Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's
By golfplan18 Follow Tue, 14 Aug 2012, 8:28pm 9,748 views 166 comments
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (3) Dislike (1) « First « Previous Viewing Comments 87-126 of 166 Next » Last » See most liked comments
« First « Previous comments Next comments » Last »
|
golfplan18 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Paragraph 1: Whining about someone being derogatory.
Paragraph 2: Derogatory personal insult.
Lovin the Pubes today.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Call it Crazy says
So, do you agree then that even though he took their donations in 2008, he didn't do their bidding?
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Where do you see me whine? Example. One. Be specific.
I make an observation, an accurate one at that, and develop it further.
Another observation - you are gravely mistaken thinking that I'm Republican (I assume that's what you mean by Pub)
You, on the other hand, are an obvious Tard (oops) This puzzles me somewhat.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Nawww....I'm not going to participate in this particular peeing match.
Obama is the fiscal conservative president. That's obvious on the chart. Romney will likely fuck up the budget even more since that's what Republicans always do.
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,401 comments
Premium
The article is stupid - that's all. While one might give Obama credit for slowing the spending GROWTH it does not nothing to help curb the runaway debt. Once you have a gazillion trillion $$ of debt and yearly spending has reached a similar ridiculously huge amount, a spending increase of just 0.01 % is a nightmare, esp. if there is no real GDP growth to counteract and pay off the interest, let alone the principal. Cut drastically (that means a significant percentage of spending DECREASE) for years to come, default, or hyper-inflate, 3 options.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
Sure, they made their "bet" that Obama would "help" them and they lost. Oh well, bad gamble on their part....
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Call it Crazy says
Then why exactly did you post this?
Call it Crazy says
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
iwog says
Reading Comprehension Again Iwog!!!! See the word "given".... that is past tense......
Now go back and read the first line of this chart... make special note of the year in that first line......
Goes back to my statement above.... they made a "bet" and they lost....
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Call it Crazy says
Jesus Christ man, give up!!!!!!! It's ALWAYS GOING TO BE GIVEN you twit. Are you going to argue that otherwise you would have talked about money that hasn't been donated yet?????
Besides "is" is current tense, and you said:
"If you want to know who is REALLY in the pocket of Wall Street......"
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
iwog says
I believe Obama IS the current president (current tense) ..... Romney hasn't won yet!!
iwog says
Call it Crazy says
See my quote above from my post.... notice "has given".....
past tense..
Sorry....please read it correctly...
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Hehe... I thought you don't like them fiscal conservatives:
iwog says
I'm not looking for an answer to this one. I think I understand your modus operandi: spending is good, inflation is good, it helps the economy, economy is a zero-sum game, inflation destroys passive savings, destroying of passive savings is good. Obama is good, he is a spender in his heart, but blocked by Congress, he may have more freedom during his second term, yet so far he looks prudent, let's throw it in "their" faces. In so many words. Feel free to correct.
Disagreeing wholeheartedly, but it's not the point.
You may have read that article about The Forgotten Depression of 1920 on mises.org - mises.org/daily/3788 The depression of 1920 came with severe symptoms, yet it's forgotten. President Harding (R) cut government spendings, let market work things out, and the whole thing was over in couple of years.
There are no examples of government involvement killing a depression this large so fast. None. Zero. Zilch.
You must admit - the conclusion that depression must be dealt with by government interventions is illogical, from historical perspective. Yet it seems that you swear by it. Why?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Call it Crazy says
You didn't say Obama is the current president, you said Obama is in the pocket of Wall Street.
I guess you gave up because this is so stupid it defies explanation.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
I don't. Obama isn't setting national policy because Obama isn't allowed to sign spending bills. He's fiscally conservative because Republicans are forcing him to be. That's how absurd this all is.
lenar says
From a historical perspective, government involvement is all that works. FDR's involvement created a V shaped recovery with the inflection point at the exact year he took office.
Whatever you think about the 1920 depression, government involvement in the economy was practically non-existent before and non-existent after so I don't consider it a legitimate example.
