moonbattery.gif


« Woman Marries Dog | Main | Patriotic Family Attacked for Being White in Non-Hate Crime »


July 9, 2009

Open Thread

economy.jpg

Compliments of Michelle.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 9, 2009 7:31 AM

Comments

Those lines aren't quite right. The dems were elected in the 2006 election, but didn't take power until 2007. The point of this is still valid though. They've EFFED up the whole thing.

Posted by: Paul H at July 9, 2009 7:38 AM

...and the media covers it all up. I am convinced the biggest problem we face is the bias in the media. American people, for the most part, are smart enough to make rational decisions IF they have the facts. "News" outlets don't care about facts any longer and are only concerned with ratings and bashing a conservative.

Posted by: Kek at July 9, 2009 7:42 AM

Wo hoo! the feds have 62, count them 62 job openings. check it out http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/recovery-act-opportunities

What stimulus?

Posted by: Stephana at July 9, 2009 7:45 AM

To quote that great sage, Algore, "What should be up is down!"

Posted by: JamesJ at July 9, 2009 7:59 AM

Sorry to disagree but this has little to do with republicans or democrats.

The Fed has done this, as well as a large consortium of large corporations and private banks.

Saying that liberal VS conservative politics can cause such drastic change so quickly would be admitting that our economy is centrally planned.

AC

Posted by: AC at July 9, 2009 9:41 AM

AC,


Attempts at central planning of the economy by liberals results in the evidence in front of you.
The free market (when its occassionally allowed to work) produces a lag in the negative effects of liberal economic policies.

Not convinced by your lyin' eyes or common sense?...refer back to the Reagan tax cuts.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 9, 2009 10:09 AM

Posted by: V the K at July 9, 2009 11:04 AM

Average Liberal Drone's response:

"But Bush! But Bush! But Bush!. And Palin!"

That is all.

Posted by: J at July 9, 2009 11:42 AM

Don't get me wrong Fiberal, I'm as pro capitalist as everyone else here. The effects of Obama's policies will be felt in the long run, when hyperinflation hits.

But the guy sitting in office doesn't suddenly collapse the economy. The unsustqinqble nqture of the US economy, where we consume twice qas much as we produce has created that.

Then again, that was done by design.

Youtube "the Obama deception."

Posted by: AC at July 9, 2009 11:54 AM

Homosexuals on the March at Duke University

I keep trying to avoid the issue of homosexuality, I really do, but homosexuals, and Obama, keep pushing their sick agenda, so I can’t.

I know how their ilk interprets avoidance– as weakness, subservience, and acquiescence– and I refuse to feed their egos, or whatever they feed on, by ignoring or minimizing what they’re up to of late.

The hetero-homo war has been going on for decades even if the 98% of straights are oblivious of the fact and nature of the conflict and that the 2% of gays are winning.

Case in point relates to the 2006 Duke Debacle in which a bunch of rich, white college kids on the Duke University lacrosse team were accused, tried, and convicted in the mass media and in the Duke community of raping a poor, black stripper.

The sordid details of that lie are not worth repeating but can be found here, with comments, for those who tend to relegate such lies to the back burner: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/04/the_duke_lacros.html.

Whoa! What does that have to do with “homosexuals on the march?”

Duke University prides itself on being a 171 year old outstanding institution of learning when in fact it’s a prime and twisted example of the devolution of America’s universities into a rancid, liberal, homosexual cesspool, that’s what.

Duke rushed to justice, leapt to unfounded conclusions, when it came to alleged iniquities of those perverted, rich, white lacrosse boys. When it came to a far more perverted one-of-its-own, the school closed ranks and defended its resident perv and accused pederast, Frank M. Lombard.


Lombard, Duke prof, committed “partner” of his gay lover Ken Shipp, another Duke staff member, “loving” dad of two adopted young, African-American boys, lived in an advertised, “paradise for children.”

A paradise must be a subjective concept since Lombard seems to have made it a hell for “his” child. . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Posted by: Berlet98 at July 9, 2009 12:04 PM

Sorry to disagree but this has little to do with republicans or democrats.
The Fed has done this, as well as a large consortium of large corporations and private banks.
But the guy sitting in office doesn't suddenly collapse the economy.
The unsustqinqble nqture of the US economy, where we consume twice qas much as we produce has created that.





AC,


Are you talking about the Feds, some corporations, banks, gasoline (drilling?), the effect of a Dim vs Rep administration or BO?
Or something else?

Seriously, a summary of the data presented here, taken with the example of the Reagan era tax cuts, strongly indicates that government activity in the economy is destructive.
Reflection on just about any given government-imposed (key word there) economic plan would support this.

In fact, outside of a natural catastrophic event that affects commodities and trade, it is hard to think of how a free-market economy would fail in the absence of government interventions.

Maybe (and this is just a guess) a free-market economy would fail if suddenly everyone became mentally deranged.
But then we'd all be liberals.


