I meant that while I'd call that about the time when I began to truly work hard, and investigate the world - as a Berkeley grad student - it only began there. That you would somehow choose to characterize me as in essence an imbecile who gets his thoughts from a google search is again entirely your choice, and not unknown here (your friend Mia pursues the same methods), it gets none of us anywhere.

    I've learned nothing is to be gained from talking to folks like you, or your friend, Mia; I choose to simply leave the field, rather than continuing the attempt. Life's too short. Peace.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 15, 2009 IP
  5. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #25
    When did I insist that Reagan was for small government? Show me where I insisted that Regean stood for small government. Did I ever write that Reagan was for small government? Please show me where I wrote, where I INSISTED, the word you used was "insist", please show me where I INSISTED that Reagan was for small government.

    I'm pretty sure I DISAGREED with you when you called Reagan "a small government libertarian", didn't I? I don't recall agreeing with you.

    "Insist" is your operative word here.

    You are upset because you are stereotyping people with labels and when those labels don't apply, you have a tantrum. Stop stereotyping people and feigning injury. You disrespect yourself.

    But first, show me where I insisted that Reagan stood for small government.
     
    Corwin, Sep 15, 2009 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    Corwin, I'll continue on - unlike your friend (lurking now - I expect some post, hanging on to yours, along the lines of "NPT is a lunatic, crybaby, etc."), regardless of your approach (again, referring to my thoughts as "tantrums" and so forth), I do respect your intellect, and I hope we can move past this bubble - as you know, you and I previously enjoyed what I thought, anyway, was a cordial relationship, if we didn't agree on much. At any rate, let's try to remain civil with each other - handshake? - and move on.

    My impression of your beliefs regarding Reagan come from:

    I cannot construe this any other way but to read that you blame the Democratic congress for the birth of deficit spending; that Reagan really wanted another way, but was "forced to relent and sign their spending bills...." This is very much in line with the view that Reagan was, really, a small government kind of guy. I cannot call this anything other than mythmaking, whether intentional or not. As I earlier said:

    Which I deny, for reasons shown; in pursuit of the Cold War, Reagan massively spent money he didn't have. He bled the deficit; and in doing so, I can see no other way but to call that a Keynesian policy approach - since that what it is.

    As to Keynesianism, you misstated what Keynesianism is:

    -and I showed how, and why I would say that's an incorrect evaluation of Keynesianist policy. Because Reagan invoked a policy mix that included massive injection of public monies into capital demand (guns), the budget deficit be damned, whatever else he may have wished, or publically promulgated, it is inescapable, to me, that this was a Keynesian approach.

    As to whether you disagreed with my notion of "Reagan the libertarian," I honestly say - no, I didn't get that:

    What I got is that you have an issue with my using what you call labels.

    Let's start over - I do feel we use words, because they are the only way we have to speak to each other. But if the words we use have different meanings to each other, than we don't have a means of common understanding.

    To that end, would you call Reagan "conservative?" What does "conservative" mean to you?
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 15, 2009 IP
  7. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #27
    You are evading the issue.

    You claimed that I "insist Reagan was for small government". You've written a very long post here that seems to be designed to evade the issue.

    Don't try to INFER from what I wrote. I mean exactly what I wrote. Don't try to force upon me that just because I wrote something about Reagan's fiscal policies that you can twist that to mean something completely different. Don't try to infer what I'm thinking if I didn't write it - that's being dishonest.

    You claimed that I "insist Reagan was for small government". SHOW ME WHERE I INSISTED THAT, or ADMIT that you are wrong.

    The truth is, I never insisted that Reagan was for small government because I don't believe he was for small government. THAT's why you are wrong. It's dishonest for you to claim otherwise. And it's manipulative for you to claim it's wrong for me to point out how you were dishonest.

    And to further the whole point of your dishonesty - I see that you EXTENSIVELY edited your previous posts to remove your insults and attacks on me. Perhaps someone that is monitoring this thread via email notification can message me your original.
     
