Hmmm… Wouldn’t a decrease in demand be the opposite of this chart?[/quote]
Not when the Fed is printing Forty Billion dollars a month to cover the Obama/Democrats spending spree. When a currency is devalued, people will have to spend more, much more, just to meet their basic needs.
Which is exactly what that chart shows. Consumer spending is higher than it was before the economy went down the shitter. But only because we are spending more of a devalued currency. ie Gasoline was less than two dollars a gallon when Obama entered office, I’m paying over four dollars a gallon now. So my consumer spending on gasoline has doubled even though I barely venture out of my home anymore because I can’t afford it.
Skyrocketing consumer prices is exactly what Obama said he was going to cause. So with skyrocketing prices the consumer spending charts are meaningless unless we account for the change in the dollar buying power. Which if we compare it to gasoline the buying power is now half what it used to be. So in reality that chart would have to show a doubling of consumer spending just to maintain where we were in 2008.
What spending spree are you talking about? the military? or the cutting of social security/
[/quote]
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.[/quote]
LOL @ thinking Obamacare is a major cause of the deficit. Frankly, same for “stmiulus” (lol really?) and the shovel ready projects that were mostly denied by Congress. It is pretty clear you put the same amount of effort into your fiscal understanding hobby as you do your nuclear weapons hobby. I am still awaiting your retort to me completely dispelling any misconceptions you may have on our nuclear arsenal in the North Korea thread. I can link it for you, if you prefer?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I am still awaiting your retort to me completely dispelling any misconceptions you may have on our nuclear arsenal in the North Korea thread. I can link it for you, if you prefer?[/quote]
I can see you are having trouble grasping simple concepts. Newer vintage missiles use celestial guidance. Why? Because that is state of the art. Today. But before that up until the mid eighties they used inertial guidance which is good enough for horseshoes and nuclear weapons.
Just because inertial guidance isn’t the latest, greatest, high tech, state of the art, cutting edge, technology that the US of A uses, it does not in any way mean that it couldn’t get the job done back in it’s day. Just because the US has moved on to something that has an accuracy of meters instead of kilometers there is no rule that says everyone else now must use what the US uses or it’s not allowed to make weapons.
Deploying a city busting bomb against a sprawling city like Los Angeles does not require the same level of accuracy as taking out a small, individual, military target, like a missile silo. With a nuclear weapon, hitting a mile or two away from the business district instead of a bulls eye would still be devastating.
Because you don’t have to be all that accurate to use nukes against civilian targets. If you can’t grasp that concept now that I have taken the time to explain it to you, then you are a fucking retard. [/quote]
I’m from the South, and we have a saying down here that’s appropriate for such situations: “Bless your little heart”. You are welcome to go off and search that if you are bored.
But before you do that, can you tell me what “newer vintage” means? LOL
You have portrayed celestial guidance as ‘state of the art’ and ‘only in-use since the mid 80’s’. That’s funny, because celestial guidance was used on the Polaris Missile (which was the 5 generation precursor to the TRIDENT II D5 which you also seem to know little about other than a quick google scan) when it was built in 1957.
<edit: removed personal info>
Here it is for reference if you would care to go look:
That was in 1957. Now, remind me again. Maybe I’m just a “fucking retard”, or maybe I’ve run out of fingers and toes to count it on, but wasn’t 1957 prior to the mid 80’s? Gee willackers…And would something that was bult in 1957 not really be considered ‘state of the art’? Holy smokes…And would a normal rational person that does not confuse his ass and his elbow recognize that is not really ‘todays’ technology? Hrmmm…help me out here Sifu…Or maybe someone reading along? I just can’t remember if 1957 came WAYY before mid 1980’s or not…shucks…I just can’t remember…
Not only that, but the Polaris wasn’t even the first missile to use celestial guidance. Apparently it was the American Snark missile in 1953 (3 comes before 7 right?). Now that only took me about 5 eye blinks, 2 breathes, and 30 seconds of my time. Why weren’t you able to do that before coming in here trying to tell me about celestial guidance?
Hmmm… Wouldn’t a decrease in demand be the opposite of this chart?[/quote]
Not when the Fed is printing Forty Billion dollars a month to cover the Obama/Democrats spending spree. When a currency is devalued, people will have to spend more, much more, just to meet their basic needs.
Which is exactly what that chart shows. Consumer spending is higher than it was before the economy went down the shitter. But only because we are spending more of a devalued currency. ie Gasoline was less than two dollars a gallon when Obama entered office, I’m paying over four dollars a gallon now. So my consumer spending on gasoline has doubled even though I barely venture out of my home anymore because I can’t afford it.
Skyrocketing consumer prices is exactly what Obama said he was going to cause. So with skyrocketing prices the consumer spending charts are meaningless unless we account for the change in the dollar buying power. Which if we compare it to gasoline the buying power is now half what it used to be. So in reality that chart would have to show a doubling of consumer spending just to maintain where we were in 2008.
