Mr. President, We Disagree

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#1
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf


Multimedia

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/2mKE16Exh9k&hl=en&fs=1 width=330 height=283 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">


<EMBED src=http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer/player.swf width=330 height=283 type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars="author=Chris%20Edwards&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fvideohighlight%2Fcwv-01-06-09.jpg&title=January%206%2C%202009&skin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fjwmediaplayer%2Fnacht%2Fnacht.swf&type=video&file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catomedia.org%2Farchive-2009/cwv-01-06-09.flv" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">

</EMBED>
 
#4
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I guess Bush was also a Communist since he promoted the same agenda
as Barack...
As usual, your guesses are wrong, your facts are wrong, and you are a misguided liberal twit. GWB didn't need a pack of fools like Obama's bunch to guide him to always do the right thing. Hussein relies on his pack of morons almost as much as he relies on his telestrator to get him through his phony speeches we know, and he's proved, that he'll flip-flop from anyway.

Now how about one of those snapshots of your boy fraud smoking because he's more nervous than a 16 yr. old getting ready to give her first blow job to the captain of the football team?!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
 
#5
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

WB didn't need a pack of fools like Obama's bunch to guide him to always do the right thing.

ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKIN STUPID? WHAT DID THAT ASSHOLE DO RIGHT ON ANY ISSUE?

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#6
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

<EMBED src=http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer/player.swf width=330 height=283 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="author=Daniel%20J.%20Mitchell&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fvideohighlight%2Fcwv-02-09-09.jpg&title=February%209%2C%202009&skin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fjwmediaplayer%2Fnacht%2Fnacht.swf&type=video&file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catomedia.org%2Farchive-2009/cwv-02-09-09.flv">
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#7
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

April 17, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Not All Economists Agree
</TD><TD align=right>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In a speech this week summarizing his administration?s economic policies, President Obama grossly overstated the support these policies enjoy by claiming, ?economists on the left and right agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending.? There are a great many economists who were surprised to learn that, apparently, they now agree with the President.

Reading straight from the Keynesian playbook, Obama justified the creation of multi-trillion dollar deficits by asserting that the government must fill the spending void left by the contraction of consumer and business spending. As one of those mythical economists who do not agree with the President, I argue that it is precisely this type of boneheaded thinking that got us into this mess, and it?s the reason we are now headed for an inflationary depression.

We do not need, nor should we attempt, to replace lost demand. As Obama himself pointed out in the same speech, Americans have been borrowing and spending too much money. These actions created artificial demand, underpinned by the illusion of real wealth in overvalued stock and real estate markets. Given his intelligence and rhetorical training, it is hard to fathom how President Obama cannot notice the inherent contradiction in his argument.

While Obama commended millions of American families for making the hard choices to reduce spending, pay down debt and replenish savings, he later outlined the government?s intention to spend every American household deeper into debt, thereby undermining all the good that personal austerity would have otherwise produced.

Obama also made the clear-eyed observation that the foundation of our economy was unsound and that a sturdier one needed to be laid. To do this, he even asserted that we need to import less and export more. This has been one of my fundamental points. Our economy is unsound precisely because it is built on a foundation of consumer debt. Instead of spending for today, we need to invest for tomorrow. However, we cannot save more unless we spend less. Production requires capital, which only comes into existence when resources are not consumed.

However, by interfering with this process, Obama prevents the very transformation he acknowledges must take place. When the government spends what individuals save, private investment is crowded out. Society is deprived of the benefits such savings would otherwise have brought about. How can we lay a solid foundation if the government takes away all our cement?

This brings up an oft-repeated, but oft-forgotten, point: government does not have any money of its own. It only has what it takes from the rest of us. If individuals repay their debts, but their government takes on additional debt, we are all simply swimming against the tide. All forward progress is lost as private debt is replaced by public debt, which must be repaid by private individuals. Whatever gains individuals hope to achieve are negated by the higher taxes or increased inflation necessary to repay their share of a larger national debt.

Obama claims that much of the additional debt is not going to finance consumption, but rather ?critical investment?. This is a vain hope. In the first place, much of what he categorizes as investment, such as additional spending on education, is not investment at all. Yes, an educated workforce is important, but throwing more government money at education will do nothing to achieve this goal. Spending money on education and calling it an investment squanders resources that otherwise would have financed real investments. In the second place, to the extent some government money is invested, those investments will likely be less efficient than those the private sector might otherwise have financed. There is absolutely no evidence that governments have the foresight or incentives to make investments that facilitate real economic growth. ?Five year plans? didn?t work in the Soviet Union and they won?t work here. If the government simply builds bridges to nowhere, society gains nothing.

If we are going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, the market, not the government, needs to draw the plans. When private citizens invest their own capital, those who invest wisely are rewarded with profits, while those who do not are punished with losses. Bad investments are therefore abandoned, with capital reallocated to more successful ventures. Conversely, when governments invest money, these checks and balances do not exist. There is nothing to correct bad investments, as losses are endlessly subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, the more a government plan fails, the more it tends to be funded in the hope that additional resources will finally achieve success. Obama himself proves this by allocating still more funds to government-run schools and student loan subsidies. Other examples, such as Amtrak, the New York MTA, the U.S. Postal Service, Fannie/Freddie, and countless others, prove this process is never-ending ? until perhaps the bureaucracy collapses under its own weight.

