Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400,
wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a
class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in
their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then,
it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should
vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them.
So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any
strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to
move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax
paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than
in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try
to show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You
don't have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low can
you go, you stalking piece of ****e?


So, you're claiming he has balls? How would you know? Did you check?


You're sick!


I'd rather be sick that stupid.


You don't have a choice. Lucky you. You are both.

"sick that stupid" ? We must have really rattled your cage.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker.
Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent and
the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain
to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and
most of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road than
the US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada many move
out of Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You?? YOU???? hahaha... you can barely pay for your beer money.
So you know that to be a fact? How?

Osmosis.


Nice try, moron.

I guess you aren't familiar with that term either. I don't see why, you
have nothing on plants.


Again you show your ignorance. Enough already.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

Some could argue we are still watching the crusades.

The classic crusades ended because Europe had their ass handed to them
about 5 times in a row.
I suspect we will lose this one too but I said that in 1991. We really
should have taken the advice of those who said we should have put that
early victory in our pocket and gone home. I knew we wouldn't.

That is the same thing that happened to the first crusaders. One win
and then a string of "ties" and humiliating losses after that, until
they finally just stopped.

Agreed. We don't have what it takes to win this one. We need to be
angry enough to be ruthless... such as our opponents. Without the desire
to really win it, we shouldn't even be there.

It is why I support bringing the troups home. No sense in wasting their
blood for people wanting to live in the dark age barberism.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The real question still comes down to what the world will pay for our
paper. Most of our debt is in short term notes. All it will take to
bury us is for that interest rate we need to make our paper attractive
go up to 7 or 8%
The only reason they like the dollar is the rest of the western
economies are in worse trouble than we are.

Well, the world isn't having much of a problem so far. With all the
trouble
in Europe, the money seems to be invested in the US even more lately, as
you
said... they are in worse shape. China isn't going to do much, given they
would lose lots and be much worse off if they decided to pull out of their
investment in a precipitous fashion.


China is still propping us up but that could change. To say there are
no problems in Europe is just naive. Greece still has not agreed to
the reforms necessary to get their house in order and the population
is rioting in the street over it. They are telling people they will
actually have to pay the taxes necessary to support their expenditures
and pensioners are going to get a pay cut along with all of the
government workers.
We will have riots here when we get there too.

Umm... who said Europe doesn't have problems? Again, there is no melt-down
crisis looming. It's just not the case. Most societies adjust to financial
changes. The riots will not be televised... lol




Not really... there are always foolish people, but there are lots of
people
already in debt who don't pull out their money. As I said, the tax
consequences alone usually give people pause. Many boomers are in debt
in
one form or another... mortgages are a good example. Most people think
of
their home as an asset, but if you owe money, it's really a
liability...
certainly one kind of liability that's easy to live with, even in
retirement.


The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.


Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes
on
whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going to
be
people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that
situation.
And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where are the ones
who
have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks happening.

You don't need all the boomers to liquidate all of their 401k/IRA
holding to seriously impact the markets, you just need the hint that
they will and some movement in that direction. The rumor of a run on
one stock caused the Dow to lose 1000 points in about 15 minutes.


There is no such hint. That particular drop still hasn't been fully
explained, and banks have failed in greater numbers in previous years. No
run on banks happened then either.

Keep whistling through that grave yard.


No whistling required. Show me the "hint" besides empty statements...

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

They don't have the capacity to do much damage, not even with a nuclear
device. We (and Obama is trying to do this) need to change how we look at
who we're fighting. There have always been religious extremist and always
will be.

The Crusades? Where Christians hacked people up with sharpened crosses?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going
to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

Some could argue we are still watching the crusades.

The classic crusades ended because Europe had their ass handed to them
about 5 times in a row.
I suspect we will lose this one too but I said that in 1991. We really
should have taken the advice of those who said we should have put that
early victory in our pocket and gone home. I knew we wouldn't.

That is the same thing that happened to the first crusaders. One win
and then a string of "ties" and humiliating losses after that, until
they finally just stopped.

Talk about whistling... this is just paranoid thinking. You act like there's
an evil empire out there just waiting to attack. Sheesh.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going
to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

Some could argue we are still watching the crusades.

The classic crusades ended because Europe had their ass handed to them
about 5 times in a row.
I suspect we will lose this one too but I said that in 1991. We really
should have taken the advice of those who said we should have put that
early victory in our pocket and gone home. I knew we wouldn't.

