More Economic GOOD NEWS: New Home Sales Up 27%....largest jump in 47 years

[uscitizen]

Dotcom implosion? The money ran out for 2012 fixes. Entirely predictable as a matter of fact I did predict it shortly after the Y2K mania began.

 

[boedicca]

I'm using Dotcom as a shorthand for the Y2K/Telecom/Dotcom bubble burst. You were correct to identify it back then - it was a bubble, certainly neither the first or the last to be fueled by poor government and monetary policies.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm using Dotcom as a shorthand for the Y2K/Telecom/Dotcom bubble burst. You were correct to identify it back then - it was a bubble, certainly neither the first or the last to be fueled by poor government and monetary policies.

Or poor foresight in the private sector as well. Which was most of the Y2K bubble.

 

[boedicca]

As I recall, having been affected by it, the government required this Y2K compliance garbage. Any decently run company was already working on its own systems. The government involvement fueled hype.

 

[uscitizen]

As I recall, having been affected by it, the government required this Y2K compliance garbage. Any decently run company was already working on its own systems. The government involvement fueled hype.

Well of course the govt fueled hype. That is mostly what the govt had done for a couple of decades.

but private industry had lots of work to do. I know I was in the thick of it in IT.

 

[keee keee]

Three homes were sold last month!!!!
Keep up the good work Mr Obama.
by the time your term is up millions more will be homeless and unemployed!!!!
time for a new job stimulus program (money wasting program no job stimulus program)

 

[keee keee]

Hoping for change next NOV 2!!!!

 

[uscitizen]

Hoping for change next NOV 2!!!!

ahh that hopey changey thing again

Prepare for disapointment, regardeless of which side wins.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's unclear what point you are trying to make.

Bush engaged in a war in response to 9/11. The economy had already taken a hit, with another sucker punch after the attacks. What "sacrifices" do you think should have been made, and by whom?

Well, let's see...

Not lowering taxes during wartime would have been a good start.

Perhaps a War Tax to last only while the war continues, in order to pay for the WoT would have been a reasonable thing to do.

In addition, instead of just throwing money at the defense budget in order to fight the war, Mr Bush could have asked some American companies to do their patriotic duty and manufacture some needed parts themselves, like Roosevelt did in WWII.

In fact, if MR Bush had initiated an all-out war effort on the scale of past efforts, perhaps the American economy would have had a similar improvement.

Instead, we got tax cuts, and a gigantic deficit.

And a really awful war strategy for the first 3 years of the war.

 

[Vast LWC]

Three homes were sold last month!!!!
Keep up the good work Mr Obama.
by the time your term is up millions more will be homeless and unemployed!!!!
time for a new job stimulus program (money wasting program no job stimulus program)

Wow, keee keee, when you don't have a point, large red letters really make up for it.

ROFL.

 

[boedicca]

It's unclear what point you are trying to make.

Bush engaged in a war in response to 9/11. The economy had already taken a hit, with another sucker punch after the attacks. What "sacrifices" do you think should have been made, and by whom?

Well, let's see...

Not lowering taxes during wartime would have been a good start.

Perhaps a War Tax to last only while the war continues, in order to pay for the WoT would have been a reasonable thing to do.

Why is it that the sacrifice always has to come from the private sector?

What about Cutting Spending so the private sector could retain capital to fuel growth?

In addition, instead of just throwing money at the defense budget in order to fight the war, Mr Bush could have asked some American companies to do their patriotic duty and manufacture some needed parts themselves, like Roosevelt did in WWII.

Sorry, I don't have a machine shop in my garage. That is absolute nonsense.

In fact, if MR Bush had initiated an all-out war effort on the scale of past efforts, perhaps the American economy would have had a similar improvement.

Instead, we got tax cuts, and a gigantic deficit.

No, we got massive increases in spending which drove the deficit.

We don't have an undertaxing problem; we have an overspending one.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why is it that the sacrifice always has to come from the private sector?

What about Cutting Spending so the private sector could retain capital to fuel growth?

Sure that's a good point. He should have done BOTH. We would have had no national debt at all by now if he had.

Sorry, I don't have a machine shop in my garage. That is absolute nonsense.

So, GM couldn't have switched some of their production to tank parts? GE couldn't have been tasked with developing better smart bomb components? Goldman Sachs couldn't have lent a hand to tracking trends that led to Al Qaeda financing?

That is exactly what Roosevelt did in WWII.

No, we got massive increases in spending which drove the deficit.