Posted by: Fiberal at July 9, 2009 1:54 PM

Yeah, that last graphic (the deficits) makes much more sense if you put two vertical lines on there. One: Dems take Congress; and Two: Dems take White House. Bush was on track to take the deficit to near zero by the end of his term, but the Demons (oops, Dems) took Congress.

Posted by: Eric S. at July 9, 2009 7:15 PM

Sorry to disagree but this has little to do with republicans or democrats.

Actually AC this has EVERYTHING to do with BOTH parties. While the Republicans DID fail to reign in spending, and goverment expansion which was the REAL cause of them being kicked out in 06 the Democrats have just made it WORSE.

The Fed has done this, as well as a large consortium of large corporations and private banks.

That's also true but with an unwillingness by congress to audit the fed and find out WHO is paying WHO and WHY the situation will contine to get worse. My suspicion is the the Federal Reserve is paying or involved in a lot if illegal deals with congress and they don't want it to come out. It's the same thing with large corporations/lobbyists and the insider deals that they make. That's WHY term limits are so important.

Saying that liberal VS conservative politics can cause such drastic change so quickly would be admitting that our economy is centrally planned.

For decades the liberals have been pushing the economy closer and closer TO central planning so they can have MORE control. Unfortunatly the Rebublicans are far to often willing to remove the controls once in place. Rather than give UP control they just "kick the can" and play along to keep their benifits rather than REALLY fixing the damage.

The effects of Obama's policies will be felt in the long run, when hyperinflation hits.

Considering Carter was responsible for the CRA in 77 and FDR was responsible for creating Freddie & Fannie both of wich are the source of the problem along with Mark to Market rules; Obambi will make the same decision and has created problems that also WONT be flt for a Loooong time.

But the guy sitting in office doesn't suddenly collapse the economy.

To a certain extent that's true, The President DOES have veto power and can "force" congress to do a good job. Sadly when you have a congress largely made up of liars, criminals, and morons, then add in a comunist who is COMPLETELY cluless about reality it's not very difficult for a president to "collapse" the economy. Carter did it, FDR did it and NOW Obambi is gleefully doing it to.

The unsustainable nature of the US economy, where we consume twice as much as we produce has created that.

That's not entirely acurate. POLOCY has made that the inevitable conclusion of a path walked for decades relishing ignorance about finace and market interaction. Manufacturing has been devistated, energy production devastated, and unfettered imigration with high remittances are the contributing POLICY decisions that lead to that outcome.

Then again, that was done by design.

As unfortunate as it is, as painful as it is, and finally as IDIOTIC as it is...

YES; it is that way BY DESIGN!

If you let a MORON build your house, don't be suprised if the roof leaks.

ALL of the problems have been CREATED by government. ALL of the solutions MUST be made by citizens if we want OUR country back.

Posted by: Michelle at July 9, 2009 7:52 PM

Yeah, that last graphic (the deficits) makes much more sense if you put two vertical lines on there.

Sorry I left that out....

Posted by: Michelle at July 9, 2009 7:56 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 9, 2009 11:47 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 9, 2009 11:50 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 10, 2009 1:19 AM

Benedict Arlen Specter calls his Democrat primary opponent a phony Democrat. Arlen claims he's the real deal, and his opponent is a Noob who didn't register as a Democrat until 2006... while Arlen's been a secret Democrat for decades.

Posted by: V the K at July 10, 2009 6:51 AM

These charts are pretty meaningless for a Democrat/Republican policy comparison. Really - how much control do you think Congress exerts on the economy when they're so incompetent at everything else!

In any case, setting the starting point in 2003 on those axes hides the big picture. In this article http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-visual-history-of-the-stock-market-from-1996-2007/ scroll down to the section "The Big Picture." This shows the DJIA trend from 1996 to 2007. So if one were to draw a conclusion using this chart instead those shown above, one would conclude that the market takes a dive with Republicans in power and not the other way around. So whats the real story? Always look at the big picture, and especially with the stock market, its the long term trends that matter, not any short term stuff.

(Actually, the same applies to the budget surplus chart. Clinton was much more fiscally responsible than Bush, which is why there was a surplus in the last few years of his presidency)

Posted by: Me at July 10, 2009 6:55 AM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 10, 2009 7:36 AM

Obama's books banned from prison for being too radical

The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to read them.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is serving a 30-year sentence at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, for joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. Last year, Abu Ali requested two books written by Obama: "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."

But prison officials, citing guidance from the FBI, determined that passages in both books contain information that could damage national security.

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 10, 2009 7:40 AM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 10, 2009 7:43 AM

These charts are pretty meaningless for a Democrat/Republican policy comparison.

Actually they are a good indication. YOU may not believe it and are unwilling to accept the data but THAT has little to do with the acuracy of it. In 2006 the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, In 2009 They gained control of the Executive. 2.5 years of policy control total. THAT is the data point comparison with the same amount of time shown with Reubublicans.

Really - how much control do you think Congress exerts on the economy when they're so incompetent at everything else!

