Obama 6(...66)

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Consumers hold the key. When they start spending, job losses will start ending.

Wow, that's brilliant!!


Where does he suppose they'll get the money?


Also, he misses, or deliberately ignores, the entire point of why government stimulus was necessary in the firstplace. The US economy is 3/4 consumer spending. When consumers and corporations and banks are no longer spending, something has to replace that lost spending. Hence, stimulus.

I've posted it before, but the last quarter, the economy grew at 3%. Goldman Sachs estimates that without the stimulus, growth would have been 0. That's what you want? Quarter after quarter of no economic growth whatsoever, until finally, who knows how long, the private sector stops bleeding jobs and finally begins hiring and spending again? How long do you want to wait for that? A year? Two? Three?

There are also estimates, that even though unemployment figures are astoundingly high, without the stimulus, they'd be a point or two even higher. That's what you clowns want?

Many at the time said the stimulus wasn't big enough, that it didn't do enough to replace the lost consumer spending, and so would at best end up being a treading water type measure, and that seems to be bearing out. And yet, in the spirit of bipartisanship, so we could have a bill that we could say had Republican input, we cut direct aid to state and local governments in favor of $300 billion in tax cuts. And it's those state and local governments, who have to have balanced budgets, who have been slashing jobs, services, and spending drastically.

I'll get back to Patman when I have some more time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Obviously, stereotypes don't come from nowhere so it's one thing to think that about a high school dropout from Montgomery, Alabama who has a "The South Will Rise Again" sticker on the bumper of his pickup. Putting that aside, I tend to think that all but the most exceptional morons are just using the race card as a low blow smear tactic. But I'm curious if the typical liberal really thinks racial bigotry is that pervasive.

In my experience, white undergrads, feminist and Marxist professors who never grew up, and blacks over 50 see racism everywhere. Collectively they make up about 5% of liberals. The rest of us think racism, while not dead, is no longer a significant institutional problem, and only really a personal problem among the elderly or whites in the Confederacy (or South Boston). I doubt seriously, for example, that there are more than maybe two or three genuinely racist ****tards on this whole Forum, given its demographics.

Its long awaited death is following the arc by which education spreads through the American population, behind sexism (now at about 10% of its most virulent strain) by 10 years but ahead of homophobia (still probably about 50% of its) by about 10. In 2 generations all three problems should be wiped out in all but a few Taliban strongholds which, by then, will hopefully have been completely overrun by fire ants and Mexicans.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I was just against that clown of a POTUS wasting time and millions of dollars to travel to Europe to lobby for his hometown and do some more jetsetting, all during the bleakest economic times for our country in 60 years.

Really? You think it cost us "millions" to fly to Europe for 1/2 a day? Yeah, I'm calling bull**** on you.

No wonder the airlines are going bankrupt. a round-trip flight to Europe costs them millions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I wouldn't be shocked if Air Force One costs $1M with all the extras (security, fighters on alert, etc).

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I wouldn't be shocked if Air Force One costs $1M with all the extras (security, fighters on alert, etc).

Rounding error.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Really? You think it cost us "millions" to fly to Europe for 1/2 a day? Yeah, I'm calling bull**** on you.

No wonder the airlines are going bankrupt. a round-trip flight to Europe costs them millions.

The airlines and Air Force 1 cost the same? I don't think their's much comparison there other than the plane part. Didn't Michelle fly over in a different plane?

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

A while back, during the run-up to the 2008 election, I mentioned that one question (never asked or never answered) I would ask both the candidates would be what they would do to strengthen the dollar.

There are rumors that there are meetings going on that will no longer have the dollar as the benchmark currency for oil. IMO, if that happens, our economy tanks even worse than what we saw in the past year. If the price of gold is now just north of $1,000/oz, what will it be right after that???

If I was El Presidente and his managment team, I would do my ****dest to get the dollar back on a strong footing.

Thoughts???

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

But then that kills exports, and whatever minimal manufacturing production we currently have at the moment, further slowing the economy.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

In my experience, white undergrads, feminist and Marxist professors who never grew up, and blacks over 50 see racism everywhere. Collectively they make up about 5% of liberals. The rest of us think racism, while not dead, is no longer a significant institutional problem, and only really a personal problem among the elderly or whites in the Confederacy (or South Boston). I doubt seriously, for example, that there are more than maybe two or three genuinely racist ****tards on this whole Forum, given its demographics.

Its long awaited death is following the arc by which education spreads through the American population, behind sexism (now at about 10% of its most virulent strain) by 10 years but ahead of homophobia (still probably about 50% of its) by about 10. In 2 generations all three problems should be wiped out in all but a few Taliban strongholds which, by then, will hopefully have been completely overrun by fire ants and Mexicans.