When it comes to government making tough choices, Obama talks a good game, but refuses to actually make any. However, once the dollar finally begins its collapse, he will have no choice but to match his rhetoric with action. It?s unfortunate that we cannot make these tough choices on our own terms, rather than waiting for our creditors to force our hand.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff?s book "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse".
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#9
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

Hedge funds worried Obama moves could backfire

Fri May 29, 2009 4:34pm EDT

<SCRIPT language=javascript> var storyKeywords = "US HEDGEFUNDS OBAMA analysis"; var RTR_ArticleTitle = "Hedge funds worried Obama moves could backfire"; var RTR_ArticleBlurb = "By Joseph A. Giannone - Analysis NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. government efforts to revive a sluggish economy have cheered markets since March, but some of the most successful investors around worry these moves may only make the bad times..."; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT>var partnerUriValue = '';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript>addImpression("3098077_Article Tools");</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var showComments = false;var allowSLCall = false; function singlePageView() { document.location.href = ReplaceQueryStringParam(document.location.href, "sp", "true"); } function replaceString(oldS, newS, fullS) { // Replaces oldS with newS in the string fullS for (var i = 0; i < fullS.length; i++) { if (fullS.substring(i, i + oldS.length) == oldS) { fullS = fullS.substring(0, i) + newS + fullS.substring(i + oldS.length, fullS.length); } } return fullS; } </SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=javascript src="/resources/js/shareStub.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript src="/resources/js/shareFunctions.js"></SCRIPT><LINK href="/resources/css/rcom-share.css" rel=stylesheet>
[-] Text [+]


<SCRIPT src="http://static.reuters.com/resources/js/articlePartnerAttribution.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT>var csvSymbolIds = "";var quoteLink = "true";</SCRIPT>



By Joseph A. Giannone - Analysis
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. government efforts to revive a sluggish economy have cheered markets since March, but some of the most successful investors around worry these moves may only make the bad times linger.
Several hedge fund managers at an investment conference this week warned that a number of policy moves by the Obama administration, from its Chrysler intervention to Treasury's myriad bank bailouts, will only extend the recession.
It would be better, they said, if the government let markets move unimpeded, causing pain now but clearing a path for sustainable recovery.
"The basic strategy appears to be to try to bring us back to 2006 by propping up asset prices and reflating the popped credit bubble, subsidizing bank creditors and shareholders, and delaying needed bank recapitalizations while hoping for an economic recovery," Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn said at the annual Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference.
Wall Street has been pilloried during the past year for making big gains as markets crumbled, and blamed for driving companies into the ground and accused of standing in the way of the recovery. U.S. President Barack Obama last month chastised several hedge funds as "speculators" when they declined to support his Chrysler restructuring plan.
The scolding prompted these fund managers to surrender, but the episode made investors less certain about the security of their interests.
"It is a very bad idea for governments to create arbitrary and unfair outcomes, or outcomes resulting from the passions and whims of the government rather than from the law, just because they have the power to do so," said Paul Singer of hedge fund Elliott Management.
MidAmerican Energy Chairman David Sokol, who runs a utility that also owns the second-largest U.S. real estate brokerage, said short-term fixes could came back to haunt the U.S. economy.
"Government intervention could draw this out much further than is necessary and is useful, although for some areas it may feel somewhat good in the interim," said Sokol, a contender to succeed Warren Buffett as head of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Several of the Ira Sohn speakers warned massive government spending today could lead to rampant inflation.
Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital, who in 2006 publicly warned the subprime crisis would drag down financial markets, said Obama's policies will only re-inflate the credit bubble.
"As any drug addict knows, if you stop using drugs you will go through withdrawal. Government is making the situation worse," said Schiff. "We don't need any more stimulus. We are suffering from the stimulus we have already been given."
He joked years of misguided U.S. fiscal policy has created a Ponzi economy, where new Treasury bonds must be sold to repay existing investors just to keep Uncle Sam solvent.
"I don't know why we have Bernie Madoff in jail," Schiff said. "We should appoint him secretary of the Treasury."
Einhorn observed the U.S. budget deficit has grown to 13 percent of GDP, not including the trillions of dollars of potential losses guaranteed under the government's bailout plans. Long-dated U.S. bonds, he said, are already anticipating higher rates inflation
When it comes to bolstering banks, though, the Obama administration may be doing too little.
Einhorn, who correctly predicted Lehman Brothers needed a lot more capital to cover real estate losses, this week said U.S. banks are undercapitalized even after raising $75 billion of equity following the so-called stress test.
The government should induce investors to swap debt for equity and push banks to recognize their losses on mortgages and other debts, he said. Yet these measures would generate losses and the government has not forced the issue.
"The Obama administration disappointingly seems to be following the same path as the Bush administration," he said.
(Additional reporting by Herbert Lash)




( I love this one, thanks Joe)
 
#10
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

U.S. President Barack Obama last month chastised several hedge funds as "speculators" when they declined to support his Chrysler restructuring plan.
The scolding prompted these fund managers to surrender, but the episode made investors less certain about the security of their interests.
"It is a very bad idea for governments to create arbitrary and unfair outcomes, or outcomes resulting from the passions and whims of the government rather than from the law, just because they have the power to do so," said Paul Singer of hedge fund Elliott Management.

