Predictions for 2010

[Polk]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

But no one ever accused you of brains.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[rightwinger]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

But no one ever accused you of brains.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yea!

What he said

 

[EriktheRed]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

You're the genius who seems to think the GOP will take all of the Dem seats up for re-election in the Senate next November.

Now how has the stimulus increased unemoployment?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Failure to perform due maintenance is remarkably different than having irreparably poor materials to work with. If a coach is losing at halftime 0-42 and the owner comes down and fires him and puts the assistant coach in charge and they outscore the opponent 41-0 in the second half, it's the assistant coach's fault they lost, right?

Out of curiosity, do you blame Obama for the rise in unemployment and general economic woe we have seen during his presidency?

You really don't get it do you? Salt water is CORROSIVE TO METAL. If you don't do the required maintenance, as well as don't ask for replacement parts, the whole thing goes to shit.

Quick.

And........by the way...........might wanna go to Norfolk VA sometime and hang out on the piers and ask for a tour.

It'll teach you something.

Bush had a great setup, it was his own negligence, as well as a failure to oversee what was going on under his command, that screwed the pooch.

Remember when some mid level pawn made a deal to authorize port security to Saudi?

How fucking dumb are you anyway? Do you have to write instructions on the waistband of your underwear to remind you to breathe?

What the fukk are you talking about? You aren't staying up with the conversation. I'm not going to embarrass myself through further dialogue with you if you cannot find a way to be less of a fool. You aren't faking either, I really don't think you understand the things I write at all.

You're right. You shouldn't embarrass yourself any more.

Shut the fuck up.

Why don't I understand what you write?

I don't speak retard very well.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

But no one ever accused you of brains.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Wow, what a fool you are??

You honestly think that economic policies have NO effect on the economy? No wonder you are a Democrat.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

You're the genius who seems to think the GOP will take all of the Dem seats up for re-election in the Senate next November.

Now how has the stimulus increased unemoployment?

Elsewhere I posted an article from a Harvard economist who researched this question. His conclusion: Had the administration used the money to reduce payroll taxes instead of spending it unemployment would have been in the 6% range.
So the stimulus represents a failed opportunity and a waste. All the jobs in non-existent congressional districts ought to tell anyone that.

 

[Navy1960]

In the siprit of the predictions for 2010, I came up with one I know will come true. That on the main road near my house ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) will put up and leave orange traffic cones for a reason only known to them and leave them there. *laughs*

 

[SFC Ollie]

In the siprit of the predictions for 2010, I came up with one I know will come true. That on the main road near my house ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) will put up and leave orange traffic cones for a reason only known to them and leave them there. *laughs*

I just couldn't help it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi7FICy0BMs&feature=PlayList&p=04D2299336F99555&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=52[/ame]

 

[Polk]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

But no one ever accused you of brains.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Wow, what a fool you are??

You honestly think that economic policies have NO effect on the economy? No wonder you are a Democrat.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that your claim that the stimulus increased unemployment is just as absurd as saying increased unemployment created the stimulus. Also, it's telling that you lie about the unemployment figures. Unemployment wasn't six percent when Obama took office, it was around eight percent.

 

[Polk]

OK.
So you are maintaining that the stimulus, which has not helped so far and increased unemployment from 6% to over 10%, will push up employment even though it will become massively more expensive to hire people. This puts basic econ on its head.

You're the genius who seems to think the GOP will take all of the Dem seats up for re-election in the Senate next November.

Now how has the stimulus increased unemoployment?

Elsewhere I posted an article from a Harvard economist who researched this question. His conclusion: Had the administration used the money to reduce payroll taxes instead of spending it unemployment would have been in the 6% range.
So the stimulus represents a failed opportunity and a waste. All the jobs in non-existent congressional districts ought to tell anyone that.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Spending money in a way that has a lower multiplier effect would create less output, not more.

 

[The Rabbi]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Wow, what a fool you are??

You honestly think that economic policies have NO effect on the economy? No wonder you are a Democrat.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that your claim that the stimulus increased unemployment is just as absurd as saying increased unemployment created the stimulus. Also, it's telling that you lie about the unemployment figures. Unemployment wasn't six percent when Obama took office, it was around eight percent.