That is the same thing that happened to the first crusaders. One win
and then a string of "ties" and humiliating losses after that, until
they finally just stopped.

Agreed. We don't have what it takes to win this one. We need to be angry
enough to be ruthless... such as our opponents. Without the desire to
really win it, we shouldn't even be there.

It is why I support bringing the troups home. No sense in wasting their
blood for people wanting to live in the dark age barberism.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

No. YOU don't have what it takes. Moron. It's troops not troups. You're one
dummy.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:30:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tyler again. As long as people get to vote for the taxes they pay they
will always vote themselves a "generous benefit"

So, I ask again, what's your solution? Take away their ability to vote??


There isn't any real solution. That is the problem.
We are like alcoholics. There is not going to be a fix until we hit
absolute rock bottom and come away with a whole new way to live.
We keep "fixing" our economy by borrowing more money and promising if
we get away with it this time, we will never do it again. We still
never pay the debt back.
I really think this recession/depression thing will end the same way
the last one did, in a global war.
Our biggest problem is there are not enough people alive today who
remember that things don't really have to go well and things do not
always come out OK in the end.

One solution might be to use nudge psychology....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...conservatives1

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

I totally disagree with your last thought. Things pretty much have always
"come out OK in the end." I can't think of a huge problem that didn't
eventually find some resolution... Fascism, racism (well, it's a work in
process), communism (even China isn't really an economic communistic
state,
so that leave N. Korea?)...


In the short term you are right but if you look at just the bad things
that happened in the 20th century. The depression resulted in WWII and
tens of millions of people died. I suppose that "worked out OK".
Unfortunately that will be nothing compared to a nuclear war. Who will
get it started? Most likely it will involve Israel and one of the
Islamic countries but, just like WWI, it could quickly escalate to the
world powers.

Perhaps worse might actually be an economic war where all of this
phony paper we call money collapses and people start fighting for
resources because they can't buy them anymore. In that war the Chinese
win because they can just sit back and watch. Their people will suffer
for a few years but they have the industrial capacity the US had in
1945 so they will be staged to take over the world.

The depression didn't result in WW2. Come on. The depression (at least in
Germany) resulted from them being punished excessively for WWI.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... NOT

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400,
wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a
class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in
their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then,
it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should
vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding
them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any
strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to
move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when
the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax
paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like
a crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than
in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates.
Try to show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You
don't have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low
can you go, you stalking piece of ****e?


So, you're claiming he has balls? How would you know? Did you check?


You're sick!


I'd rather be sick that stupid.


You don't have a choice. Lucky you. You are both.

"sick that stupid" ? We must have really rattled your cage.


You're used to cages. When did they let you out?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:40:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

China is still propping us up but that could change. To say there are
no problems in Europe is just naive. Greece still has not agreed to
the reforms necessary to get their house in order and the population
is rioting in the street over it. They are telling people they will
actually have to pay the taxes necessary to support their expenditures
and pensioners are going to get a pay cut along with all of the
government workers.
We will have riots here when we get there too.

Umm... who said Europe doesn't have problems? Again, there is no melt-down
crisis looming. It's just not the case. Most societies adjust to financial
changes. The riots will not be televised... lol


It really all depends on how well Greece swallows the turd. Germany
will revolt if Greece gets to keep their "generous gifts" and the
Germans have to pay for it.

BTW great Gil Scott Heron reference ;-)

For you folks who weren't alive in the 60s
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/Gil%...elevised. mp3

I don't think Greece has much choice really. They've pretty much agreed to
do it.

I was wondering if you'd notice that! :) I heard that song a few years ago
and it stuck in my head for months... a bit before my time, however!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:43:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going
to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

Some could argue we are still watching the crusades.

The classic crusades ended because Europe had their ass handed to them
about 5 times in a row.
I suspect we will lose this one too but I said that in 1991. We really
should have taken the advice of those who said we should have put that
early victory in our pocket and gone home. I knew we wouldn't.

That is the same thing that happened to the first crusaders. One win
and then a string of "ties" and humiliating losses after that, until
they finally just stopped.

Talk about whistling... this is just paranoid thinking. You act like
there's
an evil empire out there just waiting to attack. Sheesh.

The enemy is debt.

And, the enemy has been identified and steps are being taken...

