Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

[sealybobo]

I'm betting the usual capitalistas who bitch daily about socialism this and blah blah blah won't decide to make a presence in this thread...

And pass up a chance to go another round with my favorite sparing partner? NEVER!!!

Honestly though I don't see what it's suppossed to accomplish or any good it's suppossed to accomplish. What I got out of the article is that somehow they're going to somehow magically be able to get rid of all this bad debt into a 'bad debt bank'. Okay, so the bad debt is now off the banks books. Is all of that debt just going to be forgiven? Is the bad debt bank going to 'handle it' it someway? Is this going to be one time only deal? i don't think it's the kind of precedent we want to be setting. It woud be like a financial game of chicken. banks pile up bad debt, the government says not our problem, until someon flinches. Either we get economic ruin because the govenrment didn't help (because it isn't their responsibility) or the government does help and we've just told people don't worry about bad debt, if it gets bad enough we'll take care of it.

As far as a capitilistic solution, ironically that would require government policy as well, mainly in the form of reversing policy that encouraged risky lending (thank you President Carter!!). 'In theory' that would keep lenders from making risky loans. the result unfortunately would be a lowered standard of living because it would be harder to purchase things you couldn't really afford. You have complained before Shogun about reducing our standard of living in a variety of ways like jobs going overseas, but at the same time it is undeniable that the standard of living we're at is rather inflated. It does not accurately reflect people's ability to AFFORD that standard of living. The current SoL is probably over what it should be in terms of the SoL one can actually pay for, but the ease with which people can get credit has inflated that.

It's only inflated because you are comparing it to SOLs from nations whose labor is a LOT cheaper than ours. If we were not hemmoraging jobs to slave wage nations then it WOULD be the case that these risky loans COULD HAVE BEEN PAID. I don't thinks it's a matter of nationwide laziness or widescale conspiracies not to pay mortgage bills so much as it is a testement to the hazards of undermining our American employment potential and how that will affect the overall conuming potential of our citizens. In essence, those loans MAY have worked to upgrade our SOLs were it the case that capitalistas werent hellbent on launching employment at third world states that only continue to devalue the cost of labor.


Sure, our SOL is inflated when compared with labor in ghetto mexico or begger india or million man china. But, our concern should not be to normalize OUR SOL to that of a fucking third world country anyway.


Good to see ya, Bern. It;s been a hot minute since we've sparred over economics.

Can't wait to see Bern's reply.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That little sob has come out to bust GOP lies more than a couple times. If he comes out and agrees with Ron Paul to socialize the banks, that is saying something.

Will the people listen? Probably not. They can silence Greenspan too. The corporate media will just ignore him.

Then you guys can say, "where did you hear that? oh, that's a liberal website so i don't acknowledge the facts on it".

Ron Paul does not want to socialize any banks, sealy. He would have let all those banks fail, because that's what the market was calling for.

I've already explained to you that you don't understand what Paul saying. He does that on purpose. If he is as blunt as I am, he'll get run out of politics.

But he was in my "conspiracy theory" dvd Freedom to Fascism and yes, he agrees with me 100%. The bankers own this country.

We need to take back the Federal Reserve. We need to go back to the gold standard. The IRS is unconstitutional.

Watch the damn dvd before you argue. Hear Dr. Paul's interview.

You see how the GOP treated Dr. Paul when he even HINTED at this stuff, so don't expect him to be loud and blunt like me. He's more tactful. He has to be.

He points out what is wrong with the system. The only difference is that he doesn't say they system is set up this way on purpose, and that the bankers own us.

He also won't argue that the 16th Amendment is bogus. So is the income tax, federal reserve, etc.

But you remain under informed, and still just as vocal.

It's not me that's "under informed" if you believe Ron Paul wants the government to unconstitutionally socialize the banks.

 

[Bern80]

I'm betting the usual capitalistas who bitch daily about socialism this and blah blah blah won't decide to make a presence in this thread...

And pass up a chance to go another round with my favorite sparing partner? NEVER!!!

