Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I asked the question yesterday morning. I repeated it yesterday afternoon and gave up today. Several of them have posted; none have responded.

Apologies. I must have completely missed that. I personally don't know enough about the situation to make an intelligent post about it. On the face of the situation, it seems ridiculous, but we all know there is more to a story than what meets the eye.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, it's his right, but you are also talking as if everybody starts from the same starting line, and that's bunk.




Yes, you did, but take a smart kid from humble beginnings and he learns the same thing. The efficacy of education is not at issue (though there are certainly other issues like designer label schools which hike salary and opportunities later in life and which have little to do with merit). Access to that education is at issue.




You asked me what the numbers mean. They directly refute your claim. Or rather, they put the anecdotes into mathematical context -- although there are rags to riches and riches to rags stories, there are significantly fewer than in other countries. That means we are breeding an aristocracy, and that is very bad news.

I never said everybody starts from the same point...why do you think they should? If equal percentages of the middle class go up and down the ladder and they represent 70% of the middle class then I'd say we have plenty of mobility in the middle class...that it can be up or down is a strength of the country, in my view. That only 8% of the wealthy got there by dad kicking the bucket indicates that the country club is full of a lot of new money, not all of whom started out in this country...what % of our doctors, consultants and IT directors are from other countries and can't really fit into the analysis in terms of migration?

When people can't discern between fair and equal and think they can make things fair by forcing equal and think that dollars spent is the measure of effort then we have a system that throws money at problems...and fails.

As for having significantly fewer...we have over 100 million households, why would you say we have fewer people in rags to riches situations? The analysis you posted spoke of percentages, not volume.


from the source (which happens to be a progressive think tank):
This report discusses two aspects of economic mobility in the United States. The first is the question of intergenerational mobility, or the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents. A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often interpreted as a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society.

That last sentence...'often interpreted'? by whom?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Why would they, there is no justification for it. The disconnect between Washington and the people is never more perfectly shown than in that story. Politicians don't give a crap about the average person...they love 9/11 as a slogan, but screw the people who actually helped out...they are just rubes.

Inconceivable. Don't you know that ALL conservatives are in lock-step together on every position. It's a hive mentality. They receive their marching orders telepathically from Dick Cheney and do as they're told. The only explanation for conservatives not responding to Priceless is that they've failed to receive said telepathic instructions and are too busy wandering aimlessly repeating "Guide us Cheney, Guide us."

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Inconceivable. Don't you know that ALL conservatives are in lock-step together on every position. It's a hive mentality. They receive their marching orders telepathically from Dick Cheney and do as they're told. The only explanation for conservatives not responding to Priceless is that they've failed to receive said telepathic instructions and are too busy wandering aimlessly repeating "Guide us Cheney, Guide us."

On the contrary, I was hoping one of you could shed some light on the situation. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but as was said before there may be "more than meets the eye." I'm just curious why no one is explaining what that "more" is...

But please, feel free to mock me instead of answering the question.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Inconceivable. Don't you know that ALL conservatives are in lock-step together on every position. It's a hive mentality. They receive their marching orders telepathically from Dick Cheney and do as they're told. The only explanation for conservatives not responding to Priceless is that they've failed to receive said telepathic instructions and are too busy wandering aimlessly repeating "Guide us Cheney, Guide us."

You sure it isn't Karl Rove?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If falling prices isn't deflation, What would you call it?

Productivity gains!

No, seriously. Inflation/Deflation relates solely to the money supply in relation to GDP. When electronics prices fall year over year as newer technologies come out and the "early adapter" premiums can't be collected, that's not a sign of deflation.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Productivity gains!

No, seriously. Inflation/Deflation relates solely to the money supply in relation to GDP. When electronics prices fall year over year as newer technologies come out and the "early adapter" premiums can't be collected, that's not a sign of deflation.

But if the goods in the entire CPI "basket" start to decrease in price, then that is deflation.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think it's something we'd really rather not have when we're trying to come out of a recession, as it provides an incentive for entities that have money to hold onto it and not spend it.

Doesn't exist... or rather only exists at an institutional level... the problem in the end is that people want stuff... this is why I generally don't consider deflation to be a problem... eventually the "want" mechanism will override the "steady hand"... the real problem with deflation is the spiraling inability of some (many?) of the players in the system to be able to pay off their debts. This then can cripple a country as we end up with a deleveraging of sorts but in slow motion (unlike the bank collapse in 2008)... the sequences of payouts get dragged along by the courts... etc. Deflation, however, in itself is not something that's permanent nor a death spiral. People want stuff whether its bagels, TVs, or 20 story buildings.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Were you really expecting them to?

Some day, some day, I am going to wake up and see that the democrats are no longer relying on the racism of the hispanic community to bail them out.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Some day, some day, I am going to wake up and see that the democrats are no longer relying on the racism of the hispanic community to bail them out.

So you support first responders not getting health care? Good to know you'd rather talk about hispanics instead.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So you support first responders not getting health care? Good to know you'd rather talk about hispanics instead.

What does that have to do with the Dream Act?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What does that have to do with the Dream Act?

Absolutely nothing, it was clearly in response to the lack of response to the question on why republicans would vote against the bill that would provide health care for first responders. A question that remains unanswered by any of the neocons here.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, seriously. Inflation/Deflation relates solely to the money supply in relation to GDP.

We're essentially saying the same thing (productivity gains would drive GDP upward).