What spending spree are you talking about? the military? or the cutting of social security/
[/quote]
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.[/quote]
What about he trillions spent on an immoral and unjust war? It was supposed to last 18 months and we would be see as liberators after we kill over 100,000 of their people lol. All that money could have been used to make this a more educated and healthy society. i don’t hear you complaining about the foreign policy of this country that ends up making us more enemies only things that will make this a better more healthy place.
Interesting article with lots of angles at which to look at the deficit accumulation over the years, http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Beans, you could probably draw much more from this than I could. Please post any findings.
BTW, it is my understanding that the total expenditures to date on both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is less that $2 trillion (approx. $1.8 trillion). I do, however, realize that this number could easily double over the coming decades as the cost of healthcare to veterans continues to tally.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Interesting article with lots of angles at which to look at the deficit accumulation over the years, http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Beans, you could probably draw much more from this than I could. Please post any findings.
BTW, it is my understanding that the total expenditures to date on both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is less that $2 trillion (approx. $1.8 trillion). I do, however, realize that this number could easily double over the coming decades as the cost of healthcare to veterans continues to tally. [/quote]
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.[/quote]
LOL @ thinking Obamacare is a major cause of the deficit. Frankly, same for “stmiulus” (lol really?) and the shovel ready projects that were mostly denied by Congress. It is pretty clear you put the same amount of effort into your fiscal understanding hobby as you do your nuclear weapons hobby. I am still awaiting your retort to me completely dispelling any misconceptions you may have on our nuclear arsenal in the North Korea thread. I can link it for you, if you prefer?[/quote]
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not state that Obamacare is a major cause of the deficit. I merely stated that it is one of many pet/pork barrel projects that the democrats have been throwing money at since Obama became president. That is why I stated that a list of things they aren’t throwing money at would be much shorter.
I have friends who work in health care who have had their hours cut back because of all the cuts in medicare funding to pay for Obamacare. So it is causing damage but. My point wasn’t about Obamacare and you are trying to make an issue of something that was only offered up as an, for example… While ignoring the much more significant “shovel ready projects” bait and switch.
The impression that Obama tried to give everyone was that our crumbling infrastructure was going to get addressed. New roads, sewers, bridges etc… would have been something that set this country on a good course for the future so that the future generations who have to pay for it all would at least have something useful to show for it. Instead it was pissed away on bullshit.
In recent years I have made a personal policy of not devoting much time to pissing matches with meat heads because it gets old. But if you want me to revive the North Korea thread I will.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I am still awaiting your retort to me completely dispelling any misconceptions you may have on our nuclear arsenal in the North Korea thread. I can link it for you, if you prefer?[/quote]
I can see you are having trouble grasping simple concepts. Newer vintage missiles use celestial guidance. Why? Because that is state of the art. Today. But before that up until the mid eighties they used inertial guidance which is good enough for horseshoes and nuclear weapons.
Just because inertial guidance isn’t the latest, greatest, high tech, state of the art, cutting edge, technology that the US of A uses, it does not in any way mean that it couldn’t get the job done back in it’s day. Just because the US has moved on to something that has an accuracy of meters instead of kilometers there is no rule that says everyone else now must use what the US uses or it’s not allowed to make weapons.
Deploying a city busting bomb against a sprawling city like Los Angeles does not require the same level of accuracy as taking out a small, individual, military target, like a missile silo. With a nuclear weapon, hitting a mile or two away from the business district instead of a bulls eye would still be devastating.
Because you don’t have to be all that accurate to use nukes against civilian targets. If you can’t grasp that concept now that I have taken the time to explain it to you, then you are a fucking retard. [/quote]
I’m from the South, and we have a saying down here that’s appropriate for such situations: “Bless your little heart”. You are welcome to go off and search that if you are bored.
But before you do that, can you tell me what “newer vintage” means? LOL
You have portrayed celestial guidance as ‘state of the art’ and ‘only in-use since the mid 80’s’. That’s funny, because celestial guidance was used on the Polaris Missile (which was the 5 generation precursor to the TRIDENT II D5 which you also seem to know little about other than a quick google scan) when it was built in 1957.
<edit: removed personal info>
Here it is for reference if you would care to go look:
That was in 1957. Now, remind me again. Maybe I’m just a “fucking retard”, or maybe I’ve run out of fingers and toes to count it on, but wasn’t 1957 prior to the mid 80’s? Gee willackers…And would something that was bult in 1957 not really be considered ‘state of the art’? Holy smokes…And would a normal rational person that does not confuse his ass and his elbow recognize that is not really ‘todays’ technology? Hrmmm…help me out here Sifu…Or maybe someone reading along? I just can’t remember if 1957 came WAYY before mid 1980’s or not…shucks…I just can’t remember…
Not only that, but the Polaris wasn’t even the first missile to use celestial guidance. Apparently it was the American Snark missile in 1953 (3 comes before 7 right?). Now that only took me about 5 eye blinks, 2 breathes, and 30 seconds of my time. Why weren’t you able to do that before coming in here trying to tell me about celestial guidance?