Some have another term for this -- FASCISM !!!!
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#12
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

80% Of the Public could care less about ECONOMICS



<B><BIG>VERY informative article A MUST READ!</B></BIG>
(snippet)
Time is running out. The public relations campaign being conducted by the Obama administration, Federal Reserve and nation?s largest banks is beginning to fail. The lies, half-truths, and cover-up regarding the solvency of the largest banks in the U.S. will be revealed as reality interrupts their master plan. The politicians and government bureaucrats know that 80% of the population don?t understand or care about economic issues. The plan is insidious, systematic and deceptively simple:
(snippet)
You judge whether these projects will jump start our moribund economy:



* Optima Lake is in line to receive $1.15 million in federal stimulus money to construct a new guardrail for a lake that does not exist. The guardrail is needed for ?public safety,? says the Army Corps of Engineers, but there is not much of the public around to protect. Because the lake has never filled with water it is all but useless to potential visitors.

* The repair of 37 rural bridges in Wisconsin that average little more than 500 vehicles apiece each day - with one carrying no more than 10 cars a day. The projects jumped over larger, urban repairs because they were "shovel ready." $840,000 to repair a bridge in Portage County, Wis., that carries 260 vehicles a day largely to a backwater saloon and a country club.


* $3.4 million Florida Department of Transportation project for an "eco-passage" - an underground wildlife road crossing for turtles and other wildlife in Lake Jackson, Fla., along U.S. 27.

* A Bureau of Land Management project to study the impact wind farms have on the sage grouse population in Oregon. The proposal calls for hiring people to tag sage grouse in areas where wind farms may be built, to help determine where turbines could be located.


* $1.5 million in stimulus money for a $5 million new wastewater treatment plant in Perkins, Okla. The stimulus money came with strings that will increase the costs. With a new total cost of $7.2 million, the city will be forced to borrow money and, as a result, utility taxes have increased by 60 percent this year.

* Grants and loans totaling $1.3 million to Solon Township in Leelanau County, Mich., to help pay for construction of a <INPUT type=hidden name=IL_MARKER>wastewater treatment plant. Local opposition killed the project. The money will now be used for a future treatment plant, for which there is no plan and questionable local support.

* Road signs costing $300 each, being placed at <INPUT type=hidden name=IL_MARKER>construction sites to alert motorists that the project is being paid for by the stimulus money. Transportation Department spokesman Jill Zuckman said each state decides whether to use stimulus money for signs, and the cost would vary in each state.


* A $3 million project to repair taxiways at Hanscom Field, Mass., which Coburn said is for corporate jets. Richard Walsh, a spokesman for the independent state agency that runs the airport, Massport, said only 18 percent of the traffic at the airport is for corporate jets. Most of the use, 70 percent cent, is for flight students, he said.

* Montana's state-run liquor warehouse, to receive $2.2 million in stimulus cash to install skylights. The project is part of the $27.7 million the state has been awarded for energy programs.
FULLY ARTICLE HERE
 
#13
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I Thank God everyday for President Obama. We have the right man in the job at the right time. He is not always right but at least we don't have to worry about President Obama being asked a question by a journalist and worry that his answer will embarass us all like President Bush, Jr..
 
#14
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I like what Obama's doing. If Bush were still in office he would handle one problem and then take off for 6 months.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#17
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

November 13, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">Job Losses Demystified

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As the unemployment rate crossed the double digit barrier for the first time since Michael Jackson learned to moonwalk, President Obama announced that he will convene a ?jobs summit? to finally bring the problem under control. Using all the analytic skill that his administration can muster, the President is determined to figure out why so many people are losing their jobs and then formulate a solution. That's a relief; for a while there, I thought we were in real trouble! In fact, the absolute last thing our economy needs is more federal government interference. If Obama really wants to know what's behind entrenched joblessness, he should start by looking at the man in the mirror.

Obama is pursuing, with unprecedented vigor, the same policies that have for decades undermined our industrial base and yoked us to an unsustainable consumer/credit driven economy. This doubling down on Washington's past failures is destroying jobs at an alarming rate. Today we learned that the September trade deficit surged by 18.2%, the largest gain in ten years. Much of the deficit resulted from Americans spending Cash-for-Clunkers stimulus money on imported cars ? or ?American? cars loaded to the sunroof with imported parts. In exchange for more domestic debt, we have succeeded only in creating foreign jobs.

An article in this week's New York Times by veteran writer Louis Uchitelle confirmed a fact that I have been alleging for years. Uchitelle pointed out that foreign outsourcing of component manufacturing has led to consistent overstatement of U.S. GDP and productivity. The connection goes a long way to explain why we keep losing jobs even as GDP is apparently expanding.

As our economy becomes less competitive due to higher taxes, burdensome and uncertain regulations, and capital flight, more manufacturing and services will be outsourced to foreign firms. However, the flaw in GDP calculation allows the output of those foreign workers to be included in our domestic tally. Since we count the output but not the worker responsible for it, government statisticians attribute the gains to rising labor productivity. To them, it looks like companies are producing more goods with fewer workers.

The reality is that we are producing less with fewer workers. The added ?productivity? comes from higher unemployment and larger trade deficits. This is a toxic formula that will have lethal economic consequences.

