More economic GOOD NEWS.....Factory orders increase, jobless claims fall

[mascale]

So now anyone needs to know if JarHead poster got this below from a website:

"We say, the more WE struggle, the more likely WE will find a way to survive."

Dr. Strangelove would likely find it impossible to keep his arm from moving up and down, after that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes drink blood of Great Spirit! Men In hair shirts make this happen! Former Holy Father take lash to himself even--maybe carrying concept: Maybe just a bit too far(?)! New Holy Father was Hitler Youth, instead!)

 

[Jarhead]

So now anyone needs to know if JarHead poster got this below from a website:

"We say, the more WE struggle, the more likely WE will find a way to survive."

Dr. Strangelove would likely find it impossible to keep his arm from moving up and down, after that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes drink blood of Great Spirit! Men In hair shirts make this happen! Former Holy Father take lash to himself even--maybe carrying concept: Maybe just a bit too far(?)! New Holy Father was Hitler Youth, instead!)

Excuse me?

I emphasized the word "we" seeing as conservatives struggle during recessions as much as anyone else.
RW made it like conservatives sat by in their wealth saying "let the weak die" (paraphrased)
Conservatives starve and satruggle just like anyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Or....

The economy would have recovered fast enough so the people would only have to suffer for a period of time.

Americans have suffered through things many times in the past. It is a part of life.
But now it is all about taking risks and losing the gamble but not wanting to suffer the consequences. And now we have an administration that rewards you for making bad decisions.

Suffering is not always a bad thing.

People were already suffering when FDR took office. Hoover was President for three years after the 1929 Stock Market Crash. His answer was a hands off government, let the economy recover by itself and "Prosperity is just around the corner". People were already homeless....remember "Hoovervilles"??

Suffering in the early 1930s was not part of life and it was a bad thing. People were starving, letting private charity take care of them was not working. On top of that, you had the largest ecological disaster in US History....The Dust Bowl. The entire midwest blew away leaving people with nothing.

. It may have been best for the economy, but not the people.......and personally, I care more about the people

I take offense to you saying "Conservatives still say we should have let them starve, weed out the weak and unlucky and have only the strongest survive" as I am a conservative and that is just horse shit rhetoric.

We say, the more WE struggle, the more likely WE will find a way to survive.

We wanted (and now want) what is best for the people. Not what is best for the economy. However, the desire of each individual to survive will result in a healthier economy.

You seem to be taking the conservative message and adjusting it to meet your agenda.

Why must you play that game? Are you so insecure with the merits of your thinking?

And still, in this thread you recommended the Government do nothing during the Great Depression, allow those affected by the Dust Bowl to just suffer because it would make them stronger.

You don't believe that millions of Americans suffered in the 30s? You don't believe Government policies helped to provide food? Helped provide jobs?

 

[Jarhead]

People were already suffering when FDR took office. Hoover was President for three years after the 1929 Stock Market Crash. His answer was a hands off government, let the economy recover by itself and "Prosperity is just around the corner". People were already homeless....remember "Hoovervilles"??

Suffering in the early 1930s was not part of life and it was a bad thing. People were starving, letting private charity take care of them was not working. On top of that, you had the largest ecological disaster in US History....The Dust Bowl. The entire midwest blew away leaving people with nothing.

. It may have been best for the economy, but not the people.......and personally, I care more about the people

I take offense to you saying "Conservatives still say we should have let them starve, weed out the weak and unlucky and have only the strongest survive" as I am a conservative and that is just horse shit rhetoric.

We say, the more WE struggle, the more likely WE will find a way to survive.

We wanted (and now want) what is best for the people. Not what is best for the economy. However, the desire of each individual to survive will result in a healthier economy.

You seem to be taking the conservative message and adjusting it to meet your agenda.

Why must you play that game? Are you so insecure with the merits of your thinking?

And still, in this thread you recommended the Government do nothing during the Great Depression, allow those affected by the Dust Bowl to just suffer because it would make them stronger.

You don't believe that millions of Americans suffered in the 30s? You don't believe Government policies helped to provide food? Helped provide jobs?

helping provide food is one thing. Creating jobs at the cost of those that would use the money to create jobs is another.

To take from a manufacturer tax money to create a job so one can paint a sign that says "the paint on this sign is wet" is ludicrous.

Perhaps if the manufacturer did not have to pay the extra tax money, he would have been able to hire more empolyees?

What good does it do for the economy to have people painting signs that say "this sign has wet paint"

Basic logic. Jeez.

 

[rightwinger]

I take offense to you saying "Conservatives still say we should have let them starve, weed out the weak and unlucky and have only the strongest survive" as I am a conservative and that is just horse shit rhetoric.

We say, the more WE struggle, the more likely WE will find a way to survive.

We wanted (and now want) what is best for the people. Not what is best for the economy. However, the desire of each individual to survive will result in a healthier economy.

You seem to be taking the conservative message and adjusting it to meet your agenda.