I think we're needlessly worried about deflation when all signs point in the other direction. When commodities climb substantially in price, that should tell you something: a) it should tell you economic growth is resuming, and b) it should tell you that investors are attempting to hedge against future inflation. The rising yields in the US Bond market should also tell you something (investors don't like our fiscal course and are demanding higher rates to purchase the debt).

As for the 9/11 healthcare bill, I have no idea why they would filibuster it. The only thing I've been able to find concerning it is a demand to find a way to pay for it - which seems a bit odd given there was no such demand during the argument over extending the tax rates another couple years. If something adds nearly $1 trillion to the debt, we don't care about paying for it, but if it's adding $10 billion we do? W T F? In short, that is why I don't vote. The country is run by idiots that refuse to make difficult decisions. The bond market and foreign investors will force their hand sooner rather than later.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

On the contrary, I was hoping one of you could shed some light on the situation. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but as was said before there may be "more than meets the eye." I'm just curious why no one is explaining what that "more" is...

But please, feel free to mock me instead of answering the question.

I am terribly sorry that I misconstrued your questions as trolling (or is it flaming?). I'm not sure how that could have happened. Please, please excuse my naivety.

The lack of anyone defending the Repubs actions is actually quite simple. It's not fear or trying to hide as you seem to assume. No one agrees with them. THE REPUBS ARE WRONG.

There's your answer and now I will resume mocking you. Mock, mock, mock.

You sure it isn't Karl Rove?

Cheney + Rove + Bush = The Trinity. The one Evil exists in three Persons and one substance.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I agree, it should be passed. No questions. I fervently disagree with the Republicans here.

However, why, in a Senate with 57-59 Democrats, was the bill not brought to the floor before the lame duck session? Or, in the House, where the bill received 255 votes for to 159 against back in June. But the bill was brought to the floor in a way that required a two thirds majority. Why? Or why has Obama been silent on it?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I agree, it should be passed. No questions. I fervently disagree with the Republicans here.

However, why, in a Senate with 57-59 Democrats, was the bill not brought to the floor before the lame duck session? Or, in the House, where the bill received 255 votes for to 159 against back in June. But the bill was brought to the floor in a way that required a two thirds majority. Why? Or why has Obama been silent on it?

Karl Rove, George Bush and Dick Cheney are the reasons, isn't it obvious

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But if the goods in the entire CPI "basket" start to decrease in price, then that is deflation.

True. But I think Motley fool nailed why CPI is a misleading/lagging indicator.
Sounds like we need CPI excluding (rent/housing).

40% of CPI is housing (rent and rent equivalents).

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

* FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
* HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
* APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
* TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
* MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
* RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
* EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
* OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/10/heres-why-the-cpi-is-broken.aspx

More than 40% of the CPI is based on a composite of rent and rent equivalents from major housing markets across the country. That's a very big number for just one item, but the magnitude of the number itself is not necessarily the trouble. It merely intensifies three other underlying problems:

1. Fluctuations in housing prices are not shared equally.
2. Changes in housing costs aren't experienced in real time.
3. Everyone's housing situation is different.

When do housing costs actually rise?
Our second problem is a bit more abstract. Typical Americans don't experience changes in housing costs nearly as quickly as changes in other cost components of the CPI index.

If you're a renter, you've probably locked in your rates for at least a year, if not more. If you're a homeowner, you're likely to have locked in your mortgage rates for a very long time. You probably won't face fluctuations in home prices again until you're looking to move

While inflationary effects manifest themselves more rapidly in other parts of the market (food, gas, etc.), there might be a significant delay before they start influencing housing prices. It's quite likely that the CPI is not fairly representing the real-time inflationary picture because it's being weighed down by much slower-moving housing prices.

Before we examine the CPI itself, I'll quickly restate the ways in which the market is telling us that inflation has arrived. Commodity prices are soaring. Companies ranging from McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) to AmBev (NYSE: BUD) to United Technologies (NYSE: UTX) are raising prices. U.S. dollars are falling in value. The stock market is rising. Gold is shooting through the roof. These are the secondary indicators I mentioned, all telltale signs. On the other side of the debate is the Fed, which asserts that inflation levels are significantly less than normal, using the CPI to confirm. Why the disconnect?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

IMO, i still think the real reason for the inflationary policy relates to the issue of companies being able to pay back their loans... IIRC, the stuff in 2008 was just one aspect, there were other things tied to commercial properties and things of that nature. I think "deflation" has just been a cover for it.

There is no real reason for the Dow to go back to where it was in 2008 absent inflation... if you assume that the money in the market was well inflated by the derivatives and other over-leveraged situations then it would seem to me that you couldn't readily return to those figures absent a roaring economy (we don't have that) or some other dynamic or feature. As it turns out, our gov't has been feeding money back to these institutions at those levels... and then its just a matter of time before that inflation dynamic filters down.

I still think some of the consumer issues we have are tied in to the corn ethanol subsidies but there is no good sense that should dictate that the stock market should have returned to its previous values.

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I agree, it should be passed. No questions. I fervently disagree with the Republicans here.

However, why, in a Senate with 57-59 Democrats, was the bill not brought to the floor before the lame duck session? Or, in the House, where the bill received 255 votes for to 159 against back in June. But the bill was brought to the floor in a way that required a two thirds majority. Why? Or why has Obama been silent on it?

Because by their nature the Dems are grossly incompetent. Democrats need to accept they will always be only place holders. They will only ever get power when the Republicans are so obviously evil and corrupt that the masses are left with no other choice.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I am terribly sorry that I misconstrued your questions as trolling (or is it flaming?). I'm not sure how that could have happened. Please, please excuse my naivety.

What do Mary, Joseph, et al have to do with this?