    Corwin, Sep 15, 2009 IP
  8. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    I'm evading nothing, Corwin - and I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to what is actually on the page, over what you think my "intents" and so forth are. You can either trust I'm an honorable poster, or not; you can either accept I'm not a game player, or not. In all honesty, I think we've had a host of things that have gotten screwed up, Corwin, which is why I suggested we start over.

    You're right - in saying "you insisted Reagan was a small government guy..." I was wrong. You didn't actually use those words - and I apologize for using the language, for drawing the conclusion myself, over what you did say.

    Now, again, you did say:

    So, while you didn't say "Reagan was a small government libertarian," etc., you did say Reagan wanted to control spending, while the Dem congress wanted to blow the wad.

    Which is wrong - and you've never responded to my showing so; you went down what seems to me some kind of side-road on the issue of "labelling."

    I'll simply reframe my original intent, and ask again:

    Did, or did not Reagan pursue deficit spending, in wishing to buildup the military? If so, were you, or were you not, wrong in saying, in so many words, "the deficit was the Dem. congress's fault."?

    You said:

    Do you continue to maintain Reagan's deficit spending, and policy initiatives to increase aggregate demand by bolstering "guns" in our sector mix - do you still maintain this wasn't Keynesian?

    Do you continue to deny this is, in fact, the definition of Keynesianism, the use of a mixed economic bag, deficits be damned, for a desired result?

    This entire sub-thread began when you stated defense spending is the best way out of an economic downturn is via defense spending:

    To which I replied many things - substantive and respectful, in my opinion. One either accepts one can spend what one doesn't have, and it can still turn out O.K., or one does not. To say deficit defense spending isn't Keynesian, while other forms of deficit spending are, is disingenous, to me. As I've tried to show.

    Now, I'll also ask again:

    Can you please reply to these questions?

    Edited - I didn't earlier see your edit:

    What the hell are you talking about now? I don't recall attacking you, but if I did, I'm sorry - as I told you in PM, I was taken completely aback that your response to:

    was:

    And so forth - which as I told you in PM, came completely out of left field, to me - and felt to me like a completely disrespectful response to my above-post, desiring accord and respectful dialogue.

    If you believe I've edited something for "effect," as you say, now - Corwin - catch a breath. You'll note my posts are usually heavily edited. I've actually worked on not editing them so much. You seem lost to some charge - I can only surmise, seeing Mia lurking here quite a bit, and based on your friendship with the fella - you seem really loaded with issues Mia has stammered over and over, respecting my character and so forth. You might want to slow down, and ask yourself is this really where you want to go?

    Let me say it plainly: I edit, because I write. I enjoy writing, and words, and can't help going back over what I say.

    I also hate stupid catfights, as we see before us now. If you say I "attacked you," I honestly don't know what you're talking about - but if there was something there I said that I regretted (beyond just "editing," as I say above), I'll remmove it - not from a desire to BE DISHONEST!!!!!! as you stridently say, now - but because I regret saying stupid things, usually, and after cooler reflection, I'll often go back.

    Anyway, I give up. People, believe whatever the hell you want to believe. I honestly don't get any of this process, as seen above. I can only say this - whether it's heard or not, I can't control it:

    I'm not even sure where I fit on any ideological spectrum; I do know I'm always up for an engaged and lively discussion. I don't dig bullshit, stupid catfights, and all the rest. Yet so often, from only certain quarters, it sure seems to me it's what it comes down to. I'm not here to establish or defend my character. I'm here to hopefully gain from the experience, and hopefully contribute something worthwhile. The rest: Bleccch.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2009
    northpointaiki, Sep 15, 2009 IP
  9. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #29
    You continue to refer to Reagan's "deficit spending". I don't think you quite understand how government spending works.

    The President has almost no say in the economy. He can't decide how one dime is spent or even change an interest rate. He is limited to either an approval or veto of spending. And even that can be taken away from him:

    The Constitutional responsibility for the economy belongs to the Speaker of the House.. It's right up front in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

    This was a major concession made during the Constitutional Convention. There was real concern that the President could easily become dictatorial or the the Senate might become an aristocratic body if either was made responsible for the economy. That's why you can't blame the President for the economy.