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:42:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going
to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

They don't have the capacity to do much damage, not even with a nuclear
device. We (and Obama is trying to do this) need to change how we look at
who we're fighting. There have always been religious extremist and always
will be.

The bad thing about nukes is you don't need many to change life on
earth.

The chance that a bin laden would be able to get more than one (or a tiny
one) is infinitesimally small. Even delivering it is a major undertaking.


The Crusades? Where Christians hacked people up with sharpened crosses?

Sure, at first, then like our crusade, the tables turned and it was
the crusaders who were being hacked up. Of the 7 or 8 crusades
(depending on how you count), the Europeans really only won the first
one decisively.
We are having our Vietnam moment now. We win every battle and we are
still losing the war because the other side will not accept defeat.
Eventually we will come home but not until we have a president with
the integrity of Jerry Ford.

We had our VN moment during the VN war. We are dealing with the situation in
Afg., and it's possible to solve at least most of the problem.

Not sure about Ford. He pardoned Nixon, which I suppose was the right thing
to do. I believe Obama has plenty of integrity, esp. compared to recent
presidents. Bush II was a conniving *******. Clinton was obviously flawed
personally, but did a lot of good for minorities, the economy and the
environment (not enough for all of those). Bush I was, at least intelligent,
unlike his son. Carter was a good, honest man, but a lousy president (he's
an amazing ex-pres, however). Reagan was a decent guy. I don't like a lot of
things he did, but he wasn't' dishonest. Nixon, besides being a crook, was a
smart guy and didn't let his crookdom get in the way of policy. Johnson was
a conniving ****heel, but did many things right (and some big things wrong,
and will never be forgiven for some of them). Kennedy was basically decent,
but was flawed personally. When pressed, he had good instincts, but make
major mistakes during his brief presidency. Eisenhower was a decent guy, but
gave us Nixon and allowed McCarthy to blather on.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:45:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In the short term you are right but if you look at just the bad things
that happened in the 20th century. The depression resulted in WWII and
tens of millions of people died. I suppose that "worked out OK".
Unfortunately that will be nothing compared to a nuclear war. Who will
get it started? Most likely it will involve Israel and one of the
Islamic countries but, just like WWI, it could quickly escalate to the
world powers.

Perhaps worse might actually be an economic war where all of this
phony paper we call money collapses and people start fighting for
resources because they can't buy them anymore. In that war the Chinese
win because they can just sit back and watch. Their people will suffer
for a few years but they have the industrial capacity the US had in
1945 so they will be staged to take over the world.

The depression didn't result in WW2. Come on. The depression (at least in
Germany) resulted from them being punished excessively for WWI.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... NOT


Without the depression, Hitler would not have been able to take power
and the war was certainly what ended the depression. FDRs most
successful program was Lend Lease. That is what got the factories
going again.
Building parks, logging roads and earthen dams may have kept young men
off the streets but it certainly did not do much to stimulate the
economy. Building ships and tanks for the brits is what got industry
going again.
Industrially backed wars are a great economic stimulant. You get to
build a lot of products and you don't have to really sell them. You
just blow them up and build more. Unfortunately we still have not paid
off all the debt from WWII. We just grew the economy enough to
obfuscate the debt. There is a limit to how much more we can grow. We
are now bumping up against the capacity of the planet to assimilate
more growth. (population, energy, water, food or just about any other
metric you can use)
In that regard "civilization" as we know it is a Ponzi.

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to the
extremist movement.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 11:42 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we
going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

They don't have the capacity to do much damage, not even with a nuclear
device. We (and Obama is trying to do this) need to change how we look
at who we're fighting. There have always been religious extremist and
always will be.

The Crusades? Where Christians hacked people up with sharpened crosses?

http://www.realcourage.org/2010/01/b...g-case-update/

You should have married a muslim.

If above isn't good enough, try below:

http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2139

Get educated you skank. It is good to keep nukes from islam/muslim.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 1:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:45:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In the short term you are right but if you look at just the bad things
that happened in the 20th century. The depression resulted in WWII and
tens of millions of people died. I suppose that "worked out OK".
Unfortunately that will be nothing compared to a nuclear war. Who will
get it started? Most likely it will involve Israel and one of the
Islamic countries but, just like WWI, it could quickly escalate to the
world powers.

Perhaps worse might actually be an economic war where all of this
phony paper we call money collapses and people start fighting for
resources because they can't buy them anymore. In that war the Chinese
win because they can just sit back and watch. Their people will suffer
for a few years but they have the industrial capacity the US had in
1945 so they will be staged to take over the world.