I'm going to have to submit to a saliva test, because I agree with you on this one. The accusation of racism is the equivalent to the '50's charge of being soft on communism. It was an argument stopper. Designed to put the person accused immediately on the defensive, thus changing the subject. In the 50's people wound up saying: "But, but I was at Salerno and I'm a member of the VFW and my wife belongs to the DAR. . ." Naturally, there WERE some people who were far more than soft on communism, just as there are people today who have fond memories of Birmingham in the 50's. Not too many. And most of them keep those ideas pretty much to themselves.

But we have to keep reminding ourselves that in a country with free speech you're allowed to be a bigoted red neck honkey or a Blackstone Ranger as long as you don't break the law. That's why we have to put up with Fred Phelps.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Wow, that's brilliant!!

Where does he suppose they'll get the money?

Also, he misses, or deliberately ignores, the entire point of why government stimulus was necessary in the firstplace. The US economy is 3/4 consumer spending. When consumers and corporations and banks are no longer spending, something has to replace that lost spending. Hence, stimulus.

I've posted it before, but the last quarter, the economy grew at 3%. Goldman Sachs estimates that without the stimulus, growth would have been 0. That's what you want? Quarter after quarter of no economic growth whatsoever, until finally, who knows how long, the private sector stops bleeding jobs and finally begins hiring and spending again? How long do you want to wait for that? A year? Two? Three?

There are also estimates, that even though unemployment figures are astoundingly high, without the stimulus, they'd be a point or two even higher. That's what you clowns want?

Many at the time said the stimulus wasn't big enough, that it didn't do enough to replace the lost consumer spending, and so would at best end up being a treading water type measure, and that seems to be bearing out. And yet, in the spirit of bipartisanship, so we could have a bill that we could say had Republican input, we cut direct aid to state and local governments in favor of $300 billion in tax cuts. And it's those state and local governments, who have to have balanced budgets, who have been slashing jobs, services, and spending drastically.

I'll get back to Patman when I have some more time.

A couple things here:

- The stimulus was never designed to replace consumer spending, it's targeted at entirely different segments of the economy.

- I won't even get into what a large percentage of the bill is pork and other earmarks conveniently in line with Obama's political agenda.

- Goldman Sachs is no longer a credible source for commentary on Obama's economic decision. If you don't know why, you should educate yourself.

- I do agree with you, however, that unemployment has grown to be astoundingly high under Obama's watch. (I'm gonna try and read the minds of the liberals' response to this......looking into my crystal ball.... Dammit I just spilled my coffee. It's Bush's fault! ..... So how close was I? )

I wouldn't be shocked if Air Force One costs $1M with all the extras (security, fighters on alert, etc).

I think I did see that on a show about the plane somewhere, maybe NGC. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. I'm not going to bother with it because there's no need to even do any research for this comparison:

Really? You think it cost us "millions" to fly to Europe for 1/2 a day? Yeah, I'm calling bull**** on you.

No wonder the airlines are going bankrupt. a round-trip flight to Europe costs them millions.

I'm sure you're just having a very off day and you will withdraw your BS call when you actually apply your gray matter to this astoundingly horrible analogy you just made.

I mean.... wow dude.... that analogy was really BAAAAADDD!!!

In my experience, white undergrads, feminist and Marxist professors who never grew up, and blacks over 50 see racism everywhere. Collectively they make up about 5% of liberals. The rest of us think racism, while not dead, is no longer a significant institutional problem, and only really a personal problem among the elderly or whites in the Confederacy (or South Boston). I doubt seriously, for example, that there are more than maybe two or three genuinely racist ****tards on this whole Forum, given its demographics.

Its long awaited death is following the arc by which education spreads through the American population, behind sexism (now at about 10% of its most virulent strain) by 10 years but ahead of homophobia (still probably about 50% of its) by about 10. In 2 generations all three problems should be wiped out in all but a few Taliban strongholds which, by then, will hopefully have been completely overrun by fire ants and Mexicans.

That's basically the way I see it too, about 5%. Which means that Jimmy Carter and rufus are about 95% likely to have made their accusations as a low blow/smear attempt. Which sounds pretty accurate to me.....

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

But we have to keep reminding ourselves that in a country with free speech you're allowed to be a bigoted red neck honkey or a Blackstone Ranger as long as you don't break the law. That's why we have to put up with Fred Phelps.

Exactly.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

A couple things here:

- The stimulus was never designed to replace consumer spending, it's targeted at entirely different segments of the economy.

spending is spending, it doesn't matter what it's spent on, or who's spending it. If consmers won't, then government will. Certainly spending on certain things provides a long term benefit for the country, but any spending, on anything, puts dollars into the economy. Dollars that replaced those not being spent by consumers.