    It's especially true in President Reagan's case when, starting in 1982, Congress voted overwhelmingly to override Reagan's vetos on spending. In some cases, these were bills that cut Military spending. So, blame House Speaker Tip O' Neill (D).
     
    Corwin, Sep 16, 2009 IP
  10. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    Corwin, if you really believe this is how it works, respectfully, I'd suggest you don't quite understand how government spending works.

    The President's spending proposals have a huge impact on the actual fiscal outlay that takes place. Go here, for instance. An excerpt:

    The President submits a budget to congress, and his proposals have a massive impact on what actually gets done, and what not done - a lot has to do with how much mojo the Prez believes he has, in terms of effecting his plans. In point of fact, Reagan's defense policy hemorrhaged the budget. It was pure deficit financing.

    Corwin, in all honesty, I cannot believe you'd like to seriously maintain Reagan's defense buildup plans had nothing to do with the deficit during his reign, mushrooming to 3x what it was prior to his tenure.

    But let's accept this is what you sincerely believe.

    To take only the latest example, for you to claim the President has nothing to do with spending means you must not, then, blame Obama for whatever takes place in the American fiscal scene, that you don't like. His budget proposals mean nothing, then, in terms of this?
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 16, 2009 IP
  11. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #31
    NPT, you really know how to get off track, don't you?

    The President can make RECOMMENDATIONS. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the House has to listen to those recommendations. For the last two years of George W. Bush, and for the last two years of George H.W. Bush, these recommendations were soundly IGNORED and the Democrats refused to include most of them. (GWB gave a famous speech in July 1992 about these refusals).

    A recommendation is NOT the same as a Constitutional Responsibility. The President doesn't spend money, Congress spends money. That's what the Constitution says.

    As far as Reagan is concerned - you are listening to a common fallacy. First, Reagan's defense spending was a mere 6.1% of a $4.6 trillion GDP. You have to remember that that miserable failure Jimmy Carter, defense spending was cut to 4.7% of GDP. He cut the B-1 bomber, slashed the fleet, recognized China and canceled a treaty with Taiwan, and did nothing while the Soviets committed multiple treaty violations and was eventually encouraged enough to invade Afghanistan. And this is just the tip of the iceberg - Carter's incompetence (yes, incompetence) was an ideal breeding ground for Islamic extremists. Carter was directly responsible for Saddam Hussein, and a radical Iran (and the national shame of a hostage crisis). How much money has Jimmy Carter cost the USA? How much money does he continue to cost us?

    After Carter's massive failures, Ronald Reagan was overwhelmingly elected to fix Carter's screwups.. Reagan's defense spending were directly responsible for ending the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union. As a result, Cold War defense programs were later cut!

    Now, Kennedy spent the most on defense, 9.3% of GDP. What was the deficit under Kennedy? Ronald Reagan spent 6.1% of GDP on defense. How can you support the common fallacy that Reagan's defense spending was responsible for the deficit? And why has the policy of deficit spending continued since then?
     
    Corwin, Sep 17, 2009 IP
  12. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    I can't honestly tell whether you believe yourself when you write, are trying to get others to believe it, or are just trying to provoke some kind of reaction. You really do need to learn to drop the crap, Corwin.

    Addressing only this instance, what I wrote was specifically responsive to your comment:

    I'm just not interested in playing children's games, Corwin. For some reason, you feel compelled to level insults, and so forth, wildly out of synch with the timbre and character of what I wish to engage in, anyway, so I won't continue.

    Should you actually want a true discussion - i.e., using a metric of defense spending to GDP is itself problematic; comparing Reagan's defense % to Kennedy's % is specious, since you are ignoring comparative state revenues. and other markers - so of course, one can have a lower defense expenditure as a % of GDP, and still have a higher fiscal bleed; this is a discussion of substance, which I'd be glad to engage in.

    By the way, as food for thought, let's be sure we are on topic with this - I am not suggesting the Democratic congress under Reagan's tenure did not have a hand in the fiscal bleed - in fact, they did have a substantial hand. I will merely restate here that your original statement:

    -is wrong, as I've said from the beginning. It wasn't entirely due to a Democratic Congress, and a Reagan wringing his hands in despair, because he "really didn't want to spend," that we spent up the crap out of available monies. My point, from the beginning, is that this statement ignores Reagan's monumental contributions to a ballooning of the deficit.