We don't have an undertaxing problem; we have an overspending one.

We got BOTH. He cut taxes below the optimum level of the Laffer Curve and he increased spending. During wartime, hell during most times, this is a combination meant to create massive debt.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why is there a long encoded link at the bottom of one of my posts on this page?

*Edit: Nevermind, it went away.

 

[uscitizen]

Homeland security at work to keep you safe.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Incorrect. Spending more money does NOT equate to a larger government...it just means we spent more money on stuff. Now with the creation of 160 new agencies just to oversee the healthcare law....THAT'S GOVERNMENT EXPANSION!!!!

Right, so all the new agencies and bureaus put in place to form Homeland Security and to fight the war on terror don't count then?

Oh...you fell for that huge lie as well I see.....The Department of Homeland Security combined 45 EXISTING federal agencies UNDER ONE CABINET LEVEL POST.

Carry on. Get your facts straight.

 

[boedicca]

So, GM couldn't have switched some of their production to tank parts? GE couldn't have been tasked with developing better smart bomb components? Goldman Sachs couldn't have lent a hand to tracking trends that led to Al Qaeda financing?

That is exactly what Roosevelt did in WWII.

Are you saying we didn't have enough armaments and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is that American companies did supply the war effort.

We got BOTH. He cut taxes below the optimum level of the Laffer Curve and he increased spending. During wartime, hell during most times, this is a combination meant to create massive debt.

How about we actually try cutting spending first? We've tried tax increases and tax cuts - but real spending reductions haven't been tried in ages.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

In addition, instead of just throwing money at the defense budget in order to fight the war, Mr Bush could have asked some American companies to do their patriotic duty and manufacture some needed parts themselves, like Roosevelt did in WWII.

I'll be back later...I gotta go wire up my CNC lathe with multiple turning centers that I just bought at Sears...and while we're at it...what the fuck have you done to support the war effort like Roosevelt did in WW2?

 

[Vast LWC]

Incorrect. Spending more money does NOT equate to a larger government...it just means we spent more money on stuff. Now with the creation of 160 new agencies just to oversee the healthcare law....THAT'S GOVERNMENT EXPANSION!!!!

Right, so all the new agencies and bureaus put in place to form Homeland Security and to fight the war on terror don't count then?

Oh...you fell for that huge lie as well I see.....The Department of Homeland Security combined 45 EXISTING federal agencies UNDER ONE CABINET LEVEL POST.

Carry on. Get your facts straight.

The agencies, however, still existed, they just went through a different chain of command, so the net effect was to create more bureaucracies, not less.

In addition, there were many, many more people hired by the government to do all the new tasks set for them, for an overall net effect of GOVERNMENT EXPANSION. Which was my point.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, GM couldn't have switched some of their production to tank parts? GE couldn't have been tasked with developing better smart bomb components? Goldman Sachs couldn't have lent a hand to tracking trends that led to Al Qaeda financing?

That is exactly what Roosevelt did in WWII.

Are you saying we didn't have enough armaments and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is that American companies did supply the war effort.

We got BOTH. He cut taxes below the optimum level of the Laffer Curve and he increased spending. During wartime, hell during most times, this is a combination meant to create massive debt.

How about we actually try cutting spending first? We've tried tax increases and tax cuts - but real spending reductions haven't been tried in ages.

I have never been against spending reductions. My plan is to raise the retirement age to receive SS and Medicare benefits by 5 years, and remove our bases from Europe and other locations. Let other countries police themselves..

Got any specific cuts you have in mind yourself? I'd be happy to hear them.

 

[uscitizen]

So, GM couldn't have switched some of their production to tank parts? GE couldn't have been tasked with developing better smart bomb components? Goldman Sachs couldn't have lent a hand to tracking trends that led to Al Qaeda financing?

That is exactly what Roosevelt did in WWII.

Are you saying we didn't have enough armaments and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is that American companies did supply the war effort.

We got BOTH. He cut taxes below the optimum level of the Laffer Curve and he increased spending. During wartime, hell during most times, this is a combination meant to create massive debt.

How about we actually try cutting spending first? We've tried tax increases and tax cuts - but real spending reductions haven't been tried in ages.

I have never been against spending reductions. My plan is to raise the retirement age to receive SS and Medicare benefits by 5 years, and remove our bases from Europe and other locations, and let other countries police themselves..

Got any specific cuts you have in mind yourself? I'd be happy to hear them.

I agree for those under 50 or so, but don't raise it on those that are close.