The depression didn't result in WW2. Come on. The depression (at
least in
Germany) resulted from them being punished excessively for WWI.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... NOT


Without the depression, Hitler would not have been able to take power
and the war was certainly what ended the depression. FDRs most
successful program was Lend Lease. That is what got the factories
going again.
Building parks, logging roads and earthen dams may have kept young men
off the streets but it certainly did not do much to stimulate the
economy. Building ships and tanks for the brits is what got industry
going again.
Industrially backed wars are a great economic stimulant. You get to
build a lot of products and you don't have to really sell them. You
just blow them up and build more. Unfortunately we still have not paid
off all the debt from WWII. We just grew the economy enough to
obfuscate the debt. There is a limit to how much more we can grow. We
are now bumping up against the capacity of the planet to assimilate
more growth. (population, energy, water, food or just about any other
metric you can use)
In that regard "civilization" as we know it is a Ponzi.

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but
the US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power
because the European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany.
That caused a terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany,
which gave rise to the extremist movement.

Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or 2012...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or 2012...

you guys keep making predictions about him.

and you continue to be WRONG!!

what ever happened to him taking all the guns away? you guys seem to
have forgotten THAT little chestnut!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 2:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0600,
wrote:



Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or 2012...

you guys keep making predictions about him.

I predicted he would win president.
I predicted Obamanomics would not work and real unemployment will remain
high.
I predict he will bad mouth and antogonize China and the middle east to
get a war happening to get peoples mind off of the economic destruction
of the united States.

Only the last one hasn't come true. This is the longest
rescession/depression since 1929.

Obama being an egomaniac sociopath, will want to hold power no mater
what the cost. A year before his next election, he will get desperate
and do something real stupid for sure. He will use the old deflection
thing, start something big to get peoples minds off his presidential
incompetance.

and you continue to be WRONG!!

So far not.

what ever happened to him taking all the guns away? you guys seem to
have forgotten THAT little chestnut!

Lots of broken promises. Gitmo is another, we still have Gitmo because
the idiot president didn't think to what to do with some of the worlds
worst criminals if he shut Gitmo down. Usual Obama short sightedness.

So how is Obamanomics work'en for ya?
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:21:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 2:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0600,
wrote:



Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or 2012...

you guys keep making predictions about him.

I predicted he would win president.

meanginless.

I predicted Obamanomics would not work and real unemployment will remain
high.

it's dropping. so you're wrong. the GDP is growing. so you're doubly
wrong

I predict he will bad mouth and antogonize China and the middle east to
get a war happening to get peoples mind off of the economic destruction
of the united States.

meaningless gibberish.

Only the last one hasn't come true. This is the longest
rescession/depression since 1929.

yep. sure is. we can thank george bush for it.


Obama being an egomaniac sociopath

IOW he's black...yes, i know you hate him because of that

, will want to hold power no mater
what the cost

now let's see...bush tried to suspend habeas corpus. he arrested US
citizens without charge and without trial

but he's rich. and white. obama, however is black, so it's obvious to
your racist mind he wants to hold power...

.. A year before his next election, he will get desperate
and do something real stupid for sure. He will use the old deflection
thing, start something big to get peoples minds off his presidential
incompetance.

yeah. just like he tried the gun grab, right?

you guys screwed yourselves on that one. what's next? obama knows the
truth about UFO'S?


and you continue to be WRONG!!

So far not.

what ever happened to him taking all the guns away? you guys seem to
have forgotten THAT little chestnut!

Lots of broken promises. Gitmo is another

IOW he agreed with bush on this...and couldnt find countries to take
their own prisoners...

, we still have Gitmo because
the idiot president didn't think to what to do with some of the worlds
worst criminals if he shut Gitmo down. Usual Obama short sightedness.

nope. he called the world's bluff. you're just too stupid to see it.