Honestly though I don't see what it's suppossed to accomplish or any good it's suppossed to accomplish. What I got out of the article is that somehow they're going to somehow magically be able to get rid of all this bad debt into a 'bad debt bank'. Okay, so the bad debt is now off the banks books. Is all of that debt just going to be forgiven? Is the bad debt bank going to 'handle it' it someway? Is this going to be one time only deal? i don't think it's the kind of precedent we want to be setting. It woud be like a financial game of chicken. banks pile up bad debt, the government says not our problem, until someon flinches. Either we get economic ruin because the govenrment didn't help (because it isn't their responsibility) or the government does help and we've just told people don't worry about bad debt, if it gets bad enough we'll take care of it.

As far as a capitilistic solution, ironically that would require government policy as well, mainly in the form of reversing policy that encouraged risky lending (thank you President Carter!!). 'In theory' that would keep lenders from making risky loans. the result unfortunately would be a lowered standard of living because it would be harder to purchase things you couldn't really afford. You have complained before Shogun about reducing our standard of living in a variety of ways like jobs going overseas, but at the same time it is undeniable that the standard of living we're at is rather inflated. It does not accurately reflect people's ability to AFFORD that standard of living. The current SoL is probably over what it should be in terms of the SoL one can actually pay for, but the ease with which people can get credit has inflated that.

It's only inflated because you are comparing it to SOLs from nations whose labor is a LOT cheaper than ours. If we were not hemmoraging jobs to slave wage nations then it WOULD be the case that these risky loans COULD HAVE BEEN PAID. I don't thinks it's a matter of nationwide laziness or widescale conspiracies not to pay mortgage bills so much as it is a testement to the hazards of undermining our American employment potential and how that will affect the overall conuming potential of our citizens. In essence, those loans MAY have worked to upgrade our SOLs were it the case that capitalistas werent hellbent on launching employment at third world states that only continue to devalue the cost of labor.


Sure, our SOL is inflated when compared with labor in ghetto mexico or begger india or million man china. But, our concern should not be to normalize OUR SOL to that of a fucking third world country anyway.


Good to see ya, Bern. It;s been a hot minute since we've sparred over economics.

I'm not comparing it to other nations at all. I'm making the comparison that our SoL is above what it would be if everyone actually had to be able to pay for what they purchased. That that is at the very least a partial factor in what our SoL is, is undeniable Shogun. It is undeniable because we know for a fact that a lot of people have credit card debt which means we know for a fact that a lot of people are in possession of things they don't have the actual money for.

As to losing an awful lot of jobs? yes we are. But the statistics dont' jive with your notion that all these jobs are leaving to be replaced by overseas workers. Just last May, not even a year ago, the unemployment rate according the Bureau of labor Statistics was still only 5.5%. Most economists would say that is close to zero or healthy in terms of the number of people who can't find work because the unemployment rate includes everyone over 16 and people that quit jobs for new ones. So you can't really make the case there that there is this crisis of jobs going overseas. Unemployment has gone up considerably since then by about 3%, but it isn't honeslty your contention that those jobs went overseas, is it? Two components need to lead to moving jobs overseas. First a desire for whatever reason to reduce labor costs, but even then there still has to be demand for the product to warrant continuing to produce it, regardless of WHERE it being produced. And that's what's missing, the demand. We're seeing all these layoffs not because we're 'hemoragging jobs' to other countries, but because we are consuming far less. Moving jobs overseas now, even if it costs less, doesn't help anything if there's no one to buy the product.

 

[Shogun]

And pass up a chance to go another round with my favorite sparing partner? NEVER!!!

Honestly though I don't see what it's suppossed to accomplish or any good it's suppossed to accomplish. What I got out of the article is that somehow they're going to somehow magically be able to get rid of all this bad debt into a 'bad debt bank'. Okay, so the bad debt is now off the banks books. Is all of that debt just going to be forgiven? Is the bad debt bank going to 'handle it' it someway? Is this going to be one time only deal? i don't think it's the kind of precedent we want to be setting. It woud be like a financial game of chicken. banks pile up bad debt, the government says not our problem, until someon flinches. Either we get economic ruin because the govenrment didn't help (because it isn't their responsibility) or the government does help and we've just told people don't worry about bad debt, if it gets bad enough we'll take care of it.