    At any rate, these are substantive issues. The other stuff - your barbs - are without merit, and not part of an adult conversation; not one I want, anyway. Should you truly want a respectful conversation, let me know, and I'd be glad to return.

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2009
    northpointaiki, Sep 17, 2009 IP
  13. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #33
    I'm so glad you haven't reduced this discussion to insults.

    Please show me EXACTLY where I leveled insults at you in my last post. Show me the insults. Show me EXACTLY what insults I leveled at you.

    And how does anything I wrote compare to you accusing me of writing "crap", or "playing children's games", or the insults you edited out earlier? Or the attacks you leveled at someone ("lurker") who isn't even part of this discussion?

    As a sincere observation, I don't think you can engage in these discussions because of your attachment to labels and the way you incorrectly use them.

    The best way to understand these things is NOT to constantly shift the focus of the discussion, which you have done, but to PRIORITIZE the issues.

    Priority #1 - What Does the Constitution Say?
    It says that the States are guaranteed a Republican form of government, which means that Congress make domestic decisions. The President is not in charge of Domestic policy - CONGRESS is. And the Constitutional responsibility for the economy is with the House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House.

    The topic of this thread is "Unemployment rate hits 9.7%" and WHO is responsible for TODAY's unemployment.

    EXACTLY what barbs are you referring to???

    And, can i refer to the insults you lobbed at me like hand grenades? Those posts you later quickly edited AFTER I responded to them???
     
    Corwin, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  14. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    YOu can do whatever you like, Corwin - post anything I've said, anywhere, anytime.

    I'll close with one additional example, the latest, and explain why I consider it an insult; and crap, as a way to proceed.

    This is very much in the vein of your earlier attempts, which I consider insulting, and insubstantive:

    You cannot see it, and I understand it, because it seems this is just part of your makeup, as best as I can tell; your statement is wildly out of line with how I think, research, write - dismissive, yes, but wantonly off-mark.

    For some reason, it also followed on my sincere desire that we have a good, enriching dialogue:

    Yes; you immediately went to insults, and have continued since then. You seem to have a need for this kind of polemic, and I actually don't - so I am through, Corwin.

    You also have an odd ability to forget things - in fact, our discussion on Reagan's era only followed from your comments. So, for the life of me, I can't understand why you know insist we should return to the OP's topic, when it was yourself that began this sub-thread, and we have continued in that way. But then, if a bilious sensibility seems to be your metier, consistency isn't your strong suit; for example:

    (Reagan Era, 1980's - YOUR post, and concern)

    Uh, magically, your concern is now solely with the OP's notion, and not your comments regarding the Reagan era of close to 30 years ago?

    Or,

    -and so forth. Perhaps you should re-read some posts, I guess, because I sure don't see a lot of consistency, here.

    At any rate, for these reasons, I have no interest in continuing an online relationship with you, as I earlier said. I won't see your posts, and won't be replying any further.

    Post-edit: Look Corwin - and Mia, as you're lurking, and any others interested: I'm here for enjoyment, and enrichment, I hope I can add some useful things for others to consider - that's it, and Corwin, I'm sure you feel the same way. I don't harbor any ill will, and don't want to fight - I've already done too much in that way here, myself. Best of luck.

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2009
    northpointaiki, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  15. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #35
    @NPT, from reading your post, it appears that you consider ANY disagreement with ANYTHING you have written to be an insult. I go to the basis of the issue, the the basis of your mis-arguments is your lack of experience or understanding of the topics. This is a SINCERE observation.

    And pointing out your lack of experience is NOT an insult if it is true and I mean no malice. Your cries of "insult" all looks like an attempt to stray from the topic of conversation, which is 9.7% unemployment. And you consider pointing out ANY flaws in your arguments, and the inexperience it is the result of, to be an insult, correct?

