0
kallend

Just getting by

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Take all of the subsidies we give to say.....who's our favorite whipping boy
>today.....big banks and give it as a direct pay increase to the 2.5 million
>federal employees.

Yes. That would stimulate the economy. So would giving it to big business. So would giving it to the poor. They'll all spend it to some degree or the other, and that will get the money back into the economy.
.



We are a service based economy, Like it or not, the facts on the ground are "Trickle on" does not work.

It is what it is. And the only way to "wake up" a service based industry is to incentivize those who consume the most services. As such it becomes a numbers game.

The day the top 2%-10% of the country consume enough goods and services as say the 60% who are middle class than yes giving them funds will grow the economy. But as it stands common sense indicates that 10% of the population can't consume the same level of goods and services so as to make up for what the 60% isn't.

.



They can sure consume more luxury yachts, personal jets, and domestic staff.



Which creates jobs in shipbuilding and the aircraft and services industries.



Yep, we have to consider those unemployed butlers and footmen.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Take all of the subsidies we give to say.....who's our favorite whipping boy
>today.....big banks and give it as a direct pay increase to the 2.5 million
>federal employees.

Yes. That would stimulate the economy. So would giving it to big business. So would giving it to the poor. They'll all spend it to some degree or the other, and that will get the money back into the economy.
.



We are a service based economy, Like it or not, the facts on the ground are "Trickle on" does not work.

It is what it is. And the only way to "wake up" a service based industry is to incentivize those who consume the most services. As such it becomes a numbers game.

The day the top 2%-10% of the country consume enough goods and services as say the 60% who are middle class than yes giving them funds will grow the economy. But as it stands common sense indicates that 10% of the population can't consume the same level of goods and services so as to make up for what the 60% isn't.

.



They can sure consume more luxury yachts, personal jets, and domestic staff.



Which creates jobs in shipbuilding and the aircraft and services industries.



Yep, we have to consider those unemployed butlers and footmen.



More sugar cookies from the perfesser.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But as it stands common sense indicates that 10% of the population can't
>consume the same level of goods and services so as to make up for what
>the 60% isn't.

Agreed.

But either way it's a Ponzi scheme. We give money to the middle class so they spend more, and we get the money to give them by taxing them. But then the tax burden becomes onerous and starts reducing their spending, so we give them MORE stimulus, then we tax them more, then they need more stimulus still . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>But as it stands common sense indicates that 10% of the population can't
>consume the same level of goods and services so as to make up for what
>the 60% isn't.

Agreed.

But either way it's a Ponzi scheme. We give money to the middle class so they spend more, and we get the money to give them by taxing them. But then the tax burden becomes onerous and starts reducing their spending, so we give them MORE stimulus, then we tax them more, then they need more stimulus still . . .



I read in the past month an article saying that in fact the top X % were spending more than 50%, and thus the retail world is shifting to that reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I read in the past month an article saying that in fact the top X % were
>spending more than 50%, and thus the retail world is shifting to that
>reality.

That's always true, choosing some value of X. The question is - if you give group Z a dollar, who will spend more of that dollar? If you give Warren Buffet a dollar he's not going to change his spending habits. If you give a family of 4 making $15,000 a year a dollar, it will get spent on food, or rent, or clothing etc.

So from a purely retail-stimulus perspective, giving money to poorer people makes a lot of sense - in the short term. But like I mentioned, it has some very serious long term problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I read in the past month an article saying that in fact the top X % were
>spending more than 50%, and thus the retail world is shifting to that
>reality.

That's always true, choosing some value of X.



the X in this case is less than 10%. It's perhaps more an artifact of spending decreasing among the larger population, so it might reverse, but the article's writer asserted that businesses are going to start ignoring the masses and target only the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>I read in the past month an article saying that in fact the top X % were
>spending more than 50%, and thus the retail world is shifting to that
>reality.

That's always true, choosing some value of X.



the X in this case is less than 10%. It's perhaps more an artifact of spending decreasing among the larger population, so it might reverse, but the article's writer asserted that businesses are going to start ignoring the masses and target only the rich.



That would be this thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4155489#4155489

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***I don't know man.....the system in the US may be broken for good. But what choice do you really have?



Peaceful revolution.
End the Federal Reserve, ditch any debt the old govenment held and start over with money which has value rather than money which represents debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.


If you think it has ended you are smoking meth

I don’t care what you post

It didn’t start when you posted and it hasn’t ended

You know it but that does not fit your political position

It started under Bush but not as early as the link says and,who controlled congress then anyway? Who controls it now?

Honesty and integrity

Something’s you really need to read up on

But in the end, what is happening today is messed up. Things were messed up with the Bush years too, just not to the point you need to support your views
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.


If you think it has ended you are smoking meth

I don’t care what you post

It didn’t start when you posted and it hasn’t ended

You know it but that does not fit your political position

It started under Bush but not as early as the link says and,who controlled congress then anyway? Who controls it now?