As far as a capitilistic solution, ironically that would require government policy as well, mainly in the form of reversing policy that encouraged risky lending (thank you President Carter!!). 'In theory' that would keep lenders from making risky loans. the result unfortunately would be a lowered standard of living because it would be harder to purchase things you couldn't really afford. You have complained before Shogun about reducing our standard of living in a variety of ways like jobs going overseas, but at the same time it is undeniable that the standard of living we're at is rather inflated. It does not accurately reflect people's ability to AFFORD that standard of living. The current SoL is probably over what it should be in terms of the SoL one can actually pay for, but the ease with which people can get credit has inflated that.

It's only inflated because you are comparing it to SOLs from nations whose labor is a LOT cheaper than ours. If we were not hemmoraging jobs to slave wage nations then it WOULD be the case that these risky loans COULD HAVE BEEN PAID. I don't thinks it's a matter of nationwide laziness or widescale conspiracies not to pay mortgage bills so much as it is a testement to the hazards of undermining our American employment potential and how that will affect the overall conuming potential of our citizens. In essence, those loans MAY have worked to upgrade our SOLs were it the case that capitalistas werent hellbent on launching employment at third world states that only continue to devalue the cost of labor.


Sure, our SOL is inflated when compared with labor in ghetto mexico or begger india or million man china. But, our concern should not be to normalize OUR SOL to that of a fucking third world country anyway.


Good to see ya, Bern. It;s been a hot minute since we've sparred over economics.

I'm not comparing it to other nations at all. I'm making the comparison that our SoL is above what it would be if everyone actually had to be able to pay for what they purchased. That that is at the very least a partial factor in what our SoL is, is undeniable Shogun. It is undeniable because we know for a fact that a lot of people have credit card debt which means we know for a fact that a lot of people are in possession of things they don't have the actual money for.

As to losing an awful lot of jobs? yes we are. But the statistics dont' jive with your notion that all these jobs are leaving to be replaced by overseas workers. Just last May, not even a year ago, the unemployment rate according the Bureau of labor Statistics was still only 5.5%. Most economists would say that is close to zero or healthy in terms of the number of people who can't find work because the unemployment rate includes everyone over 16 and people that quit jobs for new ones. So you can't really make the case there that there is this crisis of jobs going overseas. Unemployment has gone up considerably since then by about 3%, but it isn't honeslty your contention that those jobs went overseas, is it? Two components need to lead to moving jobs overseas. First a desire for whatever reason to reduce labor costs, but even then there still has to be demand for the product to warrant continuing to produce it, regardless of WHERE it being produced. And that's what's missing, the demand. We're seeing all these layoffs not because we're 'hemoragging jobs' to other countries, but because we are consuming far less. Moving jobs overseas now, even if it costs less, doesn't help anything if there's no one to buy the product.

I'm not rationalizing credit card debt. But, I'm also not throwing our culture out with the bathwater just because people have MORE CREDIT OFFERS THAN AMERICAN SOL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

Why don't we see millionaires living day to day on credit cards, Bern? Do you think that Bill Gates charges LUNCH to a credit card?


I'm not really jiving with the method for determining the unemployment rate anyway. Hell, deep into the Bush administration we were being told that there WAS NO economic issue going on because unemployment rates were down.. Yet, every day we all heard about this place closing or THAT place dropping jobs. Hell, I can show you examples from the midwest ALONE that conveys just how many Americans are unemployed due to layoffs and job relocation despite a rosy interpretation of the last 5 years of unemployment rates. Funny how people started changing their tunes after the point of no economic return, eh dude?

You want specific examples of jobs sent overseas? Auto workers and Call centers. Go call dell right now and ask the person you talk to where they are located. Let's see if "Bill" doesn't sound like a facade wielding Indian to you. Nafta? Great job there, eh Bern? Promised to raise mexican wages but only really LOWERED American wages. Hell, Bern, do you THINK I CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE HEMMORAGING OF AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS?

Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work
Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work - The Boston Globe

American's are not consuming FAR LESS of anything that they would otherwise be consuming if such were an economic reality. Hell, we WAS able to afford driving to destination vacations and putting gas in the family boat. Now, we can't enjoy that shit because those who HAVE found a different job after losing their high wage job to Calcutta just can't afford the same as a wal mart check out associate making 7.05/hr with no benys. Sound FAMILIAR?

 

[sealybobo]

Ron Paul does not want to socialize any banks, sealy. He would have let all those banks fail, because that's what the market was calling for.

I've already explained to you that you don't understand what Paul saying. He does that on purpose. If he is as blunt as I am, he'll get run out of politics.

