"The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers":wall:

Obama doesn't get it!


Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Initial-jobless-claims-apf-355511092.html?x=0)

"The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers":wall:

Obama doesn't get it!


Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Initial-jobless-claims-apf-355511092.html?x=0)
Are you serious?
"Not everything goes in a straight line," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "Definitely not the claims data."

Perhaps this is a "jobless" recovery.

Are you serious?

No, I'm making a funny. :fury:

Perhaps Sh#t like this has something to do with it:

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/scuppers/62249-epa-screwing-contractors-homeowners.html

I'm no senior economist , I'm just guessing

Perhaps this is a "jobless" recovery.

I wouldn't worry about it..the Kenyan Kommunist told us the he was going to focus like a laser on jobs....wait...maybe that was meant to say he'd be destroying jobs with a laser death ray or something:rotf2:

WIKIPEDIA .....A "jobless recovery" or jobless growth is a phrase used by leftist economists, especially in the United States, to describe the recovery from a recession, where "recovery" is defined as growth in gross domestic product (GDP), which does not produce strong growth in employment, specifically a rapid drop in the unemployment rate to the level it was prior to recession. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in the 1930s.[1]not a coincidence

A jobless recovery is usually seen as a bad thing in a capitalist industrialized society. This is primarily because in such a society most people need jobs to earn the money they need to purchase goods and services from the marketplace. Also, secondarily, doing something useful and productive is usually connected to a healthy individual's self-esteem and his or her positive relationships to the larger community. An alternative (Progressive liberal democrat) view is that a jobless recovery could be a step towards a post-scarcity society full of abundance for all if you are a communist moron-- as a new stage of cultural development with increased leisure and volunteerism.in other words, lazy ass government dependents and democrat voters That alternative view represents a trend that many technologists, futurists, and heterodox economists have predicted dreamed of and fantasized about in their deranged leftist cult meetings for decades.

Now that funny

Perhaps Sh#t like this has something to do with it:

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/scuppers/62249-epa-screwing-contractors-homeowners.html

I'm no senior economist , I'm just guessing

That's already been whined about ad-nauseum.

I wouldn't worry about it..the Kenyan Kommunist told us the he was going to focus like a laser on jobs....wait...maybe that was meant to say he'd be destroying jobs with a laser death ray or something:rotf2:

WIKIPEDIA .....A "jobless recovery" or jobless growth is a phrase used by leftist economists, especially in the United States, to describe the recovery from a recession, where "recovery" is defined as growth in gross domestic product (GDP), which does not produce strong growth in employment, specifically a rapid drop in the unemployment rate to the level it was prior to recession. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in the 1930s.[1]not a coincidence

A jobless recovery is usually seen as a bad thing in a capitalist industrialized society. This is primarily because in such a society most people need jobs to earn the money they need to purchase goods and services from the marketplace. Also, secondarily, doing something useful and productive is usually connected to a healthy individual's self-esteem and his or her positive relationships to the larger community. An alternative (Progressive liberal democrat) view is that a jobless recovery could be a step towards a post-scarcity society full of abundance for all if you are a communist moron-- as a new stage of cultural development with increased leisure and volunteerism.in other words, lazy ass government dependents and democrat voters That alternative view represents a trend that many technologists, futurists, and heterodox economists have predicted dreamed of and fantasized about in their deranged leftist cult meetings for decades.

Comrade, you left the "this article needs additional citations for verification" notice out of your arts and craft project.

But I get it; we took the happy ending of the 1990's for granted. And for 10 years, something spoiled in our brand of capitalism. But we held our noses. Our - not left or right - state of economic affairs shows that even a sophisticated country with studied leadership can stumble badly. This is essentially what occurred in Japan long before we got wind of the stench of our own rotting economic core. The current growth is just simply too slow to reduce unemployment. To borrow from Paul Krugman, we may be in the midst of a "growth recession."

That's already been whined about ad-nauseum.

Sorry we make you sick JD.

Comrade, you left the "this article needs additional citations for verification" notice out of your arts and craft project.