However Reagan dumped $2 trillion into the economy and created a rapid recovery from the biggest post-war recession to that time. Historical examples prove what I'm saying nearly always.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
Much of the late 70s early 80s economic difficulties was just the lending system throwing the brakes on the baby boom's expanding debt take-on:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9zZ
blue is household debt take-on / wages, red is fed funds rate, showing how when things were getting out of hand the financial system attempted to slam on the brakes in the 1970s and early 1980s.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9A0
is my favorite FRED graph I think. It shows the two major debt events -- the Reagan debt boom of the mid-late 1980s and the follow-on Bush debt boom of the 2000s, ending once the 2008-2009 emergency measures had mostly run their course
Zooming in on the Bush-Obama years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9A1
shows how debt take-on has been attenuated since late 2009.
Follow
Befriend
118 comments
david1 says
David:
I've been at it much, much longer than you. I discovered Austrian Economics long before I discovered Ron Paul. Austrian Economics does not say when Hyper Inflation would be coming - nor does it say it would be "hyper". There aren't any Austrian Economists because it's impossible to operate as one on the Planet Earth since 1971. I haven't lost money over the past four years because, being a student of Austrian Economics, I sold my house, began renting, and bought heavily into gold when it was around 425/oz. Does your math background mean that you have studied derivatives? Because THAT is where the longevity of the debt-based society has arisen. If you have, as I have, you would know the risk to the world's liquidity and credit is mind-bogglingly ugly. Treasury yields say nothing, either. When demand is flagging, the Fed simply buys up the Treasuries itself - along with all of the bad debt, bad mortgages and bad securities it can get a hold of.
According to Paul Krugman, gold should NEVER have held up at 1600/oz for the past six months. Demand has fallen in ALL of the "traditional" gold buying markets, from India to right here at home, and yet the price holds up, because every dip is being bought into by China.
There is nowhere for the cheap money to come from, to drive any recovery, except from the further acquisition of bad debt by the Fed. Interest rates give us nothing and have zero effect. The raising of rates would bring destruction. Austrian Economists predicted the fall of the Tech Stocks, The Real Estate Market, and All of Europe. The Fed and the US Treasury are the only saviors who will be able to feed Europe. What do you think will happen there? Will Germany fund a European Central Bank? Will China? Will the US? Nope, i'll tell you what the plans are....derivatives. Derivatives where banks can lose 1000 times the money theoretically put-at-risk. Your faith in Krugman is based on your ignorance of Derivatives and the bad taste in your mouth in doubting the voracity and sheer bald-faced flaunting of illegal transactions on the part of the Federal Reserve.
Finally, remember that Obama did not give Krugman anywhere near what he believed was needed to prevent the "Depression" - a re-election is his only hope. Ironically, in terms of my investments, it is also mine. If Krugman gets his way, i'll make a fortune. It has nothing to do with his philosophy. He believes the wealth creation is made up for by the deflation and aquisition of bad debt. That wealth simply disappears (as far as he is concerned) and the Fed's aquisition of that bad paper is net zero and risk free.
Canada will Crash. Australia will Crash. Europe will panic. And Krugman wealth creation won't do a bloody thing. According to the Keynesians, gold should be at 650/oz by now. The investors are ice cold on it. The miners are ice cold. The traditional market is ice cold and falling, but we're still at 1600. I'd love to see a drop to 1200 or so, so i could buy some more.
Nixon did not have the power to destroy the value of gold in one night. "We are all Keynesians, now". Yep, that's was a true statement. And that is also why you can't find an economist that's an Austrian. Or that got Gold right.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
deepcgi says
LOL. Populations smaller than California sitting on continental wealth stores.
Your ideology is making you really, really stupid.
You've clearly got gold on the brain.
Follow
Befriend
118 comments
Bellingham Bill says
Continental wealth stores? You mean commodities? Leveraged to what? Against What? By whom? What is the change in debt load of the citizens versus the government vs. foreign entities? We know about the relationship of the European real estate markets to the US market. Why are those countries immune? Why are the resources of those places not supporting the growth in the real estate markets that the percentages would predict? If you haven't researched derivatives, you're guessing.