But he was in my "conspiracy theory" dvd Freedom to Fascism and yes, he agrees with me 100%. The bankers own this country.

We need to take back the Federal Reserve. We need to go back to the gold standard. The IRS is unconstitutional.

Watch the damn dvd before you argue. Hear Dr. Paul's interview.

You see how the GOP treated Dr. Paul when he even HINTED at this stuff, so don't expect him to be loud and blunt like me. He's more tactful. He has to be.

He points out what is wrong with the system. The only difference is that he doesn't say they system is set up this way on purpose, and that the bankers own us.

He also won't argue that the 16th Amendment is bogus. So is the income tax, federal reserve, etc.

But you remain under informed, and still just as vocal.

It's not me that's "under informed" if you believe Ron Paul wants the government to unconstitutionally socialize the banks.

He says, "why did we turn over the federal reserve to private bankers? what possible benfefit did we get in return?"

And he says, "instead of our money being backed by gold, its worthless".

Just continue to not see Freedom to Fascism and claim you are informed.

 

[Charles_Main]

So am I right, Dems who used to tell us how stupid Greenspan was, now think he is a genius again right.

 

[sealybobo]

So am I right, Dems who used to tell us how stupid Greenspan was, now think he is a genius again right.

Alan Greenspan reminds me of Scott McClellen.

All too willing to go along and then AFTERWARD lets it leak that some shady shit might have occurred.

And neither of them came out 100% against what is going on.

But Greenspan and Scott both confirmed that Bush was a scumbag liar and murderer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've already explained to you that you don't understand what Paul saying. He does that on purpose. If he is as blunt as I am, he'll get run out of politics.

But he was in my "conspiracy theory" dvd Freedom to Fascism and yes, he agrees with me 100%. The bankers own this country.

We need to take back the Federal Reserve. We need to go back to the gold standard. The IRS is unconstitutional.

Watch the damn dvd before you argue. Hear Dr. Paul's interview.

You see how the GOP treated Dr. Paul when he even HINTED at this stuff, so don't expect him to be loud and blunt like me. He's more tactful. He has to be.

He points out what is wrong with the system. The only difference is that he doesn't say they system is set up this way on purpose, and that the bankers own us.

He also won't argue that the 16th Amendment is bogus. So is the income tax, federal reserve, etc.

But you remain under informed, and still just as vocal.

It's not me that's "under informed" if you believe Ron Paul wants the government to unconstitutionally socialize the banks.

He says, "why did we turn over the federal reserve to private bankers? what possible benfefit did we get in return?"

And he says, "instead of our money being backed by gold, its worthless".

Just continue to not see Freedom to Fascism and claim you are informed.

We didn't turn over the Federal Reserve to private bankers, Congress turned over their Constitutional duties to private bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Ron Paul doesn't want to "take back" the Federal Reserve, he wants to get rid of it completely.

I am aware that our money is not backed by gold, but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. You're clearly misunderstanding Dr. Paul's intentions.

 

[johnrocks]

The asshole that helped put the nation in this predicament wantsto nationalize, I'm new here but can I say to him and Lindsay Graham...fuck you! Is that kosher here?

 

[Charles_Main]

The asshole that helped put the nation in this predicament wantsto nationalize, I'm new here but can I say to him and Lindsay Graham...fuck you! Is that kosher here?

Kosher with me, but these Libs in here will all tell you how he is right on this one. Why because he agrees with them.

lol

 

[sealybobo]

It's not me that's "under informed" if you believe Ron Paul wants the government to unconstitutionally socialize the banks.

He says, "why did we turn over the federal reserve to private bankers? what possible benfefit did we get in return?"

And he says, "instead of our money being backed by gold, its worthless".

Just continue to not see Freedom to Fascism and claim you are informed.

We didn't turn over the Federal Reserve to private bankers, Congress turned over their Constitutional duties to private bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Ron Paul doesn't want to "take back" the Federal Reserve, he wants to get rid of it completely.

I am aware that our money is not backed by gold, but I'm not sure how that relates to this conversation. You're clearly misunderstanding Dr. Paul's intentions.

No, he just can't say it like it is. Even when he "hinted" the truth to the public, you see how the GOP treated him in the debates.