But I get it; we took the happy ending of the 1990's for granted. the "happy ending" of the 1990's was also a bubble if you recall, And for 10 years, something spoiled in our brand of capitalism.yes and that was government/congress (maybe you missed Greenspan's testimony the other day) inserting it fingers into the banking system and forcing banks to make loans that should never have been made and the culture that it created which began long before the 10 years that you refer to But we held our noses. some did Our - not left or right - state of economic affairs your opinion shows that even a sophisticated country with studied leadership if you voted for Obama, studied leadership??? can stumble badly. This is essentially what occurred in Japan no, no, no...Japan's "lost decade" resulted from massive government spending to try to fuel their economy, we are only just entering that phase long before we got wind of the stench of our own rotting economic core. The current growth is just simply too intentionally slow to reduce unemployment. To borrow from Paul Krugman, we may be in the midst of a "growth recession." we are in the midst of " the remaking of America"


Comrade...you paint a picture of what you think has and is happening but it has no basis in fact....this economy is in ruins under the weight of massive debt that has and continues to be piled on in the form of liberal social programs, entitlements, benefits and promises....from RI -9.5 BILLION in unfunded obligations to public sector employees...to California 550 BILLION (that's half a TRILLION) in unfunded obligations to same and everywhere in between....now healthcare who's actual cost has been tinkerd and lied about to make it palatable to the sleazy politicians who voted for it...next phase is to find new ways to suck the life out of every American who works and participates in this failing economy....the folks running the country currently are vampires and they have their teeth in our necks, there can't be growth with massive debt ever increasing, rising taxation and new regulation....and we're told to expect high unemployment for a long...long time....but keep rooting along with the heterodox economists and futurists that the "jobless recovery" will bring Utopia and leisure and volunteerism and a Post-Scarcity Economy:rotf2:

what you need to decide is whether you prefer to be responsible for your own success in a free market economy or...whether you want to make the government responsible for guaranteeing your "happy ending"

oh, almost forgot...the Bush tax cuts are set to expire as well...that should help spur job slow growth

Most service industry related jobs are laying off this time of year. IT service related industry slows down EVERY year right about now and cuts its fat.

One example is ski resorts. How many do we have in this country?

I know reality is less fun than saying its Obama's fault, but think people.

like this VAT vacuum the wallet thingy

U.S. eyes sales tax - BostonHerald.com (http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1245809&position=0)

Most service industry related jobs are laying off this time of year. IT service related industry slows down EVERY year right about now and cuts its fat.

One example is ski resorts. How many do we have in this country?

I know reality is less fun than saying its Obama's fault, but think people.

well, that explains it...ski resorts are responsible....:rotf2:unbelieveable

lawn care should be picking up...how many lawns do we have in this country??? wouldn't that off set the ski resort layoffs:uhuh:

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth :rotf2:demonize capitalism :rotf2: ect. :rotf2:). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste…it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before." – Rohm Emanuel

Just stole this graph

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth :rotf2:demonize capitalism :rotf2: ect. :rotf2:). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today.....:uhuh:...you do know that all of the "safety nets" put in place are operating only due to deficit spending....right???? as in....there's no money for them???? Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in this year....wait....where's all the money they've collected since early last century to pay these retirees back their contributions......and all of the unfunded obligations that are currently bankrupting us at the state and federal level? what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????

Most service industry related jobs are laying off this time of year. IT service related industry slows down EVERY year right about now and cuts its fat.

One example is ski resorts. How many do we have in this country?

I know reality is less fun than saying its Obama's fault, but think people.

When ski resorts, etc... lay off, other seasonal industries are hiring. Think about the hotels, seasonal restaurants and landscaping companies that increase their staffing levels in the spring.

Just stole this graph

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side....the graph is for "job loss" and during the down turn the loss was greatest and eventually you start to run out of jobs to lose...there is no "job growth" represented by the graph, only fewer jobs lost per month(with the exception of 1 month) on the Obama side...this is very disingenuous...the jobs lost per month on the JoBama side are in addition to the jobs lost previously, not an increase in the number of jobs "job growth"...but a glance at the graph would make you think (if you are the Hopey Change type)there's an increase in employment "job growth" and things are on the upswing...we're just shedding jobs at a slower rate....

14. That's how many "rallies" we had in the Great Depression. Real unemployment 21.7%. Federal government spent 334 billion in the first 2 months of 2010 (an all time record), it took in 105 billion. Foreclosures hit all time record in Feb. Moody's warns of the loss of AAA credit rating over debt. Greece teetering on collapse, followed by almost the entire western world.

If you think this is over just wait and see.

have you checked oil prices lately?

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today.. what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????


Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side. - this is very disingenuous...

Couldn't totally follow what you are saying but if the left side of the graph is measuring a different stat that the right side and using the job loss/job growth heading to represent the right and left side, I totally agree that the it is disingenous.

The fact remains that the economy was in a free fall and has started to stablize. Are we out of the woods yet, of course not.