    And, rather than fix this, you throw your arms up in the air and play the victim. Just because it's so true it STINGS, doesn't make it an insult. And I gently suggest that you may not belong in discussions like this. You don't appear to have the focus needed. My guess, from your style of writing, your constant shifting of topics and emotions, and your hypersensitivity to any form of criticism, is that you are in your early teens. That's a SINCERE observation, although I suspect that you think it's unfair to point that out.

    BTW, the topic of conversation is 9.7% unemployment.
     
    Corwin, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  16. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #36
    NAIL, MEET HEAD!

    Corwin, your best option with dullards like this is to simply ignore them. All he wants is for you to keep egging him on. You engage him in a tactful debate, which HE turns ugly, then cries foul when the courtesy is returned.

    He's attacked, hounded, chased, harassed and otherwise alienated himself from everyone here and continues to do so.

    Ignore button works. I'd just suggest using it and saving everyone the headache of listening to that whiny cry babies bellyaches.

    That it is, and it would be nice is we could continue on discussing that rather than stare at a one sided conversation which most of us do not see thanks to the ignore button.

    I see now thanks to others here that little lonely pauly is still taking pop shots at me routinely. I see he has found yet another person to badger and stalk however. Whatever the issue he has, I've continually warned him about this, as the moderation here has no doubt as well. I think its time for a restraining order.

    Now back to unemployment under Obama. While the current rate floats near 10, one thing no one here or in the mainstream will tell you is that the unemployment rates for "YOUNG" workers has sored to 25.2% which is the highest rate since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking this stuff.

    It would be important to note that while this labor group was already at a "high" level, it sored over 5% just since Obama has been president.

    source: http://www.bls.gov/

    I find it hard to stomach the president going on TV and telling me how his stimulus and recovery programs have worked, when in fact they have done the opposite. What this tells me is that the president is a liar as some suggest, or just stupid.
     
    Mia, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  17. Smyrl

    Smyrl Tomato Republic Staff

    Messages:
    13,544
    Likes Received:
    1,585
    Best Answers:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    510
    #37
    Message to all participants in this thread. Enough with all the name calling! Keep personalities out of the thread.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2009
    Smyrl, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  18. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #38
    Why is it rising.

    Instead of politics, people should look at basic economics, the world of demand and supply and essentially the national pocket book. The pocket book would include both GDP which is more or less what we earn and the national wealth. That is a determinant of our capacity to spend.

    GDP has been dropping since the end of 2007. It continues to drop at least of the last quarter. The rate of drop is diminishing. Maybe at the end of the 3rd quarter we will see GDP increasing.

    Some of the other nations around the world hit by the recession have seen increases in GDP in recent quarters.

    What about our national wealth. Here is significant news: US household wealth is on the increase again

    This is the first increase in several years. The article breaks down a lot of components of the recent changes.

    At the beginning of the article it describes how much national wealth decreased from its peak to now. Cripes over $11 trillion dollars. In other words from the period just before the official recession started national household wealth decreased by about 20%.

    When you lose that much financial wherewithal you don't spend. Its simple.

    Spending collapsed everywhere. As spending collapsed businesses suffered. People were being fired/layed off.

    People who blame Obama are simply taking the basics of the economy and turning it into some poltical rant. The economy went to hell!

    Its still in very weak position. Businesses that have in the most recent quarters, turned losses into profits are doing so with less sales and less people.

    You don't get rehired in a second. Spending is not picking up at its former pace as the article described. Savings rates are increasing and spending rates are going down.

    The economic conditions don't mean that everyone is fired --all in one day--and everyone is rehired all in one day.

    As the economy recovers (crosses his fingers) there is still the missing $11 trillion of lost household wealth, or roughly the capacity to spend.

    Dudes...it aint coming back fast. There are huge problems in real estate. Even as some markets may be flattening or coming back, others are now entering the bad times. There are plenty of foreclosures on the horizon. Additonally commercial real estate values are losing values or at values below their mortgages. It will cause some financial institution problems.