The next day Ron Paul was deemed the winner of the debates, and somehow wasn't invited back.

Just because you don't know all the facts doesn't make them any less real. Educate yourself.

 

[sealybobo]

The asshole that helped put the nation in this predicament wantsto nationalize, I'm new here but can I say to him and Lindsay Graham...fuck you! Is that kosher here?

Why not nationalize the banks?

Do you realize that they take all our income tax every year and just apply it to the INTEREST on the national debt?

That's like if you spend $20,000 a month on a credit card and every month you send in the minimum payment.

Who loves it that you do that? The credit card companies. Who owns the credit card companies? The bankers. Who owns the Federal Reserve? Rich global bankers. Some not even American. And so they love the hole we keep digging ourselves. The more we own, the more they own us.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes the laws." A timely quote by Mayer A. Rothschild.

Before our dollar was backed by gold. Today it is only worth the paper it is printed on. The biggest con ever was when these bankers bribed our Congress to let them manage the treasury.

Try to audit the gold in Fort Knox.

Why do you think it is good that the bankers own this country?

Right now they are "too big to fail".

If the government ran the treasury, they wouldn't have had to bail out the banks. They would have just eaten the bad loans. Instead, our government ate the bad loans and had to bail out the banks.

PS. Welcome.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not rationalizing credit card debt. But, I'm also not throwing our culture out with the bathwater just because people have MORE CREDIT OFFERS THAN AMERICAN SOL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

What's your point? In a nutshell you have argued that SoL is falling because jobs are leaving the country. The statisitcs dont' support that particular cause effect link. Unemployment was relatively low less than a year ago, so the notion that there was a mass exodus of jobs is not supported.

People have far more opportunities than you are willing to give them credit for or that most will admit to having. Who cars about credit card offers or the people that buy into them. Or is there some toxin in them that makes those offers irresistable that I need to know about?

In your absence I have found several peopel in your absence willing to carry out the ridiculous notion that it is somehow the responsibility of business or the government to provide for your SoL. It is not. And to shift that responsibility from individual to an entity other than the individiual makes society even weaker.

I'm not really jiving with the method for determining the unemployment rate anyway. Hell, deep into the Bush administration we were being told that there WAS NO economic issue going on because unemployment rates were down.. Yet, every day we all heard about this place closing or THAT place dropping jobs. Hell, I can show you examples from the midwest ALONE that conveys just how many Americans are unemployed due to layoffs and job relocation despite a rosy interpretation of the last 5 years of unemployment rates. Funny how people started changing their tunes after the point of no economic return, eh dude?

What issue do have with the unemployment numbers? I think we would both agree that what we really want to know is how many people looking for a job aren't able to find one. We know that isn't exactley what how the BofLS defines it, but we do know what's skewing it. People over 16 are counted which we know not all of which work or are even looking for jobs. It is also includes frictional unemployment which is basically people that choose to be temporarily unemployed while they move to another job. SO, we know that 5.5% is really higher than the percentage of actual people we want to count.

You want specific examples of jobs sent overseas? Auto workers and Call centers. Go call dell right now and ask the person you talk to where they are located. Let's see if "Bill" doesn't sound like a facade wielding Indian to you. Nafta? Great job there, eh Bern? Promised to raise mexican wages but only really LOWERED American wages. Hell, Bern, do you THINK I CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE HEMMORAGING OF AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS?

Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work
Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work - The Boston Globe

American's are not consuming FAR LESS of anything that they would otherwise be consuming if such were an economic reality. Hell, we WAS able to afford driving to destination vacations and putting gas in the family boat. Now, we can't enjoy that shit because those who HAVE found a different job after losing their high wage job to Calcutta just can't afford the same as a wal mart check out associate making 7.05/hr with no benys. Sound FAMILIAR?

All it sounds is not real. As in grossly exaggerated and made up. Again the numbers don't work to support your argument. Do jobs move oversease? Sure. To enough of an extent to create this recent preciptpous drop in SoL. Unless you can prove otherwise, fraid not.

 

[Shogun]

So am I right, Dems who used to tell us how stupid Greenspan was, now think he is a genius again right.

Are you kidding me? Who is saying Greeny is a genius in this thread? I'm having fun parading your former poster boy for free market capitalism in front of you as his economic resolve starts to crumble. Hell, you can have him AND his failed opinions THEN, when you enjoyed them, and NOW, when you throw him under a bus.

