and when they do and totally fuck shit up like basically every elected official, people will shit all over you and blame you. you also don't seem to like to hear things that don't match your point of view.

We are blaming the wrong thing. Start blaming Keynesian Economics. It is what caused all this.

why are those three things bundled together

removing the cap against bp sounds like a good idea
the other two are what would balloon the deficit

why not seperate the two issues.

Finally someone on this forum sees the flaw in Keynesian economics. It has always been a flawed system, a joke. We need get back to classical economics or be bold enough to follow the Austrian School.

The GOP created many of the problems the current administration is having to deal with. When it can't put their fires out fast enough they criticize it.

Excellent question. They seem to do this kind of thing all the time. I have seen a bunch of instances where very non-related items are bundled together on one bill.

I have a feeling it is because the bill starts out with a few related items on it then a few lawmakers say that in order for them to support it they want to add something to it. After everyone adds their 2 cents it ends up being this crazy bill with 10 completely unrelated things going on.

They need to change that. If a bill is put forth with something you should have to vote yes or no on that item. You shouldn't be able to say, "I'll vote yes if you add this to the bill for me."

I'm no fan of Keynesian Economics, but they've even managed to fuck that up.

Governments adhering to Keynesian Economics are supposed to stimulate the economy through investment in "infrastructure," NOT bailing out banks.

if that's the case, why didn't they fix those problems before creating new ones?

Been 18 months under Obama, when does he own this mess?

When will he take responsibility for something?.... Anything?.... You cant blame the GOP forever.

Ever notice the amount of knowledge one has regarding politics is inversely proportional to the time they want to spend debating politics?

Fitty ..........pass the bucks :Oh crap:2 cents:

Obama is a fucking clown, period.

His plan to spend money on an unprecedented level and go the "big government" route will not do anyone any good.

Every city in the country will look like this....



http://a.imagehost.org/0580/socialscum.jpg

What he's doing is EXACTLY what the democrats did in Detroit, (a city currently in ruins). Spend billions to, "create jobs" and new entitlement programs to "help Americans in time of need". You don't fix a problem by spending astronomical amounts of money that puts a major strain on our growing deficit.

Of course, Obama will keep heading in that direction until we are in a situation that's 10X worse than what Bush has created.

http://americanelephant.files.wordpr...tchart7152.jpg

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...artoonsize.gif

The morons who voted for and support Obama will continue to blame Bush. It's seriously become comical.

You guys think when Bush went to war over 9/11 was bad? Wait until Obama passes his cap & trade tax because of the "accidental" oil spill; it will tax businesses and working class people astronomical amounts of money. Hey it's all to "prevent" a disaster like this from ever happening again.

You are just as ridiculous as a Bush hater.

Now the oil spill is a conspiracy too?

I hope Obama DOES use this spill as yet another huge reason to invest in cleaner alternatives.

No other fucking president in modern history has ever been able to ween us off antiquated fossil fuels, and yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has promised to do so!

When an arsonist sets a building on fire, it's the arsonist's fire until it's put out. Rational people don't turn around and blame the fire on the firemen who have to deal with it.

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? It's a FACT that Obama has made his climate agenda a major priority using the oil spill disaster as an excuse for doing so.

It's a political move, only sheep think Obama is some sort of hero trying to do good.

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers.

Once the government creates a scarce new commodity, (in this case the right to emit carbon) and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. All this in in a time when our economy is in shambles.

Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation.

In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.

Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth, but in a that 99% of people overlook. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.

Of course, you don't understand any of that. You just believe the words of Obama's mouth, his agenda isn't noble in the slightest bit, it's quite simply a very evil political move.

No, you didn't use the word "conspiracy"

I used it to describe your obviously biased mindset, and your "conspiracy" theory on the oil spill.

I stand by it.

Lets remember this is the "Summer of Growth" Obama's plan was to spend most of the recovery money this summer (has nothing to do with elections coming up :1orglaugh ).

So if we see no real growth who is to blame? No one but Obama for not addressing the real issue of the failed Keynesian economic policies that have been around for a long time.

