That surprises me. Well guess you're a True Believer™. Good luck with that.Reciprocity wrote:
neither. I'm a privately employed homeowner. Go make another asssumption.Harmor wrote:
You live in Oregon...probably explains your viewpoint. So are you a student or a government employee?
True believer? no. Not in anything involving government or politicians. But I've seen republicans in action. I'm not impressed.Harmor wrote:
That surprises me. Well guess you're a True Believer™. Good luck with that.Reciprocity wrote:
neither. I'm a privately employed homeowner. Go make another asssumption.Harmor wrote:
You live in Oregon...probably explains your viewpoint. So are you a student or a government employee?
Well, FEOS, no, I haven't been outside the country. I'm going with a combination of research and with what other people have related to me.FEOS wrote:
I would recommend holding off on all the high praise until you've spent some time in them, otherwise you're just parroting what someone else said and not speaking from any kind of experience. Hell...have you spent any time outside of the US at all?Turquoise wrote:
I'm working on it... lol... Although Canada is first on my list.FEOS wrote:
How much time have you spent in any of these countries you lavish praise on, Turq?
Although, if we're going to use that rule, then I guess you'll have to stop commenting on any foreign policy involving countries you haven't been to. And I guess that means that any members here who haven't been to the U.S. have to stop commenting on the U.S. And all the U.S. members here have to stop commenting on Iraq or Afghanistan unless they've been there...
You see where that logic leads you?
Getting mix signals on the economy. On the one hand treasuries are rallying is a bearish signal that people are going towards safety and have a negative view of the economy...
yet the Stock Market broke its 200 day moving average, which is a bullish indicator.
Which is it?
yet the Stock Market broke its 200 day moving average, which is a bullish indicator.
Which is it?
And the govt policies which lead up to the crash, of which two quagmires are a part and the housing bubble more so.FEOS wrote:
The historic high debt we have right now is due to historic government spending over the past 19 months.
Come to Aus, I'll buy yer a beer.Turq wrote:
I'm working on it... lol... Although Canada is first on my list.
Fuck Israel
You forget one important thing here FEOS, there wouldn't be the need for historic spending the last 19 months if it wasn't for the 96 months prior to those 19 ... if Obama didn't take over such a leaking ship he wouldn't have to devote so much time and resources trying to fix it. And thus trying to fix a ship while some of the crew keeps making new leaks must be quite annoying.FEOS wrote:
Obama and the Democrat-run Congress have run up more public-held debt in 19 months than the first 40 presidential administrations combined. I point out the party running Congress to show the lack of bipartisanship, as attempts to stem spending have gotten legislation rammed down the public's collective throat.
The seven years of the Iraq War cost less than the second "stimulus" package (one piece of Obama legislation). Additionally, there were far bigger ticket items in the federal budget than those pesky wars:Saying the historic high debt is due to two major campaigns in the middle east is a fallacy. The historic high debt we have right now is due to historic government spending over the past 19 months.According to an analysis by the American Thinker's Randall Hoven, the cost of the Iraq war from 2003-2008 -- when Bush was in office -- was $20 billion less than the cost of education spending and less than a quarter of the cost of Medicare spending during that same period.
Not that the previous administration wasn't spending like a drunken sailor...but this one is spending like a meth-addled sailor hanging out with Paris Hilton.In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
The stimulus, bailout or whatever is not the work of democrats ... that is a bipartisan political pact that now fails because the republicans are doing their best to fuck up for Obama who's trying to implement the politics they agreed upon earlier ... it's pr date a fucking kindergarden in Washington.
And I didn't say historic spending was due to the campaigns alone but they sure as hell contributed a great deal.
And Harmor you must be blind or politically religious if you think these "new" republicans will transform America in a whim ... political bipartisanship is your only rescue, ALL of congress and EVERY senator MUST work towards a common goal and not fend for themselves until things normalize ... then and ONLY then can they go back to their petty bickering.
The climate between Reps and Dems right now is what costs America the most.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
96 months prior? you mean the years the stock market was extremely high? oh wait we forgot that.
And what has that got to do with anything?11 Bravo wrote:
96 months prior? you mean the years the stock market was extremely high? oh wait we forgot that.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
it means the hole in the ship was punctured during the clinton years. fact.
Erm ... how about no?11 Bravo wrote:
it means the hole in the ship was punctured during the clinton years. fact.
Clinton had what we call a balanced budget, a budget without deficit and he was well on his way cutting the debt ... so Clinton was actually making a ship that would crush any Icebergs in it's path ... until that Texan cowboy trimmed the ship back to Titanic standards and we all know how that worked out ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
k wow apparently you know little about the housing bubble
I know it very well, I even warned about it a year or so in advance on this very forum but only got BS responces that it wasn't a problem ...11 Bravo wrote:
k wow apparently you know little about the housing bubble
The housing bubble wouldn't have caused so much havok if it wasn't for such a unregulated or misregulated financial market, the housing bubble was just the trigger that got the ball rolling ... without the housing bubble you may have crashed even harder on a later date but it would have crashed eventually ...