 

[Shogun]

The asshole that helped put the nation in this predicament wantsto nationalize, I'm new here but can I say to him and Lindsay Graham...fuck you! Is that kosher here?

Kosher with me, but these Libs in here will all tell you how he is right on this one. Why because he agrees with them.

lol

name one lib suggesting that he is right about anything. WE enjoy watching him melt down as his faith in capitalism forms a puddle at your feet.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not rationalizing credit card debt. But, I'm also not throwing our culture out with the bathwater just because people have MORE CREDIT OFFERS THAN AMERICAN SOL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

What's your point? In a nutshell you have argued that SoL is falling because jobs are leaving the country. The statisitcs dont' support that particular cause effect link. Unemployment was relatively low less than a year ago, so the notion that there was a mass exodus of jobs is not supported.

People have far more opportunities than you are willing to give them credit for or that most will admit to having. Who cars about credit card offers or the people that buy into them. Or is there some toxin in them that makes those offers irresistable that I need to know about?

In your absence I have found several peopel in your absence willing to carry out the ridiculous notion that it is somehow the responsibility of business or the government to provide for your SoL. It is not. And to shift that responsibility from individual to an entity other than the individiual makes society even weaker.

I'm not really jiving with the method for determining the unemployment rate anyway. Hell, deep into the Bush administration we were being told that there WAS NO economic issue going on because unemployment rates were down.. Yet, every day we all heard about this place closing or THAT place dropping jobs. Hell, I can show you examples from the midwest ALONE that conveys just how many Americans are unemployed due to layoffs and job relocation despite a rosy interpretation of the last 5 years of unemployment rates. Funny how people started changing their tunes after the point of no economic return, eh dude?

What issue do have with the unemployment numbers? I think we would both agree that what we really want to know is how many people looking for a job aren't able to find one. We know that isn't exactley what how the BofLS defines it, but we do know what's skewing it. People over 16 are counted which we know not all of which work or are even looking for jobs. It is also includes frictional unemployment which is basically people that choose to be temporarily unemployed while they move to another job. SO, we know that 5.5% is really higher than the percentage of actual people we want to count.

You want specific examples of jobs sent overseas? Auto workers and Call centers. Go call dell right now and ask the person you talk to where they are located. Let's see if "Bill" doesn't sound like a facade wielding Indian to you. Nafta? Great job there, eh Bern? Promised to raise mexican wages but only really LOWERED American wages. Hell, Bern, do you THINK I CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE HEMMORAGING OF AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS?

Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work
Middle-class, white-collar jobs leaving, too, not just 'grunt' work - The Boston Globe

American's are not consuming FAR LESS of anything that they would otherwise be consuming if such were an economic reality. Hell, we WAS able to afford driving to destination vacations and putting gas in the family boat. Now, we can't enjoy that shit because those who HAVE found a different job after losing their high wage job to Calcutta just can't afford the same as a wal mart check out associate making 7.05/hr with no benys. Sound FAMILIAR?

All it sounds is not real. As in grossly exaggerated and made up. Again the numbers don't work to support your argument. Do jobs move oversease? Sure. To enough of an extent to create this recent preciptpous drop in SoL. Unless you can prove otherwise, fraid not.

Listen, dude.. if your sole rebuttal amounts to "unemployment is not real despite widescale hemmoraging of jobs because the one number I choose to look at doesn't suggest as much to me given how I interpret it" then you still lose this debate. Why don't you get busy posting articles that convey how the US is INCREASING GOOD PAYING JOBS the likes of which our Greatest Generation would have envied instead of tossing out a few non-sequiters? You people didn't believe that an economic clusterfuck was even POSSIBLE until you finally had to admit that shit was hitting the fan. Yes, hemmoraging jobs IS supported. How many articles do you want to see, Bern? Opportunities to check out at wal mart for min wage with no bennys after building their LIVES around GM plant jobs isn't an opportunity. Pretending that the entire populace of America can all become Java programmers is a joke.