8%, 6%--whatever.
In fact the stimulus has cost jobs because the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is businesses that hire people. So it is like filling up the shallow end of the pool by draining water from the deep end.
And increased unemployment did create the stimulus. That was the whole impetus for passing the thing.

 

[Polk]

Wow, what a fool you are??

You honestly think that economic policies have NO effect on the economy? No wonder you are a Democrat.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that your claim that the stimulus increased unemployment is just as absurd as saying increased unemployment created the stimulus. Also, it's telling that you lie about the unemployment figures. Unemployment wasn't six percent when Obama took office, it was around eight percent.

8%, 6%--whatever.

A two percent shift represents millions of people out of work. It's not "whatever".

In fact the stimulus has cost jobs because the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is businesses that hire people. So it is like filling up the shallow end of the pool by draining water from the deep end.

That makes no sense. The money doesn't have to come from anywhere. You talk a lot about the increase in the budget deficit, but if the money was coming from somewhere (via higher taxes), it wouldn't have increased the deficit. You could claim that businesses assume a deficit means higher taxes in the future and while that's fine and dandy in modeling, it turns out to not work that way in practice.

And increased unemployment did create the stimulus. That was the whole impetus for passing the thing.

No. Both increased unemployment and the passage of the stimulus share a common source: a weak economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're the genius who seems to think the GOP will take all of the Dem seats up for re-election in the Senate next November.

Now how has the stimulus increased unemoployment?

Elsewhere I posted an article from a Harvard economist who researched this question. His conclusion: Had the administration used the money to reduce payroll taxes instead of spending it unemployment would have been in the 6% range.
So the stimulus represents a failed opportunity and a waste. All the jobs in non-existent congressional districts ought to tell anyone that.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Spending money in a way that has a lower multiplier effect would create less output, not more.

Obviously you still believe that government spending creates a "multiplier" that is more than one. Never mind such a thing has been disproven numerous times. You will believe it no matter what.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that your claim that the stimulus increased unemployment is just as absurd as saying increased unemployment created the stimulus. Also, it's telling that you lie about the unemployment figures. Unemployment wasn't six percent when Obama took office, it was around eight percent.

8%, 6%--whatever.

A two percent shift represents millions of people out of work. It's not "whatever".

In fact the stimulus has cost jobs because the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is businesses that hire people. So it is like filling up the shallow end of the pool by draining water from the deep end.

That makes no sense. The money doesn't have to come from anywhere. You talk a lot about the increase in the budget deficit, but if the money was coming from somewhere (via higher taxes), it wouldn't have increased the deficit. You could claim that businesses assume a deficit means higher taxes in the future and while that's fine and dandy in modeling, it turns out to not work that way in practice.

You think the money for this comes from the Tooth Fairy? Of course it comes from somewhere. It comes from only two sources: taxes and borrowing, which ultimately means taxes. So government cannot create money, it can only take from one party to give to another. Here they are taking from productive parties and giving them to unproductive ones. All the waste and fraud stories should be enough to persuade anyone of that.

 

[Xenophon]

Higher taxes, more spending, more lies from the Gov.

But then again, that has been the fomula for decades.

 

[Shadow]

Predictions:
Joe Biden will be found dead. But no one will notice.

Ted Kennedy will be found alive. But no one will notice.

The end of the Bush tax cuts and new taxes to pay for health care will wreck the economy, causing a stagflation that will make us wish for the good ole days of Jimmy Carter.

Well, I don't know if it will wreck the economy but it is sure going to suck for the house holds who make too much money for any goverment help,but not enough to get by comfortably for the year. Especially if there are no extra jobs to be had to make up the difference.

Fortunately most won't notice the tax cut's expiration until 2011.

 

[foggedinn]

You think the money for this comes from the Tooth Fairy? Of course it comes from somewhere. It comes from only two sources: taxes and borrowing, which ultimately means taxes.

True. Without a reduction in spending, all "tax cuts" are phony. The primary source of tax increases for several decades now has been inflation. It's usually a subtle tax used on a willfully gullible electorate.

We want to believe the lies our leaders tell us and neither party is innocent. Believing that a change in the party having the majority will make things better is the lie the minority party always want us to accept. It's just a matter of time until the willfully gullible electorate accepts it.