I'm making that prediction for the very reason that no-one else will dare. Ironically, you'll here about it first...and blow-by-blow right here at patrick.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
iwog says
Wow, that is an extreme "reach" to try and spin it, even for you.... Do I need to explain to you who the current president actually is?
I thought you had his picture hanging over your bed!
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Crazy--
To try to get back on topic. Do you agree with the following:
1. Obama is NOT in the banksters pockets (as evidenced by the fact that Wall St. isn't donating this year and realized they made a "bad bet" as you call it)
2. Romney IS in the banksters pockets (as evidenced by the fact that Wall St. IS donating heavily to his campaign)
If so, then you must agree that Romney and Obama are NOT the same.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
deepcgi says
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9Ad
compares central gov't debt to GDP for US, Oz, and Canada.
I took the liberty of throwing in the $4T of trust fund debt into the US figure to make the comparison more apples-to-apples.
Why are those countries immune?
They can pay their own way in the world. The world needs them more than than they need the ROW.
Why are the resources of those places not supporting the growth in the real estate markets
That you would use the word "real estate market" provides the answer to that question, really. Real estate is 99% bullshit that sucks every free dollar from an economy that we allow. Both Oz and Canada have immense housing boom/bubbles going on now, in their desirable areas to live. This is due to sustained prosperity and people speculatively front-running future land value inflation.
Denmark has similar issues with land value speculation. They've over-leveraged themselves horribly chasing up land values in their crowded country.
If you haven't researched derivatives, you're guessing.
My thesis is nations running roughly balanced trading regimes aren't in bad straights right now.
Canada is doing very well, budgetary wise. Australia, OK.
Both of these nations are running a balanced economy, trade-wise:
"Australia reported a trade surplus equivalent to 9 Million AUD in June of 2012."
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/balance-of-trade
"Canada reported a trade deficit equivalent to 1.8 Million CAD in June of 2012."
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/balance-of-trade
The US, of course, has a trade deficit of $50B per month:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOPGSTB
the over-arching reality here is that all western economies are fabulously more productive than the demand can take. Our economic problems are 100% the result of FIRE bullshit and allowing wealth and money to flow upwards too much, without sufficient downwards redistributions. We use debt extension from rich to poor to keep the system going.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
I think it is more along the saying..."Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice....."
tatupu70 says
I also agree that they are NOT the same, however I also believe they BOTH suck!!
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Call it Crazy says
your job as a voter is to determine which alternative our electoral system is vending to you sucks less.
Good luck!
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
Bellingham Bill says
Oh crap, you mean I have to vote for the least worst candidate??
(Like that English??) :)
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Call it Crazy says
How do you figure? His campaign in 2008 was anti-Wall St. How were the banksters fooled exactly?
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
646 comments
tatupu70 says
Wall St. got exactly what they wanted from Obama. No reform on Wall St at all.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
if Obama had persecuted Wall Street the Republicans would be just running on that.
damned if you do and damned if you don't.
barn doors and horses
the actual damage was done 1999-2007:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9Af
private sector debt / GDP ratio
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
Now you're getting like Iwog, forgetting what question you originally asked...
So, I'll refresh your memory too....
tatupu70 says
So, the banksters donated to Obama in 2008 and got burned so now they switch to Romney.....
Understand the "fool me" analogy now???
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Wait there. By what metric was government involvement in the economy non-existent in 1921? What, according to that metric, changed between 1921 and 1929?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Call it Crazy says
Nope, I'm not. My question stands--how were they fooled? Obama said he was anti bankser and he turned out to be anti bankster.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
If the banksters knew ahead of time he was "anti-bankster", why did they donate so much money to him in 2008??
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Call it Crazy says
I posted it earlier, but I'll remind you again.
tatupu70 says
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
Righttttttt.... "...show they were on the bandwagon"... REALLY??
If you believe that, then I guess you still believe in the Easter Bunny...
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,606 comments
lenar says
So here's where we are so far:
Lenar: "Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY."