So how is Obamanomics work'en for ya?

actually pretty good. durable goods orders are up. GDP is growing.
unemployment is dropping.

let me know if you need any more help to get out of your kluxer views,
OK?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:48:12 -0400, wrote:


Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to
power in1933). Without millions of Germans out of work and hanging
around street corners looking for something to do and someone who
promised a solution, he would have just been an unknown crank.
The US putting abusive tariffs on European goods only made that
problem worse.
That was just one of FDRs flawed policies that we don't hear much
about.

unfortunately we hear ALOT today about repeating the 'do nothing'
policies that let the banks fail rather than increase debt. the
american right is a fundamentalist organization in many ways. they
think debt must be reduced even if it leads to 25% unemployment like
it did during the depression

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 11:42 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we
going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

Some might very well argue that we are already in the early stages of
a global war against religious extremists. Unfortunately I don't see
that situation getting better any time soon. How long did the
crusades last in the middle ages, and how/why did they end?

They don't have the capacity to do much damage, not even with a nuclear
device. We (and Obama is trying to do this) need to change how we look
at who we're fighting. There have always been religious extremist and
always will be.

The Crusades? Where Christians hacked people up with sharpened crosses?

http://www.realcourage.org/2010/01/b...g-case-update/

You should have married a muslim.

If above isn't good enough, try below:

http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2139

Get educated you skank. It is good to keep nukes from islam/muslim.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

What are you ranting about? Someone is brutally murdered and that somehow
justifies killing a bunch of innocent people?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 1:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:45:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In the short term you are right but if you look at just the bad things
that happened in the 20th century. The depression resulted in WWII and
tens of millions of people died. I suppose that "worked out OK".
Unfortunately that will be nothing compared to a nuclear war. Who will
get it started? Most likely it will involve Israel and one of the
Islamic countries but, just like WWI, it could quickly escalate to the
world powers.

Perhaps worse might actually be an economic war where all of this
phony paper we call money collapses and people start fighting for
resources because they can't buy them anymore. In that war the Chinese
win because they can just sit back and watch. Their people will suffer
for a few years but they have the industrial capacity the US had in
1945 so they will be staged to take over the world.

The depression didn't result in WW2. Come on. The depression (at
least in
Germany) resulted from them being punished excessively for WWI.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... NOT


Without the depression, Hitler would not have been able to take power
and the war was certainly what ended the depression. FDRs most
successful program was Lend Lease. That is what got the factories
going again.
Building parks, logging roads and earthen dams may have kept young men
off the streets but it certainly did not do much to stimulate the
economy. Building ships and tanks for the brits is what got industry
going again.
Industrially backed wars are a great economic stimulant. You get to
build a lot of products and you don't have to really sell them. You
just blow them up and build more. Unfortunately we still have not paid
off all the debt from WWII. We just grew the economy enough to
obfuscate the debt. There is a limit to how much more we can grow. We
are now bumping up against the capacity of the planet to assimilate
more growth. (population, energy, water, food or just about any other
metric you can use)
In that regard "civilization" as we know it is a Ponzi.

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but
the US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power
because the European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany.
That caused a terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany,
which gave rise to the extremist movement.

Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or
2012...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

What the?? We're already in TWO wars thanks to BUSH. Obama is trying to
clean up that mess.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 2:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0600,
wrote:



Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or
2012...

you guys keep making predictions about him.

I predicted he would win president.

Wow... stunning prediction. What happened?

I predicted Obamanomics would not work and real unemployment will remain
high.

"Remain" for how long? More people quit their jobs than lost them due to
layoffs recently.

I predict he will bad mouth and antogonize China and the middle east to
get a war happening to get peoples mind off of the economic destruction of
the united States.

Well, you're an idiot.

Only the last one hasn't come true. This is the longest
rescession/depression since 1929.

Thanks GWB!


Obama being an egomaniac sociopath, will want to hold power no mater what
the cost. A year before his next election, he will get desperate and do
something real stupid for sure. He will use the old deflection thing,
start something big to get peoples minds off his presidential
incompetance.

and you continue to be WRONG!!

So far not.

So far completely.


what ever happened to him taking all the guns away? you guys seem to
have forgotten THAT little chestnut!

Lots of broken promises. Gitmo is another, we still have Gitmo because
the idiot president didn't think to what to do with some of the worlds
worst criminals if he shut Gitmo down. Usual Obama short sightedness.

So, now you think he claimed he would take away our guns???? As usual,
you're stupid.

So how is Obamanomics work'en for ya?
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Workin fine. How's that drill baby drill thing workin out for ya?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:27:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:45:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In the short term you are right but if you look at just the bad things
that happened in the 20th century. The depression resulted in WWII and
tens of millions of people died. I suppose that "worked out OK".
Unfortunately that will be nothing compared to a nuclear war. Who will
get it started? Most likely it will involve Israel and one of the
Islamic countries but, just like WWI, it could quickly escalate to the
world powers.