Don't expect the brain trust at the President's job summit to fret much about these details. That public relations stunt will likely ignore the root cause of the economic imbalances and instead stress the need for government spending on training and education, i.e. more public debt. The unemployed do not need government theatrics, they need actual jobs. But as long as the government props up failed companies, soaks up all available investment capital, discourages savings, punishes employers, and chases capital out of the country, jobs will continue to be lost.

To really fix the unemployment problem, the President must look past his peers in government and academia to understand how jobs are actually created. In the private sector, all individuals have a choice to either work for themselves or someone else. Since labor is far more productive when combined with capital (office equipment, machinery, business models, and intellectual capital), those who lack these assets themselves often choose to work for others who have sacrificed to accumulate them. This increased productivity is shared between the worker and the owner of capital, and both are better off.

However, for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital. In the first place, employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.

If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed. Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire.

Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Barack Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation.

If the President's summit truly intends to find the root cause of unemployment, his advisers don't need Bureau of Labor statistics or complex modeling software, just the courage to drop their dogmatic belief in central planning and embrace the laws of economics.
http://www.europac.net/#
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#18
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

Another hater :LMAO

Feldstein: Recovery Is Grossly Exaggerated


Reports of the economic rebound in the U.S. have been greatly exaggerated, opines Harvard University economics professor Dr. Martin Feldstein, a former White House economic adviser.

During a talk in New York City, Feldstein noted that the current recession "has been the longest, the deepest, and the most damaging" of all recessions the U.S. has suffered in its history, a report in the Yeshiva University student newspaper indicated.

Feldstein reckons that President Obama's $800 billion-dollar stimulus package is the source of all the continuing economic malaise.

The Obama stimulus plan was inspired by the idea of the "Keynesian Multiplier"-that the economy is best stimulated by government spending, Feldstein says.

But the only time this has really worked in U.S. history was during World War II.

"For the typical recession, the Keynesian Multiplier doesn't work," says Dr. Feldstein, observing that a peak-to-trough recession is when a strong economy rapidly descends into a recession.

The Obama administration failed to take the unique circumstances of the current recession into account. The fall in the value of homes, the malaise of the stock market, and a depression in consumer spending sparked the recession.

There will not likely be a 2010 rise in consumer spending parallel to the government stimulus which could close the growing government spending deficit.

Dr. Feldstein warned his audience not to be misled by the optimistic signs of a recovering economy, including rebounding home prices.

Others agree, in part. The Financial Times is reporting that the economic recovery is spreading and strengthening slightly, but the rebound remains ?subdued.?
LINK HERE :pop:


psssst buy some silver, fast :+waving-5
 

BCTTWR

EOG Dedicated
#19
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I Thank God everyday for President Obama. We have the right man in the job at the right time. He is not always right but at least we don't have to worry about President Obama being asked a question by a journalist and worry that his answer will embarass us all like President Bush, Jr..
******** type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-2076987682246460";google_ad_width = 300;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "300x250_as";google_ad_type = "text_image";//2007-07-22: animalsgoogle_ad_channel = "1375740611";google_color_border = "ffffff";google_color_bg = "ffffff";google_color_link = "0000ff";google_color_url = "000000";google_color_text = "000000";//--></SCRIPT>********
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#20
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

Now you know why we didnt agree Mr President
:doh1

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Job Cuts Get Brutal: Sprint, Pfizer, Home Depot, Caterpillar


The job loss tally so far today: 54,500. Cuts are coming across industries as further weakness in the economy keeps major employers slashing away.

On the same day it agreed to buy rival drugmaker Wyeth, Pfizer said it would cut 15 percent from its combined workforce (that's a bit less than 19,500 jobs). Meanwhile, Caterpillar is faring poorly in the global recession. It's cutting its workforce by 20,000 including 11 percent of its workforce, or 12,000 jobs, and 8,000 contractors. Home Depot, a lingering victim of the downturn in both consumer spending and housing, said it would slash another 7,000 jobs as it shutters its high-end EXPO business. And finally, Sprint Nextel is eliminating 14 percent of its workforce, or 8,000 jobs.

Update: Add another 6,000 to the tally above. Philips Electronics is cutting too.
More Here...

Posted by Economic Analyst at <A class=timestamp-link title="permanent link" href="http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2010/01/job-cuts-get-brutal-sprint-pfizer-home.html" rel=bookmark><ABBR class=published title=2010-01-26T19:51:00-08:00>7:51 PM</ABBR> 0 comments
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#23
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

This is promising news from the Illinois Review:
Rasmussen Reports that few Americans agree that increasing national debt is the way to make the nation's economy stronger:
While influential 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes would say it's best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.
In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.
To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans, in fact, say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.
Maybe Republicans should begin referring to Democrats as "Keynesian liberals"?

:thumbsup

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32267



?economists on the left and right agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending.? :LMAO BARRY OBAMA
 
#25
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree


Americans Reject Keynesian Economics


Friday, February 05, 2010
Email to a Friend <script type="text/javascript"> SHARETHIS.addEntry( { title: "Americans Reject Keynesian Economics", url: 'http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/february_2010/americans_reject_keynesian_economics' }); </script>ShareThis <noscript>
</noscript> <iframe marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" src="http://intermrkts.vo.llnwd.net/o35/u/ExtraCode/RasmussenReports/intermarkets.html" allowtransparency="" width="0" frameborder="0" height="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Richard Nixon once said, ?We?re all Keynesians now.? But that was a long time ago, and it?s certainly not the case anymore (if it ever was).