 

[oreo]

Did anyone else notice something?

Our token conservative, Shallow Skeeve is predicting death, destruction and poverty.

Our token liberal/progressive (whatever ya wanna call him), rightwinger, is predicting unity and wealth.

Kinda makes you wonder why anyone would go with conservatives.

Do you want to live in your castle in the sky--or do you want realistic points of view based on FACT?

Regarding Rightwingers threads--if you will actually read ALL of his links--you will be able to determine the actual economic data. Rightwinger & Criss have a very bad habit of picking & choosing data out of those articles to send those tingley feelings up your leg--

So the next time Rightwinger or Criss link to an article in a thread they start make certain to read the entire article they link to. In this way you won't be packing your bags to move up to that castle in the sky.

Therefore based on the economic data that Criss & Rightwinger have provided me in their recent threads:

1. Unemployment will remain higher than 9% for the entire 2010 year. (This according to economists & the federal reserve.)

2. The deficit will continue to rise--as right now a stimulus package simply means the extension of unemployment benefits to 15.2 million unemployed Americans. Then to add that there are 17.2% of Americans that are considered under-employed & are looking for full time jobs--it is going to be quite some time before we can enjoy a 7% unemployment rate--(which is also considered very poor for this country.) 4.5% is considered full employment.

3. Stocks--while soaring over the euphoria that banks didn't collapse--will now start looking at what is customary--Profits. There is no growth, there is no demand-so there will be no profit. Profits come from Americans buying stuff. In order for them to buy stuff--they need a job. So investors will also start looking at the unemployment numbers & the soaring deficit & will sell stocks to move into safer interest bearing certificates.

4. November 2010 will be a Tusanmi that rolls through the house & senate washing out democrats to the unemployment line themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

I honestly don't have any kind of gut feeling and no confidence of any kind as to what to expect from 2010. But I know what I wish I could predict with confidence:

1. The President will have an epiphany and apologize to the American people for pushing the self-serving agendas of others rather than focus on what is honorable and helpful to the American people. Toward that end:

a. He will implement the full transparency in government that he promised.

b. He will fire every single person placed in a newly created position, including all the czars.

c. He will invite the Republican and Democratic leadership to the Oval Office and declare that the era of bitter partisanship had ended. They will work together to get things done and they would do it via counsel of credible knowledgeable experts or he will report their failure to do so on national television. And he keeps his pledge to do so.

d. He will call in the 'loans' made through TARP and demand that Congress cancel every contract or appropriation of unspent stimulus money. Whatever can be reclaimed will be returned to the U.S. treasury and considered off limits. He will look for ways to economize without jeopardizing national security or reneging on obligations and he will sign no new spending initiatives of any kind until the economy has stablized.

e. He will announce that he is recommending to Congress that they trash the healthcare legislation currently in process and start over and this time do it in a way that didn't interfere with the private sector, didn't project massive deficits, and didn't scare everybody half to death.

f. He will announce that he is canceling all treaties and initiatives re global warming, including cap & trade, until all scientists in advisory positions give a full accounting of all research, opinion, advice, and counsel and make a 100% honest and unshakable case that government can do anything to effect global climate change.

g. He will cancel all plans to raise all taxes and fees until the economy is on solid footing, there is full employment, and there is a sustainable annual growth in the GDP.

h. He will announce that the unions will no longer receive protection or favors from the federal government. If they cannot provide a marketable benefit and survive on their own merit, then they should disband.

h. He will announce that henceforth he will focus on the Constitutionally mandated responsibilties of the federal government and begin the slow process of returning everything else to the states as painlessly as possible.

2. The people will whole heartedly support him in No. 1 and vote out any members of Congress who refused to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the siprit of the predictions for 2010, I came up with one I know will come true. That on the main road near my house ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) will put up and leave orange traffic cones for a reason only known to them and leave them there. *laughs*

Before we moved into the city, we lived out in a rural area with access via a four lane paved highway extending from the Interstate. During the years we lived out there we twice observed the phenomenon of the lane stripers coming along to lay down fresh new white and yellow lines designating lanes, shoulders, passing zones, etc.

Then one or two weeks later the road crews would arrive to put down a fresh layer of oil, gravel, or asphalt over the fresh paint.

I predict they are still doing that out there.