I work in the insurance industry and the insurance companies were hurt by their insured companies laying off people. So if you insured company x in 2009 and it had 5,000 ees in 1/09, by 12/09 they had 4,500 ees. Most insurers are now forecasting enrollment will be flat in 2010 b/c their insureds have stopped laying people off and have slightly starting hiring people back.

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

I guess if you define your compassion as your willingness to blindly pay arbitrary taxes to support and perpetuate failed programs that keep others mired in poverty and generationally begging at the government trough, it explains a lot.... :uhuh:

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side...

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

well, that explains it...ski resorts are responsible....:rotf2:unbelieveable

Sunday River in Maine alone employs 400-500 people during the season, they lay off close to 80% of that.

Thats ONE resort, and not even remotely the scale of west coast mountains.

Lets also add in all the seasonal restaraunt staff, seasonal shop staff, winter guides for various outdoor sports, etc. etc. etc. that are done for the season and not getting into their next jobs (outdoor guides, summer season campers/forestry crews/etc.) for another month or so.

lawn care should be picking up...how many lawns do we have in this country??? wouldn't that off set the ski resort layoffs:uhuh:

Landscraping STARTS out here (hamptons) the end of march and doesn't get going for another MONTH.

But, carry on being dumb, someone has to do it. :rotf2:

Here's an even more difficult concept for you. Seasonal jobs don't hire until they NEED people. I know, shocking.

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?
He's just upset that Obama is on the right...and that he lacks the power to reverse the direction of time.

-spence

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.
Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth :rotf2:demonize capitalism :rotf2: ect. :rotf2:). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.


The jobs created under Obama are goverment jobs. They cost us all more and infringe on our freedoms at worse. Other jobs created through the "stimulas" bill are only funded for a couple of years

I also credit the predicted election of Obama for Bush's last few months of job losses.

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

you got it
in this most terrible of times, just curious. Has anyone ever knocked at your door and offered to shovel your driveway? Mow your lawn, etc?
Yet we had mile long soup kitchen lines in the 30's.

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit:rotf2:

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit:rotf2:

The "surplus" was already reduced by half during the last half of Clinton's term due to the burst of the dot.com bubble. The decline merely continued during the first half of Bush's first term before the economy rebounded and roared again until the housing "bubble" (which expanded due to pre-Bush policies) exploded.

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line.no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?Or are you made at how the graph is titled? both

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? yes, especially if it's your job!!!! So when there was positive job growthit's not positive job growth, it's fewer jobs lost...there's a difference, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are? just think of all the jobs he must have saved!!!!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. you first:uhuh: If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

Why the Obama economics plan is working - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322393/ns/business-businessweekcom/)

-spence

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010

I deleted everything prior to 1970. So now Bush's deficit has to do with what Clinton did but Obama's deficit has nothing to do with Bush did?

Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted
1970 2.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 15.316 Billion Deficit
1971 23 Billion Dollar Deficit 120.52 Billion Deficit
1972 23.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.638 Billion Deficit
1973 14.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 71.222 Billion Deficit
1974 6.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 26.23 Billion Deficit
1975 53.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 209.608 Billion Deficit
1976 73.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 274.901 Billion Deficit
1977 53.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 187.95 Billion Deficit
1978 59.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 192.4 Billion Deficit
1979 40.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.844 Billion Deficit
1980 73.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 190.404 Billion Deficit
1981 79 Billion Dollar Deficit 184.07 Billion Deficit
1982 128 Billion Dollar Deficit 281.6 Billion Deficit
1983 207.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 442.614 Billion Deficit
1984 185.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 378.216 Billion Deficit
1985 212.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 418.231 Billion Deficit
1986 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 429.128 Billion Deficit
1987 149.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 279.939 Billion Deficit
1988 155.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 277.808 Billion Deficit
1989 152.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.775 Billion Deficit
1990 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 358.344 Billion Deficit
1991 269.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 420.108 Billion Deficit
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 438.504 Billion Deficit
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 374.997 Billion Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 290.576 Billion Deficit
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit 227.96 Billion Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 145.125 Billion Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit 29.04 Billion Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 89.96 Billion Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus 159.512 Billion Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus 290.772 Billion Surplus
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus 152.76 Billion Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 186.204 Billion Deficit
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit 430.1 Billion Deficit
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit 462.56 Billion Deficit
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit 347.71 Billion Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.4 Billion Deficit
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit 165.24 Billion Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit 455 Billion Deficit
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit 1400 Billion Deficit
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit 1350 Billion Deficit

Sunday River in Maine alone employs 400-500 people during the season, they lay off close to 80% of that.