Consumers spending money on hot dogs or nacho chips, or on a new refrigerator or a new car, or on hookers and blow. Government spending money on new buildings or bridges, or to hire new policemen or teachers, or fund some medical clinic. None of it makes a difference to the economy, which only sees money changing hands, and cycling through the system. Priming the pump, or replacing money that's otherwise not being spent, that's the entire purpose of stimulus.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I wouldn't be shocked if Air Force One costs $1M with all the extras (security, fighters on alert, etc).

the security is already there, fighters around DC are going to be on alert anyway (though I suppose in Whoopi Goldberg speak, they could be on alert-alert), the plane is paid for and the pilots are salaried and getting paid whether they're on duty or not...the marginal cost of the flight may be high, but no way is it multiple seven figures.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

spending is spending, it doesn't matter what it's spent on, or who's spending it. If consmers won't, then government will. Certainly spending on certain things provides a long term benefit for the country, but any spending, on anything, puts dollars into the economy. Dollars that replaced those not being spent by consumers.

Consumers spending money on hot dogs or nacho chips, or on a new refrigerator or a new car, or on hookers and blow. Government spending money on new buildings or bridges, or to hire new policemen or teachers, or fund some medical clinic. None of it makes a difference to the economy, which only sees money changing hands, and cycling through the system. Priming the pump, or replacing money that's otherwise not being spent, that's the entire purpose of stimulus.

so what happens to gas in a broken car? If the system is broken it doesn't matter how often you prime the system.

edit: would somebody care to explain why infrastructure is a good thing? the word starts with an 'E' but none of you guys who like to make use of the money hole (see The Onion) never seem to use it.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

So why's the system broken? And who broke it?

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

So why's the system broken? And who broke it?

Oh boy.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

the security is already there, fighters around DC are going to be on alert anyway (though I suppose in Whoopi Goldberg speak, they could be on alert-alert), the plane is paid for and the pilots are salaried and getting paid whether they're on duty or not...the marginal cost of the flight may be high, but no way is it multiple seven figures.

First of all, if you had read my post properly you would in no way have thought I said a single flight costs millionS.

Second, It seems that conservatives are not the only camp to question usage of Air Force One. Here are the 2006 numbers:

"Flight operating costs total $56,518 an hour on Air Force One and $14,552 an hour on Air Force Two, according to last month's House report.

The figures are based on per-hour costs listed by the General Accounting Office for 2000, and adjusted for inflation."

So a million bucks wasn't that far of the mark.

Here's the link: http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/267193_joel19.html

And you know if it's a liberal columnist saying that, it must be right.

And finally, that was still an idiotic analogy you made.

spending is spending, it doesn't matter what it's spent on, or who's spending it. If consmers won't, then government will. Certainly spending on certain things provides a long term benefit for the country, but any spending, on anything, puts dollars into the economy. Dollars that replaced those not being spent by consumers.

Consumers spending money on hot dogs or nacho chips, or on a new refrigerator or a new car, or on hookers and blow. Government spending money on new buildings or bridges, or to hire new policemen or teachers, or fund some medical clinic. None of it makes a difference to the economy, which only sees money changing hands, and cycling through the system. Priming the pump, or replacing money that's otherwise not being spent, that's the entire purpose of stimulus.

Not really. Spending on certain sectors can have a positive feedback effect on the economy, getting more bang for the buck. I'll use an example which highlights both this and my second bullet from my earlier post, which you seem content to turning a blind eye on.

Of the hundreds (actually, isn't it thousands?) of earmarks in the bill, one that is easiest to remember, because of how shameful it is, is the 3 or 4 million dollar earmark to build a tunnel so turtles could crawl under a road instead of across it. While this was money in the pockets of the contractors and their employees, it's a pretty irresponsible building project to be included in a bill whose money is designed to stimulate the economy.

Money changing hands and cycling through, you say - I agree. Once the contractors walk away, how will this stupid turtle tunnel promote that. Why not have paid them to build a shopping center? Once they walk away, their efforts will have put X more people back to work as the new stores hire employees and created a new forum for money changing hands and cycling through. You see what I mean about feedback? Target the money that's spent on projects which will go on keeping the wheels spinning round long after the contractors walk away. Urban renovation projects, as long as they aren't politically corrupted, are good too. Build and expand highways to promote economic growth in areas poised to expand. It's all about commerce, baby.

so what happens to gas in a broken car? If the system is broken it doesn't matter how often you prime the system.

edit: would somebody care to explain why infrastructure is a good thing? the word starts with an 'E' but none of you guys who like to make use of the money hole (see The Onion) never seem to use it.