And yes, it IS the business of the collective government to preserve the SOL of the United States instead of remain the bitch to global capitalism. Are you kidding me? Our gov is not some neutral entity that sees a US citizen on par with a Cheap labor Chinaman. Yes, our gov has the DUTY to support American steel over French steel. Let Sarkozy support his steel. When these nations start trading at something better than a stark fucking DEFICIT with the US THEN they can start complaining about protectionism. Your OPINOIN about what makes this country weaker just doesn't have the same kick this side of the failure of your pet system, dude. do you often ask anyone else with faulty products about their expert opinions?


While you are trying to crunch hypothetical statistics no less than 2 THOUSAND jobs have been cut from factories in and around the mid missouri area between Columbia and Jefferson City. Perhaps you have some kind of talking point for these people who seem not to have been counted in order to achieve a facade of an unemployment rate number.



Dude, it's happening. Weather you want to admit it or not. Weather you want to INTERPRET it the same way I do or not. Again, your side was busy telling us about how strong the economy was and how there WAS NO PROBLEM (What, me worry?).... . until the shit hit the fan and the illusion burst. As it is, I can provide example after example of jobs being shipped overseas for the sake of cheap third world labor. And, at the end of the day, wal mart jobs and java programming just aint saving the fucking American day.

 

[Toro]

I'm betting the usual capitalistas who bitch daily about socialism this and blah blah blah won't decide to make a presence in this thread...

It may be the only way.

 

[Bern80]

Listen, dude.. if your sole rebuttal amounts to "unemployment is not real despite widescale hemmoraging of jobs because the one number I choose to look at doesn't suggest as much to me given how I interpret it" then you still lose this debate. Why don't you get busy posting articles that convey how the US is INCREASING GOOD PAYING JOBS the likes of which our Greatest Generation would have envied instead of tossing out a few non-sequiters? You people didn't believe that an economic clusterfuck was even POSSIBLE until you finally had to admit that shit was hitting the fan. Yes, hemmoraging jobs IS supported. How many articles do you want to see, Bern? Opportunities to check out at wal mart for min wage with no bennys after building their LIVES around GM plant jobs isn't an opportunity. Pretending that the entire populace of America can all become Java programmers is a joke.

You're the one severly lacking in listening skills shogun. What is NOT in the BofLS unemployment that is driving it lower than what you think it should be? Why is it businesses responsibility to provide good paying jobs? Why shouldn't individuals take on at least some responsibility and garner skills that businesses find valuable.

And yes, it IS the business of the collective government to preserve the SOL of the United States instead of remain the bitch to global capitalism. Are you kidding me? Our gov is not some neutral entity that sees a US citizen on par with a Cheap labor Chinaman. Yes, our gov has the DUTY to support American steel over French steel. Let Sarkozy support his steel. When these nations start trading at something better than a stark fucking DEFICIT with the US THEN they can start complaining about protectionism. Your OPINOIN about what makes this country weaker just doesn't have the same kick this side of the failure of your pet system, dude. do you often ask anyone else with faulty products about their expert opinions?

Okay it's governments job to provide for your standard of living. What is YOUR minimal responsibility to society then?

While you are trying to crunch hypothetical statistics no less than 2 THOUSAND jobs have been cut from factories in and around the mid missouri area between Columbia and Jefferson City. Perhaps you have some kind of talking point for these people who seem not to have been counted in order to achieve a facade of an unemployment rate number.

It's possible some weren't counted, maybe if they found jobs right away, but that isn't likely. That's the only way I can think of that they wouldn't be counted. Do you have some other evidence they weren't counted?

Dude, it's happening. Weather you want to admit it or not. Weather you want to INTERPRET it the same way I do or not. Again, your side was busy telling us about how strong the economy was and how there WAS NO PROBLEM (What, me worry?).... . until the shit hit the fan and the illusion burst. As it is, I can provide example after example of jobs being shipped overseas for the sake of cheap third world labor. And, at the end of the day, wal mart jobs and java programming just aint saving the fucking American day.

I don't have a 'side'. I never said their wan't a problem. I was hoping after your absence perhaps you would have matured enough that you no longer attribute positions to people that they don't have for the chicken shit purpose of bolstering your own argument. (Deja Vu)

 

[johnrocks]

Government had the constitutional authority to coin money, not nationalize banks, let the bad ones fail.

 

[Charles_Main]

Government had the constitutional authority to coin money, not nationalize banks, let the bad ones fail.

Exactly, but don't hold your breath, neither party gives a damn about what is constitutional anymore.