While influential 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes would say it?s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.

To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans, in fact, say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.

Rejection of Keynesian economics is found across demographic and partisan lines. Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party overwhelmingly reject the notion that increasing the deficit is the right prescription in difficult economic times. Among Democrats, 21% agree with the Keynesian approach, and 47% do not.

Investors reject deficit spending even more strongly than non-investors.

Of course, not all deficits are created equal. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the nation?s voters believe it?s more important to cut spending than to reduce the deficit.Polling released earlier this week shows a similar attitude as voters prefer lower taxes and deficitsto higher taxes and a balanced budget.

However, all polling on federal spending and deficits must be viewed with the recognition that only 35% of voters realize that the majority of federal spending goes to just defense, Social Security and Medicare.

"These figures highlight a massive failure of leadership from both Republicans and Democrats among the nation?s political elite,? says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. ?Given the amount of political chatter about the budget in recent years, it is almost beyond comprehension that neither party has seen fit to highlight the basics so that the American people can make reasoned choices on the fundamental issues before them.?

The gap between policy makers and the American people is a key theme in Rasmussen?s new book, In Search of Self-Governance.

Pat Caddell, pollster for President Jimmy Carter and others, says that ?Rasmussen unmasks the new fault line of our democracy: Mainstream America rising to reassert the supremacy of their sacred right of self governance over a failed Political Class grimly determined to preserve the primacy of their prerogatives of power. With calm reason Rasmussen lays out the contours of the struggle upon which may hang the ultimate fate of our American Experiment.?In Search of Self-Governance is available at Amazon.com.
 
#27
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I'm sort of confused as to why Republicans are so upset with Obama. I would think liberals would be more upset because he has not done a thing that he said he would. Honestly, what has he done since taking office?
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#28
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

The facts dont lie

Unless your a Weiner, who says Glenn is just a fear monger peddling gold
:LMAO
http://www.weinerfacts.com/weiner/




<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle><CENTER>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Economy in Pictures[/SIZE][/FONT]
</CENTER>





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Posted Wednesday, 26 May 2010 | [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By: Jake Towne[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance." - Declaration of Independence, 1776
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The below pictures were from a presentation given at yesterday's "Towne" Hall on May 24. I've added a few comments with documentation links. The quote above from the Declaration easily applies to the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22.5 million bureaucrats[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], America's second largest job sector, who make [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]nearly twice[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] the average wage of the private sector. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While America is not Greece - or Iceland - there are glaring similarities. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the Republocrats are not King George... they are far worse.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For Liberty and the Constitution,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jake Towne[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]USDA link here[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. Note the strong rise in number of SNAP food stamp recipients during the past year. One would expect to see this number dropping or even flat-lining - along with employment rising - if a recovery were underway.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BLS link here[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. Note that while the "newspaper" unemployment rate is still 10%, the U-6 figure - which more accurately describes total unemployment is 17% - a depression statistic. I've described the common sense solutions to end rampant unemployment almost overnight in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the campaign's Jobs plank[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since the BLS drops off workers from its U-6 figure, the real unemployment rate is most likely slightly greater than 17%. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shadowstats estimates[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] the rate at about 22%.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The current national debt - which is closely tied to the USTreasury market is now over $13 trillion. Current government plans include massive deficit spending through 2013, and the government's optimistic projections of a return to "normalcy" even then should be severely doubted. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source of budget data[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. However, due to the cash-based accounting method government uses, this hides the undeniable fact that the real national debt is much larger when GAAP (Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles) are used to identify future taxation sources and future debts such as Social Security and Medicare (see below).[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above is taken from the Treasury Department's [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]latest report from April 2010[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] where government's inlays - social security and retirement taxes, income taxes (both personal and corporate), and excise taxes can be seen. The average monthly level is about $170 billion per month. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From the same report, the level of government spending, which averages about $300 billion per month. (Only the government can run that type of accounting, due to its money-printing!) While Social Security and Medicare are a major expense, the level of "National Defense" spending appears deceptively low as it is just the DoD budget. As I wrote about in "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Guns or Health Care?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" plenty of "Other Non-Defense" spending are in fact related to the military - Homeland Security, the nuclear arsenal under the Dept. of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, the Treasury's military retirement program, etc. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As seen in [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the official USTreasury report[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] on page 178/254, the total unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security is a jaw-dropping $107 trillion over the future of these programs. While I predict the Democrats may bear the brunt of the blame for the collapse of Medicare, one must not forget that it was the Republican's massive expansion of Part D's prescription drug plan that worsened the fiscal situation. One interesting possible interpretation of the recent health care takeover plan is it may simply be a stop-gap solution to temporarily increase taxes over the next few years. (On Social Security, I [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]will be delivering a presentation[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] in more detail next Friday.)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above is built from [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the Federal Reserve H.4.1 data here[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. The red line is the total (reported) balance sheet of the FED, which has more than doubled since the time of the Banker Bailout. While the original TARP bailout (not shown) accounted for much of the initial sharp increase, most of the debt has been replaced by $1.12 trillion of mortgage-backed securities from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the purple line). This graph shows the nationalization and propping of America's entire residential housing industry. The yellow and green lines show the cumulative totals of USTreasury and USAgency debt held by the FED. While the Federal Reserve has admitted it will take losses on the MBS debt, the question remains as to how much and when. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The purchasing power of the dollar has lost well over 94% since FDR took America off the classical gold standard in 1933 through monetary inflation. The monetary inflation is caused by the FED. They debase the dollar by creating more and more irredeemable paper dollars. Graph provided by Bloomberg Financial, 2009.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above chart shows the "real interest rate" from 1970 to 2009, formula below. It is an approximation for the dollar's purchasing power versus time. While in 1980 it reached nearly +10% (savings rate of ~19% and inflation of ~10%), in 1990 this rate went negative and continued dropping. The chart shows the capital and savings of America being ruthlessly destroyed by the FED and the government. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Real Rate of Interest = (Interest Rate earned by a bank savings account) minus (Inflation Rate)[/FONT]​