Thats ONE resort, and not even remotely the scale of west coast mountains.

Lets also add in all the seasonal restaraunt staff, seasonal shop staff, winter guides for various outdoor sports, etc. etc. etc. that are done for the season and not getting into their next jobs (outdoor guides, summer season campers/forestry crews/etc.) for another month or so.



Landscraping STARTS out here (hamptons) the end of march and doesn't get going for another MONTH.

But, carry on being dumb, someone has to do it. :rotf2:

Here's an even more difficult concept for you. Seasonal jobs don't hire until they NEED people. I know, shocking.

clearly you have a firm grasp on the explanation for the reasons for the unemployment numbers.....yikes

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence
Yup. While there will always be people who are mentaly ill and need medical attention, anyone can get involved with volunteering helping with the many homeless programs and donating their time to mentoring.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time."

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

spoken like a true Marxist :uhuh:

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

clearly you have a firm grasp on the explanation for the reasons for the unemployment numbers.....yikes

Don't you have illegals to blame?

spoken like a true Marxist :uhuh:

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...
No, simply an observation. Just like how societal norms break down under the pressure of high urban population. While you're telling someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, their friends are looting your car.

-spence

Don't you have illegals to blame?

In the landscaping industry, absolutely.
I have a buddy who works for a ski resort. He takes every summer off on the tax payers dime and does a little cash house painting for extra money. Another reason to scrap income tax and go to a consumption tax. Even the illegals will pay taxes. And we all know how they like to shop:rotf2:

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system?

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation. The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

We must be part of the "system."

I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

Apathetic-USA.com Intro Movie (http://apathetic-usa.com/)

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation.
The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.
I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.
The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.
Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.
Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

Government in the last 30 years has been the hand-maiden of corporations. Corporate welfare is very real... Adam Smith noted as much when he railed against the Herring's fishery's subsidy nettings in the 18 the century.

[QUOTE=spence;761240]The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.


I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.


The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.


This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.


Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.


Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

Government in the last 30 years has been the hand-maiden of corporations. Corporate welfare is very real... Adam Smith noted as much when he railed against the Herring's fishery's subsidy nettings in the 18 the century.

wow, really? just the last 30 yrs, really? Hmm, who really gave a shat about "taxation without representaion, a cobbler on boylston st?Business owners, period. Did the Mayflower sail for religious freedom or so that a corporation could make money? How dumb are you guys?
Some people are bunker, others stripers. The current admin wants to save the bunker, i want to save the stripers. Let the feed begin.:devil2:

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto
That's a stretch.

-spence

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

Perhaps you seem to find it more convenient to just argue against a phantom position never really taken. Or, perhaps you think a centrist position is an impossibility so you need to tell me what I think?

Seriously, who are you talking to?

-spence

no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?
Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/TabBAR/RevBar/bargif/fig2.gif

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/TabBAR/RevBar/bargif/fig2.gif


Thanks for the lesson JD. Maybe reality is what throws the graph off. I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/TabBAR/RevBar/bargif/fig2.gif


umm...that's not the graph that he posted and to which we are referring...so...you must be drinking...:uhuh:


the other bottom line is that it's getting tougher and tougher for these radical leftists to try and claim that they are neither...:uhuh:

I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama
Why do I keep reading about all these economists who think the stimulus bill helped avert a much deeper recession?

Must all be liberals, they're drawn to economics like flies to %$%$%$%$.

-spence

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.
That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

the Collectivists are at war with the Individualists in America,...which essentially means that they are at war with the founding principles of America...and have been for about a hundred years

clearly the democrats believe that massive debt and massive dependence is a winning strategy for success for our nation...I hope they run on that in November

this is well stated..."the one thing that limits capitalism, is all the socialism.
Instead of capitalism continuing forward, everything went sideways with the rise of socialism.
This ideological, and criminal detour of capitalism and free-markets, is directly responsible
for the inestimable financial mess we find ourselves in today. It's socialism's 100 years war.
These same socially-conscious, warrior elites have been lying about capitalism for that long.
Capitalism isn't stealing from anybody. On the other hand, socialism is stealing from everybody.
Ideological theft, though well intentioned, is still theft. The Left thrives on societal theft.
Capitalism is the engine that allows these socialist do-gooders to spread the wealth around in the first place.
Without capitalism, there is no socialism."

Perhaps you seem to find it more convenient to just argue against a phantom position never really taken. Or, perhaps you think a centrist position is an impossibility so you need to tell me what I think?