And when things go bad as they did it is a clear advantage to not be in spending spree of biblical proportions ... Clinton tried to tone down spending while Bush gave full throttle ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
That's not what I'm saying at all.Turquoise wrote:
Well, FEOS, no, I haven't been outside the country. I'm going with a combination of research and with what other people have related to me.FEOS wrote:
I would recommend holding off on all the high praise until you've spent some time in them, otherwise you're just parroting what someone else said and not speaking from any kind of experience. Hell...have you spent any time outside of the US at all?Turquoise wrote:
I'm working on it... lol... Although Canada is first on my list.
Although, if we're going to use that rule, then I guess you'll have to stop commenting on any foreign policy involving countries you haven't been to. And I guess that means that any members here who haven't been to the U.S. have to stop commenting on the U.S. And all the U.S. members here have to stop commenting on Iraq or Afghanistan unless they've been there...
You see where that logic leads you?
There's a difference between commenting on foreign policy and commenting on what it's like to live in another country.
They are separate and distinct issues. One is analytical and one is experiential.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's been well-documented that the root of the housing bubble and the root of the securities mess was bipartisan legislation that had its start in 1994, focused on getting less-than-ideal borrowers into homes. Had that legislation not passed during the Clinton administration (as pointed out by Marine), neither the housing bubble nor the securities mess would have occurred, as there would have been nothing to fuel either of them. Specifically: subprime mortgages.Varegg wrote:
I know it very well, I even warned about it a year or so in advance on this very forum but only got BS responces that it wasn't a problem ...11 Bravo wrote:
k wow apparently you know little about the housing bubble
The housing bubble wouldn't have caused so much havok if it wasn't for such a unregulated or misregulated financial market, the housing bubble was just the trigger that got the ball rolling ... without the housing bubble you may have crashed even harder on a later date but it would have crashed eventually ...
And when things go bad as they did it is a clear advantage to not be in spending spree of biblical proportions ... Clinton tried to tone down spending while Bush gave full throttle ...
And in comparison to that, the impact of the Iraq War is nothing, budgetarily.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Affordable Urban Housing Act had a huge role in the creation of subprime mortgages tbh.FEOS wrote:
It's been well-documented that the root of the housing bubble and the root of the securities mess was bipartisan legislation that had its start in 1994, focused on getting less-than-ideal borrowers into homes. Had that legislation not passed during the Clinton administration (as pointed out by Marine), neither the housing bubble nor the securities mess would have occurred, as there would have been nothing to fuel either of them. Specifically: subprime mortgages.Varegg wrote:
I know it very well, I even warned about it a year or so in advance on this very forum but only got BS responces that it wasn't a problem ...11 Bravo wrote:
k wow apparently you know little about the housing bubble
The housing bubble wouldn't have caused so much havok if it wasn't for such a unregulated or misregulated financial market, the housing bubble was just the trigger that got the ball rolling ... without the housing bubble you may have crashed even harder on a later date but it would have crashed eventually ...
And when things go bad as they did it is a clear advantage to not be in spending spree of biblical proportions ... Clinton tried to tone down spending while Bush gave full throttle ...
And in comparison to that, the impact of the Iraq War is nothing, budgetarily.
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-09-14 03:09:47)
Then we pretty much agree ... key word here is bipartisan and that seems to escape most people ...FEOS wrote:
It's been well-documented that the root of the housing bubble and the root of the securities mess was bipartisan legislation that had its start in 1994, focused on getting less-than-ideal borrowers into homes. Had that legislation not passed during the Clinton administration (as pointed out by Marine), neither the housing bubble nor the securities mess would have occurred, as there would have been nothing to fuel either of them. Specifically: subprime mortgages.Varegg wrote:
I know it very well, I even warned about it a year or so in advance on this very forum but only got BS responces that it wasn't a problem ...11 Bravo wrote:
k wow apparently you know little about the housing bubble
The housing bubble wouldn't have caused so much havok if it wasn't for such a unregulated or misregulated financial market, the housing bubble was just the trigger that got the ball rolling ... without the housing bubble you may have crashed even harder on a later date but it would have crashed eventually ...
And when things go bad as they did it is a clear advantage to not be in spending spree of biblical proportions ... Clinton tried to tone down spending while Bush gave full throttle ...