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The rising price of gold over the past decade demonstrates the destruction of the world's paper currencies. In the past several weeks, gold [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]reached all-time record highs[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] in dollars, yen, euros, Swiss francs, and British pounds. As described in this article, the gold price is likely suppressed by governments in order to make their own currencies look good as I wrote about in "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Summers Gold Price Suppression Scheme[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]." Gold trades over $20 billion USD per trading day - or over $20 trillion annually - a figure larger than the $15 trillion GDP figure used for the United States.[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To cap off the situation with the dollar, the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]latest quarterly banking profile[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] from the FDIC indicates the deposit insurance fund (DIF) is bankrupt. While consumers at failed banks still receive "insured" funds, the losses are presumably filled in with dollars from the FED, as [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]reported last here[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. The current FDIC "watch list" rose to 775 banks, or almost 10% of all FDIC-insured banks in the US per p. 3/26.[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The crux of the Over-the-Counter derivatives problem is its enormous size. However the $600 trillion figure shown is the derivatives' contracts notional value - a true market value cannot be assessed. The primary issue with OTC derivatives is that they trade off of exchanges, so their contents are opaque to the rest of the marketplace. Note that exchange-traded derivatives (EXD) are much smaller.[/FONT]​





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
http://www.bis.org/statistics/otcder/dt1920a.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BIS data here[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. Note the sharp drop following the 2008 financial crisis. More details on derivatives can be learned in "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What the Heck are Derivatives?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" and "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bring Light to Dark Derivatives![/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jake Towne[/FONT]​




[/FONT]


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#29
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

<CENTER>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Phantom Recovery[/SIZE][/FONT]
</CENTER>

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By: Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.[/FONT]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Posted Monday, 7 June 2010 | Digg This Article
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] |<SCRIPT src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=fcf60c63-d3ea-4686-ac51- type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> Share this article| Source: GoldSeek.com[/FONT]

In recent months, GDP numbers have rebounded - primarily as a result of record low interest rates reliquifying the credit market and government stimulus jolting consumer spending. Although the "positive growth" has delighted Obama's economic brain trust, it has done little to boost the fortunes of Main Street. As I have said many times, GDP largely measures spending, and spending is not growth.

Last Friday we received the latest indication that the real economy is not recovering in the slightest. The Labor Department reported that non-farm payrolls increased by 431,000 jobs in May. In a press statement, the President himself crowed at the news, noting that the official employment rate fell to 9.7% from 9.9%. However, just inches below the headline, red flags were everywhere. Only 41,000 of those jobs were generated in the private sector - far below the median forecast of 180,000. Even more troubling was the fact that the Census Bureau alone accounted for 411,000 new jobs, which were almost exclusively temporary positions.

Rather than a recovery, the jobs data seems to indicate that we are still mired in the first economic depression since the 1930s. Back in 1931, two full years after the Crash of 1929, there were still very few people who thought that the recession then underway would one day be called the Great Depression. (See my commentary from March 1st "Don't Bet on a Recovery)

Increased spending, financed by unprecedented borrowing, will prove to be just as temporary as a US census job (unless, in the name of stimulus, Obama decides to make "people counting" a permanent function of the US government.). When the bills come due, the next leg down will be even more severe than the last.

The swelling ranks of the government payroll, and the shrinking number of private taxpayers footing the bill, will guarantee larger deficits and a weaker economy for years to come. In addition, the artificial spending has prevented a much-needed restructuring from taking place, leaving our economy far less efficient than before the crisis began. In other words, we have dug ourselves into a much deeper hole while failing utterly to build any means to climb out.

One reason that we have thus far been spared the full wrath of Washington's poor decisions is that we are still benefiting from problems abroad, particularly in the eurozone. As sovereign debt issues have temporarily caused a flight to the dollar, our economy has benefited from lower interest rates and restrained consumer prices.

However, EU member-states have shown some willingness to confront their problems by cutting government spending - correctly ignoring US government suggestions that they do the opposite.

Just today, newly elected UK Prime Minister David Cameron prepared his constituents for austerity. Citing a budget deficit that is currently running at 11 percent of GDP, Cameron indicated that government spending would have to fall in order to maintain solvency and a high standard of living.

Cameron went on to say, "Greece stands as a warning of what happens to countries that lose their credibility, or whose governments pretend that difficult decisions can somehow be avoided." This type of realistic sentiment is completely absent in our current leadership in Washington, even though the US deficit is 9.9 percent of GDP and mounting. Meanwhile, the tough decisions being made by European governments will start to rebuild investor confidence in the euro.