Seriously, who are you talking to?

-spence

Argue??? I agreed with everything you said. Have we now evolved into Orwellian double speak--agreement is disagreement, disagreement is agreement, freedom is enslavement, enslavement is freedom?

Argue??? I agreed with everything you said. Have we now evolved into Orwellian double speak--agreement is disagreement, disagreement is agreement, freedom is enslavement, enslavement is freedom?

:lama:

-spence

the Collectivists are at war with the Individualists in America,...which essentially means that they are at war with the founding principles of America...and have been for about a hundred years

So you pretty much just regurgitate whatever Glenn Beck says huh?

That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence

yep and be self-sufficient

Now I am going to be buying a laundromat or something to sponge off the bottom feeders that will be gettin all my money.

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010

I deleted everything prior to 1970. So now Bush's deficit has to do with what Clinton did but Obama's deficit has nothing to do with Bush did?

Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted
1970 2.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 15.316 Billion Deficit
1971 23 Billion Dollar Deficit 120.52 Billion Deficit
1972 23.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.638 Billion Deficit
1973 14.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 71.222 Billion Deficit
1974 6.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 26.23 Billion Deficit
1975 53.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 209.608 Billion Deficit
1976 73.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 274.901 Billion Deficit
1977 53.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 187.95 Billion Deficit
1978 59.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 192.4 Billion Deficit
1979 40.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.844 Billion Deficit
1980 73.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 190.404 Billion Deficit
1981 79 Billion Dollar Deficit 184.07 Billion Deficit
1982 128 Billion Dollar Deficit 281.6 Billion Deficit
1983 207.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 442.614 Billion Deficit
1984 185.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 378.216 Billion Deficit
1985 212.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 418.231 Billion Deficit
1986 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 429.128 Billion Deficit
1987 149.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 279.939 Billion Deficit
1988 155.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 277.808 Billion Deficit
1989 152.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.775 Billion Deficit
1990 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 358.344 Billion Deficit
1991 269.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 420.108 Billion Deficit
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 438.504 Billion Deficit
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 374.997 Billion Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 290.576 Billion Deficit
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit 227.96 Billion Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 145.125 Billion Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit 29.04 Billion Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 89.96 Billion Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus 159.512 Billion Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus 290.772 Billion Surplus
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus 152.76 Billion Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 186.204 Billion Deficit
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit 430.1 Billion Deficit
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit 462.56 Billion Deficit
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit 347.71 Billion Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.4 Billion Deficit
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit 165.24 Billion Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit 455 Billion Deficit
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit 1400 Billion Deficit
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit 1350 Billion Deficit

The trend, as your list shows, has been a fluctuating but steadily increasing deficit with the astounding 4 years of "surplus" during Clinton's final term. That is so astounding that it is amazing no-one has since suggested doing, specifically, what Clinton "did" to achieve those numbers. What he actually "did," was drastically cut military spending and re-invest some of the debt into low interest bonds, neither of which could account for the huge reversal in deficit. Of course, he was forced to curb some spending by the Gingrich Congress, but that was not enough either, since spending was still quite high. There was this market phenomenon referred to as the Dot. Com Bubble which artificially inflated the economy, creating a large influx of tax revenue, especially Social Security, collected. Much more Social Security money than usual was collected than required to pay current recipients so there was a huge "surplus", and since there is no "lock box" for that surplus it was used to buy Government Securities. Thus, instead of having to go the usual rout of borrowing from private sector agencies or foreign countries to pay for National debt obligations, the Government borrowed from itself by using the big surplus Social Security inflow, creating the illusion of deficit reduction. Yes, the deficit was "reduced" into a "surplus", but the National debt kept rising, and especially so in regard to the huge Social Security i.o.u's accrued by this magical method of deficit reduction. Of course, with the burst of the Dot. Com Bubble, the huge inflow of tax revenues was eliminated so this method lost a great deal of its source. You'll note that the "surplus" was almost cut in half in 2001 which was the last year (Oct. 1 2001), of the Clinton budget. Things went back to normal huge and growing deficits after that as the magical "source" of deficit reduction disappeared. And Obama's deficits are not a result of the Bush deficits. The only way to reduce deficits WITHOUT DECEPTION OR ACCOUNTING TRICKS is to spend less than is recieved in taxes. Spending more, no matter what you say is necessary to "stimulate" an economy, will always create deficits. And Obama has, and projects, to spend way more than is "necessary."

And the National Debt (distinct from annual budget deficits/surpluses) will massively increase.