A tad more than nothing seeing as that money was being spent at a time where those very exspenses should have been used inside the US and not abroad ...FEOS wrote:
And in comparison to that, the impact of the Iraq War is nothing, budgetarily.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
As was already pointed out, the amount of money spent on the Iraq War, in comparison to other programs, was a drop in the bucket.Varegg wrote:
A tad more than nothing seeing as that money was being spent at a time where those very exspenses should have been used inside the US and not abroad ...FEOS wrote:
And in comparison to that, the impact of the Iraq War is nothing, budgetarily.
Would it be better had it not been spent? Of course. Did it make a difference that it was? No, it didn't in the grand scheme of things. The orders of magnitude more that was spent on other programs, however, does.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Seeing the numbers makes it quite more than a drop in the bucket FEOS
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy … plemental/
^^ And that's just 2010
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy … plemental/
^^ And that's just 2010
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Quality of life has an analytical side as well. Some things can be gathered through statistics. For example, I don't need to live in Uganda to know that it sucks.FEOS wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all.Turquoise wrote:
Well, FEOS, no, I haven't been outside the country. I'm going with a combination of research and with what other people have related to me.FEOS wrote:
I would recommend holding off on all the high praise until you've spent some time in them, otherwise you're just parroting what someone else said and not speaking from any kind of experience. Hell...have you spent any time outside of the US at all?
Although, if we're going to use that rule, then I guess you'll have to stop commenting on any foreign policy involving countries you haven't been to. And I guess that means that any members here who haven't been to the U.S. have to stop commenting on the U.S. And all the U.S. members here have to stop commenting on Iraq or Afghanistan unless they've been there...
You see where that logic leads you?
There's a difference between commenting on foreign policy and commenting on what it's like to live in another country.
They are separate and distinct issues. One is analytical and one is experiential.
I don't need to live in Norway to know that it has one of the highest standards of living as measured by things like PPP.
ThanksDilbert_X wrote:
Come to Aus, I'll buy yer a beer.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … 0024-2.jpg
Australia is another place I'd like to visit, although you have some highly poisonous pests that I'd like to avoid. Your economy seems to be doing pretty well though.
GDP growth rate:Turquoise wrote:
Quality of life has an analytical side as well. Some things can be gathered through statistics. For example, I don't need to live in Uganda to know that it sucks.FEOS wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all.Turquoise wrote:
Well, FEOS, no, I haven't been outside the country. I'm going with a combination of research and with what other people have related to me.
Although, if we're going to use that rule, then I guess you'll have to stop commenting on any foreign policy involving countries you haven't been to. And I guess that means that any members here who haven't been to the U.S. have to stop commenting on the U.S. And all the U.S. members here have to stop commenting on Iraq or Afghanistan unless they've been there...
You see where that logic leads you?
There's a difference between commenting on foreign policy and commenting on what it's like to live in another country.
They are separate and distinct issues. One is analytical and one is experiential.
I don't need to live in Norway to know that it has one of the highest standards of living as measured by things like PPP.
126 Norway -1% 2009 est.
153 Canada -2.5% 2009 est.
184 Denmark -4.3% 2009 est.
185 Sweden -4.4% 2009 est.
198 Iceland -6.6% 2009 est.
204 Finland -7.6% 2009 est.
IJS
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And then again using 2009 numbers in a long term field as growth is ... is kinda ... ???
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Well, you're better off than the US for 2009 We were at -3.4%.Varegg wrote:
And then again using 2009 numbers in a long term field as growth is ... is kinda ... ???
Just pointing out that no country is recession-proof no matter how heavily regulated.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-14 07:02:27)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Long term growth and stability... Here's an interesting aspect to the Canadian economy. During good economic times, Canada's unemployment is higher than ours. During bad economic times, it's lower.JohnG@lt wrote:
GDP growth rate:Turquoise wrote:
Quality of life has an analytical side as well. Some things can be gathered through statistics. For example, I don't need to live in Uganda to know that it sucks.FEOS wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all.
There's a difference between commenting on foreign policy and commenting on what it's like to live in another country.
They are separate and distinct issues. One is analytical and one is experiential.
I don't need to live in Norway to know that it has one of the highest standards of living as measured by things like PPP.
126 Norway -1% 2009 est.
153 Canada -2.5% 2009 est.
184 Denmark -4.3% 2009 est.
185 Sweden -4.4% 2009 est.
198 Iceland -6.6% 2009 est.
204 Finland -7.6% 2009 est.
IJS
So basically, stability allows you to better account for the loss of jobs. With America, things tend to fluctuate a lot -- which can be very disastrous for many people on a personal level.
True ... [sarcasm]but our regulated -1% still beats your cowboy economy -3.4% [/sarcasm]JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, you're better off than the US for 2009 We were at -3.4%.Varegg wrote:
And then again using 2009 numbers in a long term field as growth is ... is kinda ... ???
Just pointing out that no country is recession-proof no matter how heavily regulated.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................