Perhaps worse might actually be an economic war where all of this
phony paper we call money collapses and people start fighting for
resources because they can't buy them anymore. In that war the Chinese
win because they can just sit back and watch. Their people will suffer
for a few years but they have the industrial capacity the US had in
1945 so they will be staged to take over the world.

The depression didn't result in WW2. Come on. The depression (at least
in
Germany) resulted from them being punished excessively for WWI.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... NOT


Without the depression, Hitler would not have been able to take power
and the war was certainly what ended the depression. FDRs most
successful program was Lend Lease. That is what got the factories
going again.
Building parks, logging roads and earthen dams may have kept young men
off the streets but it certainly did not do much to stimulate the
economy. Building ships and tanks for the brits is what got industry
going again.
Industrially backed wars are a great economic stimulant. You get to
build a lot of products and you don't have to really sell them. You
just blow them up and build more. Unfortunately we still have not paid
off all the debt from WWII. We just grew the economy enough to
obfuscate the debt. There is a limit to how much more we can grow. We
are now bumping up against the capacity of the planet to assimilate
more growth. (population, energy, water, food or just about any other
metric you can use)
In that regard "civilization" as we know it is a Ponzi.

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but
the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to
the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

From 23% to 13% then back up a few percentage points, then back down PRIOR
to 1942 when we entered the war.

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to

NOT OUR DEPRESSION. Germany's depression. Our depression didn't cause his
rise to power. That depression started long before 1933.

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

power in1933). Without millions of Germans out of work and hanging
around street corners looking for something to do and someone who
promised a solution, he would have just been an unknown crank.
The US putting abusive tariffs on European goods only made that
problem worse.
That was just one of FDRs flawed policies that we don't hear much
about.

He had many flawed policies. So what?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 2:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:21:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 2:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0600,
wrote:



Oh I am sure Obama will try to lead the US to war. Say in 2011...or 2012...

you guys keep making predictions about him.

I predicted he would win president.

meanginless.

I predicted Obamanomics would not work and real unemployment will remain
high.

it's dropping. so you're wrong. the GDP is growing. so you're doubly
wrong

I predict he will bad mouth and antogonize China and the middle east to
get a war happening to get peoples mind off of the economic destruction
of the united States.

meaningless gibberish.

Only the last one hasn't come true. This is the longest
rescession/depression since 1929.

yep. sure is. we can thank george bush for it.


Obama being an egomaniac sociopath

IOW he's black...yes, i know you hate him because of that

, will want to hold power no mater
what the cost

now let's see...bush tried to suspend habeas corpus. he arrested US
citizens without charge and without trial

but he's rich. and white. obama, however is black, so it's obvious to
your racist mind he wants to hold power...

. A year before his next election, he will get desperate
and do something real stupid for sure. He will use the old deflection
thing, start something big to get peoples minds off his presidential
incompetance.

yeah. just like he tried the gun grab, right?

you guys screwed yourselves on that one. what's next? obama knows the
truth about UFO'S?


and you continue to be WRONG!!

So far not.

what ever happened to him taking all the guns away? you guys seem to
have forgotten THAT little chestnut!

Lots of broken promises. Gitmo is another

IOW he agreed with bush on this...and couldnt find countries to take
their own prisoners...

, we still have Gitmo because
the idiot president didn't think to what to do with some of the worlds
worst criminals if he shut Gitmo down. Usual Obama short sightedness.

nope. he called the world's bluff. you're just too stupid to see it.

So how is Obamanomics work'en for ya?

actually pretty good. durable goods orders are up. GDP is growing.
unemployment is dropping.

let me know if you need any more help to get out of your kluxer views,
OK?

Dollar value of durable goods up and without jobs is INFLATION.

Unemployment didn't drop, take a second look. And those new jobs, part
time and minimum wage jobs...

Ya, Obama type jobs. You want them, you take them.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 2:55 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:48:12 -0400, wrote:


Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to
power in1933). Without millions of Germans out of work and hanging
around street corners looking for something to do and someone who
promised a solution, he would have just been an unknown crank.
The US putting abusive tariffs on European goods only made that
problem worse.
That was just one of FDRs flawed policies that we don't hear much
about.

unfortunately we hear ALOT today about repeating the 'do nothing'
policies that let the banks fail rather than increase debt. the
american right is a fundamentalist organization in many ways. they
think debt must be reduced even if it leads to 25% unemployment like
it did during the depression

All governmetn had to do to protect little people is bailout depositors
up to the max of FDIC, $200,000 or was it $250,000? In any case it
would have cost Americans a whole lot less. Someone would have picked
up the loser banks for 2 cents and fired all the criminals.