Edited: personal info[/quote][/quote]
I hadn’t read this post before my last reply. But since you want to be a meat head here…
You have motivated me to do some reading on star sighting guidance systems. From what I have been able to ascertain the celestial guidance system in those missiles is not the primary guidance system. It is meant to verify the accuracy of the inertial guidance system and make necessary adjustments to improve it’s accuracy.
This becomes increasingly important on submarine launched missiles because they don’t launch from a fixed site. So my point remains valid. Inertial guidance systems are fairly accurate. Accurate enough at least to hit a major city with a nuclear weapon. Just because the US uses the latest, greatest, most sophisticated, techno-gizmos, available it doesn’t mean we can’t get hit by something a lot less sophisticated and sustain serious damage.
For example. For many years now the US and every major nuclear power has used sophisticated high speed centrifuges for enriching Uranium. So no one gave any thought to declassifying the design of the calutron facility that was used by the Manhattan project. Years later when the Iraqi nuclear program faced an embargo of the equipment needed to make centrifuges they figured out a work around could be obtained by going to the US patent office and getting a calutron design.
So now I’ll spell out my premise again, because obviously you are a meat head. Just because something is old or even antiquated that does not in any way rule out the possibility that it can be effectively used to hurt us. ie For example when the Soviets first invaded Afghanistan the mujahidin fought them with muskets that their fore fathers had captured fighting the British in the 19th century.
That is about all I have left to say to you because it really gets old arguing with idiots who can’t even understand simple concepts.
Hmmm… Wouldn’t a decrease in demand be the opposite of this chart?[/quote]
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.[/quote]
What about he trillions spent on an immoral and unjust war? It was supposed to last 18 months and we would be see as liberators after we kill over 100,000 of their people lol. All that money could have been used to make this a more educated and healthy society. i don’t hear you complaining about the foreign policy of this country that ends up making us more enemies only things that will make this a better more healthy place.
[/quote]
The merits of invading Iraq and Afghanistan have been thoroughly argued in this forum. So much so that I don’t want to turn this into a thread hijack. So I’ll be brief. The alternative to not getting rid of Saddam is that he and his sons would still be in Iraq. That would mean that whenever we get hit by a terrorist attack the post attack guessing game of “who dunnit” (like they had on 9-11-01) would have had to include Saddam in the mix.
Thanks to President Bush we don’t have to play that game any more. Sure we can argue about the tactics and how messy it was because hindsight is twenty/twenty. But you can’t argue with the fact that Saddam and his sons are dead and that is a good thing.
A lot of the weapons we bought for that war are American made which is good for the economy. Keeping the price of oil down is good for everyone’s economy not just ours. Plus the Iraqis are now able to enjoy the benefit of their wealth.
The way that Iraq was cobbled together after world war one there is no way the Iraqis ever could have done what we did for them. It would have been like Syria only worse. While I’m on the subject of Syria I don’t hear you whining about the death toll there. Although it’s already into the tens of thousands, still climbing and threatens to erupt into a massive regional war with WMD getting used.
Just in case you missed it, my point here is that in Syria we see what would have happened to Iraq. So your liberal whining point about people dying is hypocritical. You only care when it suits you.
Now on to your point about education. Throwing money at schools that are filled with children who are complacent about their future will not help us. Too many kids don’t take it seriously enough to take advantage of the opportunity.
Next is an even more important point. All the training and educating schemes in the world are not going to help us if there are no jobs for educated and trained people to go into. Globalization means that our high wage labor force must now compete with well educated dirt farmers in the third world.
For example, the Indians are well educated, motivated and they are eating our lunch. They are helped by useful idiots who listen to political slogans that sound good but will actually hurt us. Such as giving tax breaks for American manufacturers replace all their “old” machinery with the latest, greatest new machinery. Then they dump all the “old” machinery on the used machine market where the Indians snatch it up for a pittance and go into competition with the American factory it just came out of. This is something that has done serious damage to Detroit.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Interesting article with lots of angles at which to look at the deficit accumulation over the years, http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Beans, you could probably draw much more from this than I could. Please post any findings.