Effette? (The only synonym of dilapidated beginning with E that I could find on thesaurus.com ) I've been looking for a good spot to insert this here. While what I just said is the quickest, cheapest, and best way to put the economy back on the road to sustained growth - I am all in favor of taking a portion of the stimulus money towards infrastructure renovation. I'm no expert, but I hear trickles of information here and there that large segments of our infrastructure are frighteningly obsolete and strained to the breaking point. No doubt about the Eisenhower interstate system, the Minneapolis bridge collapse brought that to the headlines. I've heard the same about our electrical grid too. And dams. (?) And most urban sewer systems are a century old, I heard that's an urgent thing too.

I'm no expert and I could be wrong, but if there's any segment of our infrastructure that is in danger of failing I think Uncle Sam needs to hire some of the people at the unemployment offices to address this. Actually this is further elaboration on my reply to rufus now that I think of it, seeing how commerce needs a sound and reliable infrastructure to operate upon.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Regarding anti-Obamism, there's a lot more going on than racism. I'd say there's about 10% of the Obama haters who are fringe lunatics. Be it Ron Paul supporters, Naderites, or LaRouche worshipers, they're against any politician from the two major parties. The longer those town hall meeting went on, the more of these types you found attending and making a ruckus. Nothing to do with the guy's color, these peope are just plain nuts.

I'd also say about 10% of people disapprove of him on policy. There aren't a lot of true undecideds out there in this partisan atmoshphere. Most people who voted for him are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now since he's only 9 months into his first term. However, I'm sure there are some who considered voting for him who now don't like the country's direction especially with the higher than expected unemployment.


But by far, the biggest source of anti-Obamism are Republicans who can't get over the fact that their party has sunk to historic lows. This is the same bitterness that Clinton encountered when he ended the Reagan era. For these people, it wouldn't matter if Obama was a white Southerner (like Clinton) instead of a black Northerner. They never imagined being in this position and are willing to cling to any stupid rumor or minor issue because they're sick of losing and want to relive past glory. There are less of these people around now than 10 years ago, but they can still make a lot of noise.

Lastly, and sadly, I'd say a good 20% of this is due to racism. The idea that none of this is due to the fact that he's black, or that he has a Muslim sounding name is ludicrious. These @ ssclowns are generally the same people who believe Obama was born overseas.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Regarding anti-Obamism, there's a lot more going on than racism. I'd say there's about 10% of the Obama haters who are fringe lunatics. Be it Ron Paul supporters, Naderites, or LaRouche worshipers, they're against any politician from the two major parties. The longer those town hall meeting went on, the more of these types you found attending and making a ruckus. Nothing to do with the guy's color, these peope are just plain nuts.

I'd also say about 10% of people disapprove of him on policy. There aren't a lot of true undecideds out there in this partisan atmoshphere. Most people who voted for him are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now since he's only 9 months into his first term. However, I'm sure there are some who considered voting for him who now don't like the country's direction especially with the higher than expected unemployment.


But by far, the biggest source of anti-Obamism are Republicans who can't get over the fact that their party has sunk to historic lows. This is the same bitterness that Clinton encountered when he ended the Reagan era. For these people, it wouldn't matter if Obama was a white Southerner (like Clinton) instead of a black Northerner. They never imagined being in this position and are willing to cling to any stupid rumor or minor issue because they're sick of losing and want to relive past glory. There are less of these people around now than 10 years ago, but they can still make a lot of noise.

Lastly, and sadly, I'd say a good 20% of this is due to racism. The idea that none of this is due to the fact that he's black, or that he has a Muslim sounding name is ludicrious. These @ ssclowns are generally the same people who believe Obama was born overseas.

Wow dude, you really have a warped view of all those that dare disagree with The One's agenda.

Obama's approval rating is at 50% so let's do the math using your estimates. 5% of Americans are just fringe lunatics... ok, you might not be so far off there. 10% of Americans are racist and disagree with Obama because of his skin color and middle name. I'd actually cut both of those numbers by a third, but whatever, close enough....

These are the kickers though. 30% of Americans are nothing more than bitter Republicans that don't care about the issues - they're just holding a 16 year long grudge and are being petty about it and are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Seeing how, that's the large majority of the Republican party, I can see how you would want to stereotype Republicans as morons.

And - and this is very telling about your attitude towards the average American - only 5%, or 1 in 20, Americans is following the issues and has come to the conclusion that Obama's agenda is a bad path for America. (While the other 10 of 20 intelligent Americans presumably agree, right? Intelligent people favor Obama's agenda by a 10 to 1 margin....) Wow, Zogby and Gallup blew it, they have no idea how stupid the average American is - Obama really is The One!

Honestly, with your views of the average American I can totally see why you have that "F you moron, I don't need to debate you people intelligently" attitude of yours.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'd also say about 10% of people disapprove of him on policy. .

TF, multiply that by 4 and I'd say you were close