Once the euro finally stabilizes against the dollar, I expect commodity prices to resume their rise, especially oil. Normally, the uncertainty created by the disastrous oil spill in the gulf, and the resulting moratorium on deep-water drilling, would have sent crude oil prices skyrocketing. However, fears of a global slowdown, euro weakness, and general risk aversion have held prices in check. As Asia continues its growth and Europe regains its footing, I expect a delayed surge in oil prices, which will put yet another obstacle on the road to US recovery.

Our last remaining leg of support has been the activity of Asian central banks, who have continued in their herculean efforts to prop up the dollar and bail out Americans with low interest rates and cheap imports. However, when sovereign credit risk eventually rears its head in America, look for Asian policymakers to finally wise up. Once that prop is removed, there will be no questions about the gravity of our situation - and little dispute that it amounts to a depression.

The real danger will be if we follow our own foolish advice that Europe appears to have rejected. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has bluntly suggested that European governments should print and spend money in order to keep their economies out of recession. In reality, cutting government spending is a far better stimulus. Maintaining lavish budgets through the use of the printing press will only result in disaster. Not only will such action fail to avert a double-dip recession, but it will practically ensure an inflationary depression.

As I have said before, we can't simultaneously grow the economy and grow government. The latest jobs report shows that we are just growing government. If that trend doesn't soon reverse, investors will start betting on the collapse of the dollarzone
[/FONT]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
:bank:
Share this article
<IFRAME class=stframe id=stframe style="LEFT: 0px; TOP: 0px; body: transparent" name=stframe src="http://wd.sharethis.com/share4x/index.59976e4c84098fc8b340ab8068d953e1.html#init/publisher=fcf60c63-d3ea-4686-ac51-51a1eae2a62b/type=website/buttonText=Share%20this%20article/style=rotate/headerTitle=news.GoldSeek.com/sessionID=1275963548250.81447/fpc=7639673-127d0ddfc92-25e29db1-63/pUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fforums.eog.com%252Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526t%253D199362" frameBorder=0 width=345 scrolling=no height=450 allowTransparency></IFRAME>
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#30
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

<CENTER>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Phantom Recovery[/SIZE][/FONT]
</CENTER>

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By: Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.[/FONT]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Posted Monday, 7 June 2010 | Digg This Article
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] |<SCRIPT src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=fcf60c63-d3ea-4686-ac51-51a1eae2a62b&type=website&buttonText=Share%20this%20article&style=rotate&headerTitle=news.GoldSeek.com" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> Share this article| Source: GoldSeek.com[/FONT]

In recent months, GDP numbers have rebounded - primarily as a result of record low interest rates reliquifying the credit market and government stimulus jolting consumer spending. Although the "positive growth" has delighted Obama's economic brain trust, it has done little to boost the fortunes of Main Street. As I have said many times, GDP largely measures spending, and spending is not growth.

Last Friday we received the latest indication that the real economy is not recovering in the slightest. The Labor Department reported that non-farm payrolls increased by 431,000 jobs in May. In a press statement, the President himself crowed at the news, noting that the official employment rate fell to 9.7% from 9.9%. However, just inches below the headline, red flags were everywhere. Only 41,000 of those jobs were generated in the private sector - far below the median forecast of 180,000. Even more troubling was the fact that the Census Bureau alone accounted for 411,000 new jobs, which were almost exclusively temporary positions.

Rather than a recovery, the jobs data seems to indicate that we are still mired in the first economic depression since the 1930s. Back in 1931, two full years after the Crash of 1929, there were still very few people who thought that the recession then underway would one day be called the Great Depression. (See my commentary from March 1st "Don't Bet on a Recovery)

Increased spending, financed by unprecedented borrowing, will prove to be just as temporary as a US census job (unless, in the name of stimulus, Obama decides to make "people counting" a permanent function of the US government.). When the bills come due, the next leg down will be even more severe than the last.

The swelling ranks of the government payroll, and the shrinking number of private taxpayers footing the bill, will guarantee larger deficits and a weaker economy for years to come. In addition, the artificial spending has prevented a much-needed restructuring from taking place, leaving our economy far less efficient than before the crisis began. In other words, we have dug ourselves into a much deeper hole while failing utterly to build any means to climb out.

One reason that we have thus far been spared the full wrath of Washington's poor decisions is that we are still benefiting from problems abroad, particularly in the eurozone. As sovereign debt issues have temporarily caused a flight to the dollar, our economy has benefited from lower interest rates and restrained consumer prices.

However, EU member-states have shown some willingness to confront their problems by cutting government spending - correctly ignoring US government suggestions that they do the opposite.

Just today, newly elected UK Prime Minister David Cameron prepared his constituents for austerity. Citing a budget deficit that is currently running at 11 percent of GDP, Cameron indicated that government spending would have to fall in order to maintain solvency and a high standard of living.

Cameron went on to say, "Greece stands as a warning of what happens to countries that lose their credibility, or whose governments pretend that difficult decisions can somehow be avoided." This type of realistic sentiment is completely absent in our current leadership in Washington, even though the US deficit is 9.9 percent of GDP and mounting. Meanwhile, the tough decisions being made by European governments will start to rebuild investor confidence in the euro.