Why must you play that game? Are you so insecure with the merits of your thinking?

And still, in this thread you recommended the Government do nothing during the Great Depression, allow those affected by the Dust Bowl to just suffer because it would make them stronger.

You don't believe that millions of Americans suffered in the 30s? You don't believe Government policies helped to provide food? Helped provide jobs?

helping provide food is one thing. Creating jobs at the cost of those that would use the money to create jobs is another.

To take from a manufacturer tax money to create a job so one can paint a sign that says "the paint on this sign is wet" is ludicrous.

Perhaps if the manufacturer did not have to pay the extra tax money, he would have been able to hire more empolyees?

What good does it do for the economy to have people painting signs that say "this sign has wet paint"

Basic logic. Jeez.

I just love how building National Parks, roads, trails, waterways gets equated with making signs that say "the paint on this sign is wet"

 

[Jarhead]

And still, in this thread you recommended the Government do nothing during the Great Depression, allow those affected by the Dust Bowl to just suffer because it would make them stronger.

You don't believe that millions of Americans suffered in the 30s? You don't believe Government policies helped to provide food? Helped provide jobs?

helping provide food is one thing. Creating jobs at the cost of those that would use the money to create jobs is another.

To take from a manufacturer tax money to create a job so one can paint a sign that says "the paint on this sign is wet" is ludicrous.

Perhaps if the manufacturer did not have to pay the extra tax money, he would have been able to hire more empolyees?

What good does it do for the economy to have people painting signs that say "this sign has wet paint"

Basic logic. Jeez.

I just love how building National Parks, roads, trails, waterways gets equated with making signs that say "the paint on this sign is wet"

And I just love how taking money out of the private sector to create jobs at the cost of private sector job creation is ignored by you.

But then again, you seem to believe that conservatives all are wealthy and not affected by recessions and depressions like everyone else. We sit by sipping our 12 year old scotch saying "let them eat cake".

 

[VaYank5150]

helping provide food is one thing. Creating jobs at the cost of those that would use the money to create jobs is another.

To take from a manufacturer tax money to create a job so one can paint a sign that says "the paint on this sign is wet" is ludicrous.

Perhaps if the manufacturer did not have to pay the extra tax money, he would have been able to hire more empolyees?

What good does it do for the economy to have people painting signs that say "this sign has wet paint"

Basic logic. Jeez.

I just love how building National Parks, roads, trails, waterways gets equated with making signs that say "the paint on this sign is wet"

And I just love how taking money out of the private sector to create jobs at the cost of private sector job creation is ignored by you.

But then again, you seem to believe that conservatives all are wealthy and not affected by recessions and depressions like everyone else. We sit by sipping our 12 year old scotch saying "let them eat cake".

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

 

[mascale]

In the recent downturn, the Bush transition of socialist intervention into the economy included the Tax Rebates, the support of the Federal Reserve in interest rate cuts and other measures, and the no-sense bailout of the banks under TARP. The Obama takeover of the socialist intervention into the economy included the bailout of state and local public employment, the bail-out of federal contractors, and then the various cash infusions under the Cash For Clunkers, home tax credits, and refundable tax credits programs.

The Original Hoover Reponse to the Great Depression was to denounce laissez-faire, and create public sector responses: But against a back-drop of restrictive money supply, restrictive tariff measures, (Smoot-Hawley is famous), and finally an increase of taxes on the rich--concerned about the deficit at the time.

The current Credit Market is in fact so sufficiently enormous that the banks could repay TARP, at 8.5% APR: Having essentially stopped doing any further business. The international trade program is so sufficiently enormous that the Europeans can tank their Euro, allowing gluttony as usual to created new U. S. Markets, which in turn benefits China. The socialist republics had all bailed out first. There is refundable tax credit money being sent to homes.

The public sector at the local level will prosper from the spending. Even The Stimulus was unnecessary.

So Hoover Under-reacted, Much as Geitner is famous for having Over-reacted.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Sitting Bull not over-reactor. Ronald Reagan not real actor either!)

 

[Jarhead]

I just love how building National Parks, roads, trails, waterways gets equated with making signs that say "the paint on this sign is wet"

And I just love how taking money out of the private sector to create jobs at the cost of private sector job creation is ignored by you.

But then again, you seem to believe that conservatives all are wealthy and not affected by recessions and depressions like everyone else. We sit by sipping our 12 year old scotch saying "let them eat cake".

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

 

[VaYank5150]

And I just love how taking money out of the private sector to create jobs at the cost of private sector job creation is ignored by you.

But then again, you seem to believe that conservatives all are wealthy and not affected by recessions and depressions like everyone else. We sit by sipping our 12 year old scotch saying "let them eat cake".

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

While I appreciate the business refresher, I am still wondering where all of the private sector jobs were and are that Obama is supposedly taking away?

 

[rightwinger]

And I just love how taking money out of the private sector to create jobs at the cost of private sector job creation is ignored by you.