BTW, it is my understanding that the total expenditures to date on both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is less that $2 trillion (approx. $1.8 trillion). I do, however, realize that this number could easily double over the coming decades as the cost of healthcare to veterans continues to tally. [/quote]
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Are you serious? Every year since Obama became president we have had well over a trillion dollar deficit. Haven’t you heard of the “stimulus money” for “shovel ready projects”? Or Obama care? It would be easier to make a list of what they aren’t spending money on.[/quote]
LOL @ thinking Obamacare is a major cause of the deficit. Frankly, same for “stmiulus” (lol really?) and the shovel ready projects that were mostly denied by Congress. It is pretty clear you put the same amount of effort into your fiscal understanding hobby as you do your nuclear weapons hobby. I am still awaiting your retort to me completely dispelling any misconceptions you may have on our nuclear arsenal in the North Korea thread. I can link it for you, if you prefer?[/quote]
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not state that Obamacare is a major cause of the deficit. I merely stated that it is one of many pet/pork barrel projects that the democrats have been throwing money at since Obama became president. That is why I stated that a list of things they aren’t throwing money at would be much shorter.
I have friends who work in health care who have had their hours cut back because of all the cuts in medicare funding to pay for Obamacare. So it is causing damage but. My point wasn’t about Obamacare and you are trying to make an issue of something that was only offered up as an, for example… While ignoring the much more significant “shovel ready projects” bait and switch.
The impression that Obama tried to give everyone was that our crumbling infrastructure was going to get addressed. New roads, sewers, bridges etc… would have been something that set this country on a good course for the future so that the future generations who have to pay for it all would at least have something useful to show for it. Instead it was pissed away on bullshit.
In recent years I have made a personal policy of not devoting much time to pissing matches with meat heads because it gets old. But if you want me to revive the North Korea thread I will. [/quote]
Okay then medicare for everyone, keep the insurance lobbyists out of the decision making process and no one except the corrupt insurance companies and their ilk get hurt.
Also what shovel-ready projects are you talking about? The ones that were also shot down by the republicans?
Please list the shovel ready projects that were shot down by the Republicans. This is twice you have regurgitated the same piece of left-wing propagandist monkey dung.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]
Not on social spending.
[/quote]
If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.
Imagine that kind of money spent on infrastructure!
Edit in link so you know what the hell I’m talking about, lol[/quote]
So maybe you can help me out here because I’m not familiar at all with these stats. What does this graph represent? Is it % of population in the private sector? How does this affect unemployment numbers?
Edit in link so you know what the hell I’m talking about, lol[/quote]
So maybe you can help me out here because I’m not familiar at all with these stats. What does this graph represent? Is it % of population in the private sector? How does this affect unemployment numbers? [/quote]
It is labor force participation. It is the measure of how many people have jobs or are actively looking for jobs.
The unemployment stat you see in the papers is the U3, which excludes people who stopped looking for work (ie: are fine living off of government transfers). So as the labor force participation rate goes down, so does the U3 rate. Makes for good political fodder in speeches but sucks for the real world.
Mak’s fancy little chart makes people all wet in the panties who like Bam, because it looks so pretty. But when contrasted against the chart I posted you see his chart means nada, as the tax base is still shrinking. Which means lower tax revenues and higher deficits.
But don’t worry, lets pay people’s mortgages, and give them “free” stuff from the government. Social spending, hurrah!
Oh and before the “blame Bush” bullshit starts… Statistics | Tax Policy Center the government collected more under Bush and his evil, evil tax cuts, than Clinton and his wonderful, wonderful, amazing, untouchable presidency.
Edit in link so you know what the hell I’m talking about, lol[/quote]
So maybe you can help me out here because I’m not familiar at all with these stats. What does this graph represent? Is it % of population in the private sector? How does this affect unemployment numbers? [/quote]
It is labor force participation. It is the measure of how many people have jobs or are actively looking for jobs.
The unemployment stat you see in the papers is the U3, which excludes people who stopped looking for work (ie: are fine living off of government transfers). So as the labor force participation rate goes down, so does the U3 rate. Makes for good political fodder in speeches but sucks for the real world.
Mak’s fancy little chart makes people all wet in the panties who like Bam, because it looks so pretty. But when contrasted against the chart I posted you see his chart means nada, as the tax base is still shrinking. Which means lower tax revenues and higher deficits.
But don’t worry, lets pay people’s mortgages, and give them “free” stuff from the government. Social spending, hurrah!
Oh and before the “blame Bush” bullshit starts… Statistics | Tax Policy Center the government collected more under Bush and his evil, evil tax cuts, than Clinton and his wonderful, wonderful, amazing, untouchable presidency. [/quote]
Who is included in the # of people with jobs/looking for work vs. those not employeed? Are 15 year olds include or retirees, for example? I’m trying to grasp who this # represents so I suppose I’m asking who is include and who is excluded?
I think I understand. As particpation decreases so does U3 (adjusted unemployment?), which can be interpreted as a good thing by some, but really isn’t because the # isn’t adjusted for those receiving unemployement benefits as their source of income. Is that accurate?
How is it determined that a person is no longer “seeking employment?”