    As to what this government is doing with debt. Before you look at it...look at the mother of all debt pictures. That really tells the whole story in the US

    [​IMG]

    During this decade both financial industry debt and household debt soared. It made growth in govt debt and growth in corporate debt look like laggers.


    hmmm. I seem to recall something about this recession. The residential real estate world collapsed. All that debt held by financial institutions became worthless. That is where the recession came about and that is why things are so bad.

    Currently, the US government is plugging the whole in spending from the private/consumer/business side by its spending.

    It is attacking those problems where it sees the worst problems. You don't cure the worst problems by giving every household about $27,000 as Corwin implied. Bill Gates doesn't need the money. Warren Buffet doesn't need the money.

    As with any business...you plug it in where the problems are worse and try and get them fixed.

    So far with an effort at recovery/stimulus here are some of the things we have seen:

    A worldwide total banking collapse was averted from 1 year ago. (Bush administration accomplished that.) The government plugged a lot of money into a lot of institutions (didn't do it with others), had to deal with all sorts of details and complications (do those bastards on wall street whose butts we saved get bonuses or not) and other details.

    The recession (or downward spiral) has flattened. We are at the cusp of turning the GDP situation from moving downward to moving back up.

    The Bloomberg article above references some of the recent improvements.

    Now here is the issue. The fed govt is creating tons of debt to pay for this "stimulus". The pols may have labeled it that. (I'm a business guy. I own some property, I own some businesses with others.)

    I call it plugging the holes where the crisis has occurred.

    We are creating enormous amts of additional govt debt. No doubt. It has many scary implications:

    1. The money supply is growing like a friggin weed. The ultimate scare is hyper inflation a la Germany after WWI.

    2. The govt debt load is huge. That means huge debt payments into the future. All things being equal that means less for everything else; defense, medicare/medicade/any programs whatsoever

    3. China and other foreign nations own increasing amts of our debt. The other nations can f*ck us in so many ways.


    Now when you look at national debt...this graph has surfaced a number of times in DP P&R [​IMG].

    Guys: Twice in recent periods, national debt soared in conjunction with the administrations of the 2 Presidents who seriously cut taxes.

    Of interest the friggin debt chart was brutally high at the beginning of the chart. Its because of WWII. Now of course it is soaring again. It soared through Bush and it will soar more with Obama.

    Warren Buffett recently wrote that we can handle it for now. He advised (I'm paraphrasing) Do everything you can to cure the economy NOW. Then start sucking the liquidity out of the market (cure the money supply issue) and start paying down debt

    I'd go with Buffett any day of the week. He knows more than everyone else here in aggregate knowledge.
     
    earlpearl, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  19. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #39
    Other news the Obama admin fails to mention. Michigan where unemployment is the highest and has grown more under Obama is at 15.2% today.

    I thought that Cash For Clunkers, the bailouts and all this stimulus was supposed to put people back to work in that state. Odd how the complete opposite of everything intended, spouted or claimed by Obama is generally the reality.

    Yet look at states like North Dakota who posted the lowest jobless rate at 4.3%. South Dakota is not far behind, nor are places like Utah, Virginia, Nebraska, etc. Notice how the states with the lowest unemployment rates have fewer metropolitan areas full of liberal moonbats and other statistic altering ingrates.

    I still find it amazing how Michigan who Obama strove to save with his Cash for Crap and other useless money wasting ideas has had an increase of 6.6% in its jobless rate since Obama the Christ arrived in Washington.

    Anyone else here old enough to actually remember Carter. The angriest never was in history? The similarities are uncanny!!!
     
    Mia, Sep 18, 2009 IP
  20. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    Great post, thanks, Earlpearl. Don't know where I read it, but it was a comparative look, via a Keynesian prism, of France and Germany over the last several years. The talk there piqued me - I'm concerned this time, we've screwed the pooch; I'm not sure we can ever come to a position where our debt and coming fiscal heat will be manageable - even under the best of a Keynesian scenario, this other side -the "unfun" side - of the coin is necessary for it to "work" - if you live on "borrow during lean times, pay down during boom times," you have to have enough of a boom, or little enough to pay back, to it not to become a secular, spiralling disaster. This is my concern.

    Appreciate your thoughts, as usual.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2009
    northpointaiki, Sep 18, 2009 IP