Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

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."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

C'mon JD. Glenn Beck is not the originator of these ideas.

Perhaps, the understatement of the entire thread

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps, the understatement of the entire thread


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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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...