Homeboy: "ALL the presidents on that chart spent more than any other president before him."
Lenar: "You said Obama spends less than his predecessors."
Homeboy: "No, I did not say that.
Lenar: "You are a homosexual child molester."
Wow man - you NAILED that argument. That is some ironclad logic there. Congratulations, you are a super classy guy. It's been an honor debating with you.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Call it Crazy says
lol--you really are slow aren't you? Of course they give money to the front runner. Most years they give to both candidates. The fact that they aren't giving much to Obama this year is very telling--it means they know that it's a futile gesture. Again--that's a very good reason to vote for Obama, IMO
Follow
Befriend
118 comments
Real estate remains the primary collateral for the riskiest central bank gambles in history. Every bit of dirt worth a penny is owned simultaneously by fifty different organizations. The same goes for oil and gas. The income to mortgage payment ratio is worse in Australia and Canada than it ever was in the US. One place I can think of that had it worse was Spain - of course they are in wonderful shape. You all seem to be of the opinion that the Real Estate crash has already happened. How amusing. I believe that Canadian, Australian, German, and other unnamed collateral is holding the rest of the first-world's derivatives aloft. As the Canadian real estate bust progresses, watch the result in Seattle and New England. This is because the owners of those mortgages aren't in-on the high end gambling and are left with something called "jobs". The central bankers must have a lot of faith in the little guy, huh? They think joe will just continue to do all the driving, while they sit in the back and navigate.
There must not be any economists who've studied the history of evolution. The complex evolution of life on Earth is not a steady predictable sine wave, cyclical, continuous curve. It is a predictable, sine wave, cyclical continuous curve disrupted again and again and again and again by sweeping changes in extremely short periods of time. Punctuated equilibrium. We tend to think of long periods of time, in the economic sense, as being within our own lifetime at the longest. "I've been succeeding in investment for 40 years!" Oh really? Weren't investing before 1971 huh? Interesting.
At this point the trillions are measured and remeasured in microseconds.
"Oh yeah, TJ, I'm going looooonnnggg on paladium...until 2:00pm, after which I will be short until sometime tomorrow morning."
Punctuation. It has nothing to do with human behavior. It has everything to do with complexity. Real estate slides in Canada and Australia, new downturns in Washington State and New England, revolutions in Europe, more war in the Middle East, punctuated events in commodities for physical delivery. The last one is the big one. People don't realize the danger in overleveraging by use of fiat currency. 50-to-1 becomes 51-to-1 becomes 53-to-1. But then four of the 53 get together and show up demanding physical delivery - and shockingly, they are rich and powerful, not Joe the streetsweeper. It's a tiny, tiny, miniscule event, but that is an unpredictable full-stop.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
Homeboy says
First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.
When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".
Go away. Adults are talking.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
tatupu70 says
Unfortunately, I don't see ANY good reason to vote for Obama...
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
770 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
deepcgi says
Gold hasn't been $425 in the past four years. In fact, you have to go back to the first quarter of 2005 to see it at that level.
There is a bit of a credibility gap there. When did you sell your house, in the past four years (when there has been massive increases in m2 & m3) or 2005?
Anyway I wouldn't touch gold with a 10 foot pole at these levels. We still haven't had inflation. Just a gold bubble.
The rest of what you said...yawn. You are a gold bug, I get it. Good luck with it. I think you'll be sorry if you have everything in gold but we will see.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,606 comments
lenar says
Riiiight.... now you're gonna pretend your big trump card wasn't to call me a homosexual child molester. Unfortunately for you, your words are already out there. One only needs to scroll back up the page.
You're all class, Lenar.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
Homeboy says
We all saw that type on the playground. The ones that poke you and then run screaming "wolf". Couldn't stand them as a kid, don't tolerate them much better as an adult.
Homeboy, you were the one who _started_ communication with me by making a personal derogatory comment, and then continued in the same manner. Anybody can scroll up, going back to the first page, and see for themselves. I was quite patient with you at first.
You are one of those sleazy bully types - the whining type. You may think that if you whine long enough it will all go away. It won't.
Go, Homeboy.