But then again, you seem to believe that conservatives all are wealthy and not affected by recessions and depressions like everyone else. We sit by sipping our 12 year old scotch saying "let them eat cake".

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

We had 30% unemployment, there was no private sector hiring, nobody was putting money into the economy. The Government needed to step in and spike investment in a sagging economy. If private companies did get extra money during these hard times they would have held it in reserve rather than investing in new jobs.

Once again, the already suffering masses would have suffered more

 

[rdean]

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

While I appreciate the business refresher, I am still wondering where all of the private sector jobs were and are that Obama is supposedly taking away?

We know where they are at, they have been moved overseas.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm getting in here late, but where are these private sector jobs again?

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

We had 30% unemployment, there was no private sector hiring, nobody was putting money into the economy. The Government needed to step in and spike investment in a sagging economy. If private companies did get extra money during these hard times they would have held it in reserve rather than investing in new jobs.

Once again, the already suffering masses would have suffered more

The most important premise of your statement started off with the word "if". That makes it a theory.

And "IF" they, instead, invested it into job creation?"

 

[rdean]

Hmmmm...interersting how you and I see history differently.
Now I understand why we do not see eye to eye on most things.

Yes, in looking backward FDR could have done things differently. He could have adopted Hoovers hands off, let the economy recover on its own. Of course, hundreds of thousands of Americans would be starving and homeless without FDRs assistance.

The economy "may" have recovered faster.....the people wouldn't have

Or....

The economy would have recovered fast enough so the people would only have to suffer for a period of time.

Americans have suffered through things many times in the past. It is a part of life.
But now it is all about taking risks and losing the gamble but not wanting to suffer the consequences. And now we have an administration that rewards you for making bad decisions.

Suffering is not always a bad thing.

It's a different time. In the 50's and 60's the tax rate for the richest Americans was 75 to 90% and they didn't seem to suffer. A CEO only made 30 times the average employee.
Money was made by "GROWING" the company.

Now a CEO can make 3 to 4 HUNDRED times the average worker. All you need to do is get the company to post a profit for a couple of years. You can do that by firing people and selling, or moving jobs overseas. Once you get a package of 60 or 70 million, then screw it. Who needs to work any more?

Forbes.com: Forbes Executive Pay

The cause of the Great Depression - all the money was in a few hands. No one had anything to "spend". If you want to grow a company, you have to "nurture your customers". Giving tax cuts to rich people only makes the problem worse.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, in looking backward FDR could have done things differently. He could have adopted Hoovers hands off, let the economy recover on its own. Of course, hundreds of thousands of Americans would be starving and homeless without FDRs assistance.

The economy "may" have recovered faster.....the people wouldn't have

Or....

The economy would have recovered fast enough so the people would only have to suffer for a period of time.

Americans have suffered through things many times in the past. It is a part of life.
But now it is all about taking risks and losing the gamble but not wanting to suffer the consequences. And now we have an administration that rewards you for making bad decisions.

Suffering is not always a bad thing.

It's a different time. In the 50's and 60's the tax rate for the richest Americans was 75 to 90% and they didn't seem to suffer. A CEO only made 30 times the average employee.
Money was made by "GROWING" the company.

Now a CEO can make 3 to 4 HUNDRED times the average worker. All you need to do is get the company to post a profit for a couple of years. You can do that by firing people and selling, or moving jobs overseas. Once you get a package of 60 or 70 million, then screw it. Who needs to work any more?

Forbes.com: Forbes Executive Pay

The cause of the Great Depression - all the money was in a few hands. No one had anything to "spend". If you want to grow a company, you have to "nurture your customers". Giving tax cuts to rich people only makes the problem worse.

Do you know what motivates one to take on the headaches, liabilities and lost of personal time in an effort to start and exapnd a company?

Certainly not the proimise of a net of as little as 30% of gross income

 

[rightwinger]

KInd of tough to hire when you have no idea how much of your revenue will be taken away from you with all of these initiatives on the table.

Busijness owners do not hire based on immediate need. They forecast.

When you do not know the ratio of gross to net, it is quite difficult to forecast.

On the other hand, the federal governemnt does not need to forecast. It can hire anyone it dam pleases at anytime it wants. Of coursde, it does not have its own money. It takes from those that are tryingt to forecast.

We had 30% unemployment, there was no private sector hiring, nobody was putting money into the economy. The Government needed to step in and spike investment in a sagging economy. If private companies did get extra money during these hard times they would have held it in reserve rather than investing in new jobs.

Once again, the already suffering masses would have suffered more

The most important premise of your statement started off with the word "if". That makes it a theory.

And "IF" they, instead, invested it into job creation?"

Except for the fact that we have ample data of private companies NOT hiring during the depression. The Federal Government was the only one spending money. Private companies were in a hunker down mode

 

[The Rabbi]

I would post but Leftwinger and RDean just keep spouting the same misinformation over and over.
Some people never learn.