Honesty and integrity

Something’s you really need to read up on



You are not the arbiter of the timing of the economic cycle. I provided the link. You should try reading instead of making up your own "facts". You wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit you on the nose.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.


If you think it has ended you are smoking meth

I don’t care what you post

It didn’t start when you posted and it hasn’t ended

You know it but that does not fit your political position

It started under Bush but not as early as the link says and,who controlled congress then anyway? Who controls it now?

Honesty and integrity

Something’s you really need to read up on



You are not the arbiter of the timing of the economic cycle. I provided the link. You should try reading instead of making up your own "facts". You wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit you on the nose.


Given your twisted history of facts such as the ice coverage, your post means little

And you should try honesty sometime
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.


If you think it has ended you are smoking meth

I don’t care what you post

It didn’t start when you posted and it hasn’t ended

You know it but that does not fit your political position

It started under Bush but not as early as the link says and,who controlled congress then anyway? Who controls it now?

Honesty and integrity

Something’s you really need to read up on



You are not the arbiter of the timing of the economic cycle. I provided the link. You should try reading instead of making up your own "facts". You wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit you on the nose.


Given your twisted history of facts such as the ice coverage, your post means little

And you should try honesty sometime


You are not entitled to you own "facts". You do not define economic cycles, the NBER does.

And by the way, Arctic ice...
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was you that touted how great GDP was back in January 2009... here is the latest for you...;)

Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.[:/]

The socialist system that the Democrats embrace is the problem. and your solutions suck...



The RECESSION started in November 2007, G.W. Bush presiding.


And Obama has made it worse
Cut the budget and send a balanced budget amendment to the states so this fuck nugets can do this to us again


The recession ended June 2009, B. H. Obama Presiding. The recovery is slow but we're not in recession now.

As usual, you get your facts wrong.


If you think it has ended you are smoking meth

I don’t care what you post

It didn’t start when you posted and it hasn’t ended

You know it but that does not fit your political position

It started under Bush but not as early as the link says and,who controlled congress then anyway? Who controls it now?

Honesty and integrity

Something’s you really need to read up on



You are not the arbiter of the timing of the economic cycle. I provided the link. You should try reading instead of making up your own "facts". You wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit you on the nose.


Given your twisted history of facts such as the ice coverage, your post means little

And you should try honesty sometime


You are not entitled to you own "facts". You do not define economic cycles, the NBER does.

And by the way, Arctic ice...


Nope, I am not. but I do not have to accept idiots spinning of those facts

But for a moment lets say you are correct. That the recession did start in 07 and we are currently in recovery.

Considering the 1Q GDP has now been set a .4% growth AND unemployment is at the level it is today, I would rather live in Bush's recession. Less people hurting
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) We are emerging from two wars which no one had any plans for paying for.

2) Recent advances in production have moved the new acceptable unemployment rate to about 7%

3) Things are getting a bit odd. It's as if we are turning to where things were in 1910 where the rich were getting richer by the day and the poor were dying and the middle class was just desperately trying to find some ground to stand on.

All I know is the math of the situation which we find ourselves in. We can't rely on the rich to save the nation or create jobs any more than we can rely on the poor. The math of basic economics of a service based economy state that to create jobs one has to "move money" and "consume services"

Simple math tells you those that will do this are the middle class. And with out a viable middle class we are going to have some very serious problems.

Yet as it stands now as of today, the middle class is not healthy. It's on shock. It's not consuming nor spending money. It's being worked hard and put up wet. The winners are those who get the dividends.
Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little point arguing this - the NEMR is a valid source and recessions do have meaning. Lackluster growth is not a recession (though probably tainted by the 1.4T in deficit spending each year).

The only time this council looked a bit shady was in 2009 when they revised the dates around the dotcom bust to say it started after Clinton left office. The timing of this change was poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***I don't know man.....the system in the US may be broken for good. But what choice do you really have?



Peaceful revolution,

A start would be that everyone refuse to pay "back" the loaned "money" which was never even in existence before the "loan" was created.

Legaly a contract in which the terms are obviously impossible to comply with is null and void(null and void is doublespeak leftover from when the French invaded England).

Most mortgage contracts as well as credit card contracts with banks in the US are null and void .

WTF ???? Is that what you are asking?

Very simple .
As the bank created the money out of thin air to finance your mortgage or credit card loan they didn't create the money to pay the interest on that loan.
There was never enough money in existence to pay the interest on your loan if all otherswho had loans paid theirs, therefor the contract has fundamental catastrophic deficiencies and the terms of the loan from the outset are immposible to fulfill.
The fact that the terms of the contract are impossible renders the entire contract null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***The problem is that we're going broke trying to do that - and in the long run, bankruptcy will hurt us more than all that stimulus will help us.



Bankruptcy is exactly the prescription for a government which has allowed a private group of banksters to legally steal the wealth of a great nation.

Any thing less will continue to slowly steal away the wealth of the middle class citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0