So you pretty much just regurgitate whatever Glenn Beck says huh?

C'mon JD. Glenn Beck is not the originator of these ideas. The battle between collectivism and individualism is ancient. Whether those specific words are used or not does not define that battle. Of course, we do not as individuals, stand alone. We unite, as individuals, to preserve the core of freedom that was created by our Founders and made law by the Constitution. We can choose to diminish that core and hand over more and more responsibility (required for freedom) to a central government, or we can resist. Which do you choose?

C'mon JD. Glenn Beck is not the originator of these ideas.
Perhaps, the understatement of the entire thread :hihi:

The battle between collectivism and individualism is ancient. Whether those specific words are used or not does not define that battle. Of course, we do not as individuals, stand alone. We unite, as individuals, to preserve the core of freedom that was created by our Founders and made law by the Constitution. We can choose to diminish that core and hand over more and more responsibility (required for freedom) to a central government, or we can resist. Which do you choose?
Of course, we must unite to maintain our individuality.

-spence

Perhaps, the understatement of the entire thread :hihi:


Of course, we must unite to maintain our individuality.

-spence

Yes we must unite as individuals each responsible for our own share of that unity. If we give over our personal responsibilty to the larger group to do for us what is required, as an individual, to do for ourself, we are less of an individual and more of a groupie. If more and more choose the way of the groupie, the "unity" becomes a collective dependant on the few for support and "individualism" will be scorned, seen as an unachievable trick of the selfish.

See, we agree again.

That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence

Wasn't it the forced regulations placed on the banking industry to provide the" American Dream" to those who couldn't afford it what got us into this mess?

Wasn't it the forced regulations placed on the banking industry to provide the" American Dream" to those who couldn't afford it what got us into this mess?
Not really, that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Sean Hannity audience" sort of answer...

It was the bundling of mortgage based assets, shoddy oversight by regulators and derivative trading (which largely circumvented regulations) that are probably most to blame.

Certainly sub-prime borrowers were/are a part of the problem once the market stalled, but don't think for a second the banks didn't love handing out mortgages like candy. They could skim a little cream from the top and let somebody else deal with the rotten milk at the bottom.

-spence

Not really, that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Sean Hannity audience" sort of answer...

It was the bundling of mortgage based assets, shoddy oversight by regulators and derivative trading (which largely circumvented regulations) that are probably most to blame.

Certainly sub-prime borrowers were/are a part of the problem once the market stalled, but don't think for a second the banks didn't love handing out mortgages like candy. They could skim a little cream from the top and let somebody else deal with the rotten milk at the bottom.

-spence
I prefer to call them free loading scum but "rotten milk" works too.:)

I prefer to call them free loading scum but "rotten milk" works too.:)

So the sub-prime borrowers, many of whom have paid into mortgages only to loose their homes due to the recession are scum, but the finance industry, who knowingly took incredible risks with other people's money for quick gain at the expense of everyone isn't?

-spence

So the sub-prime borrowers, many of whom have paid into mortgages only to loose their homes due to the recession are scum, but the finance industry, who knowingly took incredible risks with other people's money for quick gain at the expense of everyone isn't?

-spence

They are and the politicians that lined their pockets knowing all along they were screwing you and I and worst of all our kids.:fury:

Not really, that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Sean Hannity audience" sort of answer...

It was the bundling of mortgage based assets, shoddy oversight by regulators and derivative trading (which largely circumvented regulations) that are probably most to blame.

Certainly sub-prime borrowers were/are a part of the problem once the market stalled, but don't think for a second the banks didn't love handing out mortgages like candy. They could skim a little cream from the top and let somebody else deal with the rotten milk at the bottom.

-spence

that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Barney Frank audience" sort of answer...:uhuh:

So you pretty much just regurgitate whatever Glenn Beck says huh?

none of what I stated is referencing Glen Beck...but JD..if you are going to accuse me of intellectual laziness, you shouldn't do so with such and intellectually lazy quip :uhuh:

They are and the politicians that lined their pockets knowing all along they were screwing you and I and worst of all our kids.:fury:

So why didn't you just say that everybody, aside from you and me are scum?

-spence

that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Barney Frank audience" sort of answer...:uhuh:
Followed by an "I don't really care what he said I'm going to make the same inane" response...

-spence

Followed by an "I don't really care what he said I'm going to make the same inane" response...

-spence

are you admitting inanity ?

Spence...you've been very playfull since you've become pregnant...the belly bump is a good look on you...:)