Excellent analogy. It was the Bush Administration that passed on to Obama the problems that Obama has to deal with and if the situation is not better/worse when Obama leaves office that is when he will own the mess that is passed on to the next President.

LMAO that's your response to my post? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

No wonder why no-one takes Obama supporters seriously. When it comes to debuting facts they have nothing. The only one with a biased mindset is the one who can't have a discussion and give rational reasoning to support his/her position. Blaming Bush, talking about "conspiracy theories" and so on is not rational reasoning.

Can anyone corroborate: Most of the recent months' added jobs were census jobs?

How long are you gonna keep kicking that same dead keynesian horse?

Near as I can tell, Keynesian economic policies have served this country pretty damn well during most of these past 70 plus years.

Let us not forget that it was primarily ill advised deregulation, and not government interference, that fueled the housing bubble and wall street excesses which ultimately tanked the economy.

Methinks that you, sir, have been watching too many Peter Schiff videos :)

I heard that a few weeks ago.

I would like to add this image to our conversation..

http://net.newsment.com/files/images/Weird-Animals.JPG

Carry on....

95% of recent jobs were government jobs mostly census.

If you think the government and the fed had little to do with the housing bubble, you must be living in a bubble and the only channel you get there is MSNBC :winkwink:

It was 100% fueled by easy money by the fed and set into law by the government. :2 cents:

An abundant money supply is a good thing.

It's the engine that fuels prosperity.

Marketing liar loans with ballooning interest rates to ne'er-do-well's with credit scores in the 50's is another thing all together.

That is true for last month (May), but not the months before that.

Well articulated and informed post.

An over abundant money supply (which is what we had and have now) is rarely good for those who can not and/or should not get loans. They can no longer save to buy the things they need. They are now slaves to the banks and/or government.

To me the housing crash was a perfect storm that came to shore. The fed and government created conditions that made money abundant and getting it easy.

The banks, mortgage brokers, developers etc, saw a chance to take advantage of these sub-primes and sell the hell out of them. Many of these banks (Washington Mutual being a perfect example) gave loans to people who they knew were going to default, but they didn't care. They just made the load then sold the loan.

Everyone upstream from the buyer bought, sold and bet on these mortgages and made a lot of money. Then when the buyers started defaulting the house of cards came down.

Of course the buyers have to assume some of the blame. They went out and purchased homes they knew they couldn't afford and assumed they could either sell them and cash in on the booming market or refinance them before the rate went up only to find out that their shitty credit score entitled them to their sub-prime mortgage, but it wasn't good enough to allow them to refinance and they also learned that they weren't the only ones wanting to sell so the market was flooded.

Realistically, had the housing bubble not happened we probably would have started slipping into the recession a couple of years earlier than we did. I also feel that had this housing bubble not happened the recession probably wouldn't have been as bad because it would have been a slower slide, not a sudden collapse.

Cap and Trade is a prime example of politicians finding a way to raise taxes but telling people it is not a tax increase and that they are actually doing something good for the working class.

http://www.businessinsider.com/krugm...-bubble-2009-6


Bubble FAIL :Oh crap

So it sounds like had their been no housing bubble the recession would have started in 2001/2002

Good post.

I still maintain however that, with stricter lending regulations in place, the bubble would never have gotten anywhere near as bad and might even have been sustainable for a bit longer.

In any case, the subsequent recession would have been as you described and no trillion dollar bailouts would have been necessary.

That is valid for May 2010 ....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

I think that what he, and his fellow travelers, are saying is that the 2001/2002 recession would (for all practical purposes) have never ended, but that that wouldn't be so bad because things would never have gotten as horrible as they are now either.

It's called being satisfied with mediocrity.

Not a very admirable goal IMO but, given current conditions, I suppose there's an argument to be made for such.

For sure. It looks like they manipulated the markets to help create the housing bubble which created a sense that the economy was doing fine when in reality it was anything but. Kind of like putting a band aid on a cut, but not dealing with the internal bleeding.

Methinks you've missed every single near financial collapse of the 20th century, with that logic.

Who taught you economics? An abundant money supply is NEVER a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

Educate yourself. More money in circulation=less it's worth. Basic economics. Just stop typing.