Once the euro finally stabilizes against the dollar, I expect commodity prices to resume their rise, especially oil. Normally, the uncertainty created by the disastrous oil spill in the gulf, and the resulting moratorium on deep-water drilling, would have sent crude oil prices skyrocketing. However, fears of a global slowdown, euro weakness, and general risk aversion have held prices in check. As Asia continues its growth and Europe regains its footing, I expect a delayed surge in oil prices, which will put yet another obstacle on the road to US recovery.

Our last remaining leg of support has been the activity of Asian central banks, who have continued in their herculean efforts to prop up the dollar and bail out Americans with low interest rates and cheap imports. However, when sovereign credit risk eventually rears its head in America, look for Asian policymakers to finally wise up. Once that prop is removed, there will be no questions about the gravity of our situation - and little dispute that it amounts to a depression.

The real danger will be if we follow our own foolish advice that Europe appears to have rejected. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has bluntly suggested that European governments should print and spend money in order to keep their economies out of recession. In reality, cutting government spending is a far better stimulus. Maintaining lavish budgets through the use of the printing press will only result in disaster. Not only will such action fail to avert a double-dip recession, but it will practically ensure an inflationary depression.

As I have said before, we can't simultaneously grow the economy and grow government. The latest jobs report shows that we are just growing government. If that trend doesn't soon reverse, investors will start betting on the collapse of the dollarzone
[/FONT]



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
:bank:
Share this article

Share this article
<IFRAME class=stframe id=stframe style="LEFT: 0px; TOP: 0px; body: transparent" name=stframe src="http://wd.sharethis.com/share4x/index.59976e4c84098fc8b340ab8068d953e1.html#init/publisher=fcf60c63-d3ea-4686-ac51-51a1eae2a62b/type=website/buttonText=Share%20this%20article/style=rotate/headerTitle=news.GoldSeek.com/sessionID=1275963620996.90085/fpc=7639673-127d0ddfc92-25e29db1-68/pUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fforums.eog.com%252Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526t%253D199362" frameBorder=0 width=345 scrolling=no height=450 allowTransparency></IFRAME>
Share this article
<IFRAME class=stframe id=stframe style="LEFT: 0px; TOP: 0px; body: transparent" name=stframe src="http://wd.sharethis.com/share4x/index.59976e4c84098fc8b340ab8068d953e1.html#init/publisher=fcf60c63-d3ea-4686-ac51-51a1eae2a62b/type=website/buttonText=Share%20this%20article/style=rotate/headerTitle=news.GoldSeek.com/sessionID=1275963636431.47777/fpc=7639673-127d0ddfc92-25e29db1-70/pUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fforums.eog.com%252Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526t%253D199362" frameBorder=0 width=345 scrolling=no height=450 allowTransparency></IFRAME>
 
#31
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I hope a Republican wins the White house in the next election only so I can read this sub-forum and see all the threads blaming THAT president for all the problems the country is facing.

You do realize Republicans have and will continue to make just as big a fool of the themselves as Obama has right?

Since this is a gambling site,I would bet my life if Obama or Clinton where in office during 9/11 this sub-forum would still be as bashing as ever towards that side of the aisle.

Its like its an all term bashfest.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#32
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

I hope a Republican wins the White house in the next election only so I can read this sub-forum and see all the threads blaming THAT president for all the problems the country is facing.

You do realize Republicans have and will continue to make just as big a fool of the themselves as Obama has right?

Since this is a gambling site,I would bet my life if Obama or Clinton where in office during 9/11 this sub-forum would still be as bashing as ever towards that side of the aisle.

Its like its an all term bashfest.

Progressives on both sides are the problem

Right now though, the marxist progressive is the immediate problem at hand

We are in deep shit, as this putz tells the american sheep ,how proud he is that things are improving :fuck:
 
#34
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

2 million per job is fine so long as they are high paying union jobs.

Higher paying union jobs = more tax revenue for the government = a more prosperous society.

Tank the economic guru taught me this. Now I feel so enlightened and relieved. Thanks tank! :yay

brucefan, c'mon!! Enough with the Fox News talking points and fearmongering!! Progressives mean well, ya know. You just hate the president cause he's black and shagging all the white women!
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#35
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

2 million per job is fine so long as they are high paying union jobs.

Higher paying union jobs = more tax revenue for the government = a more prosperous society.

Tank the economic guru taught me this. Now I feel so enlightened and relieved. Thanks tank! :yay

brucefan, c'mon!! Enough with the Fox News talking points and fearmongering!! Progressives mean well, ya know. You just hate the president cause he's black and shagging all the white women!
:LMAOAnd how many jobs went to the union??:LMAOYour right Markie it would have been much better to just give it to welfare people or the rich who really need it right??:LMAOTell us more about how unions made jobs go overseas and NAFTA had nothing to do with it ole dumb one.:LMAO
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#36
Re: Mr. President, We Disagree

Remember Uneployment Chart By Council of Economic Advissrs Chritina Romer/Jared Brenstein?
As the Keynesian Kooks have fled the sinking ship like rats... let's reflect back to the propaganda and garbage from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

The good folks at e21 have updated the wildly optimistic chart from January 2009 prepared by incoming White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer. You know, the one that show the Obama stimulus plan would keep unemployment from hitting 8 percent. But even after spending trillions in new debt, the chart doesn't even reduce unemployment below 5%. It remains HIGHER than before the recession started.














 
Top