THAT'S the point!! Congress IS inept!! Both sides wich I pointed out in my earlier post. Granted the polocy of the Democrats as shown is FAR worse and caused MORE damage. What you fail to realize is congress has an incredible amount of control over the market when it creates policy that hinders it, or intefears with the natural cycle of fluctuation. The TARP and Porkulous are perfect examples of a POLOCY decision ADVERSLY AFFECTING market outcome.

In any case, setting the starting point in 2003 on those axes hides the big picture.

Not really, I gave both sides realatively equal time and the data indicates a collosal failure by Pelosi and Reid led by Odumbo.

In this article scroll down to the section "The Big Picture." This shows the DJIA trend from 1996 to 2007.

What you provided shows ONE slice of "the big picture" that you are trying weakly to sell. Your link does not combine deficits, gas Price, job loss, AND the market effect. MINE DOES.

So if one were to draw a conclusion using this chart instead those shown above, one would conclude that the market takes a dive with Republicans in power and not the other way around.

Actually your data is inconclusive. As I just stated it does not compare TOTAL control of Dem Congress, Dem Senate, Dem Executive v.s. Rep Congress Rep Senate Rep Executive for and EQUAL time and compare job numbers, comodity prices, etc. Therfore it's your data which you already KNOW shows nothing of interest that makes it impossible to draw an informed conclusion.

So whats the real story? Always look at the big picture, and especially with the stock market, its the long term trends that matter, not any short term stuff.
for someone who is SO cncerned with "the big picture" you really have no idea WHAT that big picture is. The REAL story is the polocy directives from capital hill regardless of Democrat or Republican control can SEVERELY impact the market and concurent industries. If you really were as interested in following trends as you claim you would know that different industries are affected by congressional decisions all the time. If you add in international trending, various global conflicts, emplyment numbers, and a range of other data you would have a clue.
Actually, the same applies to the budget surplus chart. Clinton was much more fiscally responsible than Bush, which is why there was a surplus in the last few years of his presidency

And HERE is the liberal colledge kid givaway!!

Clinton was a Democrat with a REPUBLICAN congress. The fiscal dicipline and "balenced budget" was the brain child of one Newt Gingrich NOT Bill Clinton. Clinton was FORCED to be a moderate by Newt so there was a balence of power which does not exist today.

Also if you look at the DEFICIT chart you will see it GOING DOWN before Pelosi took over and then SKYROCKETING with Pelosi and Odumbo in charge. Market crash Pelosi/Obama! Fuel inflation Pelosi/Obama! Massive Job loss Pelosi/Obama! Massive deficit Pelosi/Obama! Historic Unemplyment Pelosi/Obama!

Just because your idiot professor says it's a lie and compels you to worhip a moron doesn't mean you should. Do you own reasearch, your "teachers" are probaly less informed than you are. Read the constitution, read the fedralist papers, ASK QUESTIONS and don't blindly accept the answers given by a bunch of washed up hippies who are hiding on the campis as a professor.

Posted by: Michelle at July 10, 2009 2:20 PM

Michelle,

Really good work here.

Actually, you could turn this whole argument around and ask, if the Left had any economic theories, policies or programs that actually helped the economy, why would the "favor-the-rich" Republicans oppose them?

The answer is that they wouldn't.
...Leading to the default conclusion that the Left cannot contribute positively to the economy.

This is supported by your data.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 10, 2009 4:04 PM

Thanks Fiberal!!

All I really did was take what is already out there and compare them. Based on the comparison, even though Bush DID spend alot he balanced spending with cuts.

Conversely Odumbo is just spending. No cuts, No restrictions, no real thought about long term capital growth or private sector growth.

The REAL truth is that per capita the Liberals far outnumber the conservatives in income v.s. risk. They have way more "rich" than we do because they have intentionally set it up over DECADES of protectionism and back door support.

Obviously they "contribute" but it's not in a market positive way. The policies they promote protect them and punish the oposition, so while they MAY promote a "good" policy it's intentionally written and set up to benifit ONLY liberals.

Fortunately there is the net, youtube, popmodal, the blogs, and many other sources now which make it much more dificult to "hide" their intentions.

Posted by: Michelle at July 10, 2009 4:30 PM

Right. GE is a classic example of an attempt to gain just exactly that kind of back door support. Of course the ham-handed attempts of Immelt weren't quite as well executed as most and that rock got turned over.

J Reno's Justice dept smash and grab attack on Microsoft has also greatly intimidated companies from fighting back.
Since that fiasco, large corporations have become ever more enthusiastic about towing the liberal vanguard, having recognized that the cost of doing business is way too great to oppose the whims and whips of government.

As for us here hoi poloi, one big problem with economic literacy is that conservatives typically carry on a one-way conversation. This is unfortunately an indirect benefit the liberals enjoy with their dominance of economic policy; they can and do simply walk away.

It remains to be seen, but BO, in his arrogance and ignorance, may just be the catalyst needed to push more voters toward George Gilder/Milton Freidman economics.

Posted by: Fiberal at July 10, 2009 6:31 PM