Then things would be right and Americans would have been trillions less
in debt. But Obama worships debt....debt for corruption... the
Obamanation way.

Dumb**** president hasn't figured out you can't fix a debt depression by
creating more debt.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:06:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 2:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:21:25 -0600,
wrote:

let me know if you need any more help to get out of your kluxer views,
OK?

Dollar value of durable goods up and without jobs is INFLATION.

nope. i realize that, as a right winger, you don't know much about
economics, but inflation is about 2%. durables goods are measured by
ORDERS. and durable goods ORDERS are up.



Unemployment didn't drop, take a second look. And those new jobs, part
time and minimum wage jobs...

unemployment dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% doesnt do much for your view
that the economy is collapsiing


Ya, Obama type jobs. You want them, you take them.

yeah i know. to the rich and the right wing, the middle class deserves
starvation.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 6:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:06:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 2:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:21:25 -0600,
wrote:

let me know if you need any more help to get out of your kluxer views,
OK?

Dollar value of durable goods up and without jobs is INFLATION.

nope. i realize that, as a right winger, you don't know much about
economics, but inflation is about 2%. durables goods are measured by
ORDERS. and durable goods ORDERS are up.



Unemployment didn't drop, take a second look. And those new jobs, part
time and minimum wage jobs...

unemployment dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% doesnt do much for your view
that the economy is collapsiing


Ya, Obama type jobs. You want them, you take them.

yeah i know. to the rich and the right wing, the middle class deserves
starvation.

No they don't but Obama seems to think so.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

411,000 new part time low wage jobs from Obama. 431,000 new low wage
jobs of which almost all are temporary government. Now if governemnt
didn't do a census, that would be 20,000 new low paying jobs. Pretty
pathetic for trillions of Obama debt totalitarianism on the taxpayer.

If not for Obama part time low wage jobs, 15,000,000 unemplyed would be
15.411,000 unemployed. Putting real unemployment over 10%.

Long term unemployed unchanged at 6.8 million.

Maybe we should all work for governemnt, 390,000 added in May. This way
we can all be parasites on the productively working taxpayer.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:10:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 2:55 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:48:12 -0400, wrote:


unfortunately we hear ALOT today about repeating the 'do nothing'
policies that let the banks fail rather than increase debt. the
american right is a fundamentalist organization in many ways. they
think debt must be reduced even if it leads to 25% unemployment like
it did during the depression

All governmetn had to do to protect little people is bailout depositors
up to the max of FDIC, $200,000 or was it $250,000? In any case it
would have cost Americans a whole lot less. Someone would have picked
up the loser banks for 2 cents and fired all the criminals.


nope. because, believe it or not, not only small people have money in
banks. corporations do, too. and they borrow money. if the credit
system collapses, it throws a BIG monkey wrench into borrowing and
lending for mortgages, bondholders, equity holders, etc

but, since you're right wing you're kinda dumb and dont know this.


Then things would be right and Americans would have been trillions less
in debt. But Obama worships debt....debt for corruption... the
Obamanation way.

i know y ou love the idea of 25% unemployment. why not volunteer to
take your kids back home and give their jobs to someoene else?


Dumb**** president hasn't figured out you can't fix a debt depression by
creating more debt.

sure you can. look at ww2.

again, you're just too stupid to know history

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 6:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:06:19 -0600,
wrote:

unemployment dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% doesnt do much for your view
that the economy is collapsiing


Ya, Obama type jobs. You want them, you take them.

yeah i know. to the rich and the right wing, the middle class deserves
starvation.

No they don't but Obama seems to think so.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

that new is so old it's rancid. why not look at more recent data:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37464845/Job_...llenger_Report

The Challenger report indicated that the pace of job losses edged
slightly higher in May, as employers announced plans to cut 38,810
jobs from their payrolls.

This was 1.3 percent more than the four-year low of 38,326 job cuts
announced in April, but 65 percent lower than one year earlier, when
planned job cuts totalled 111,182.


so the rate of job loss has DROPPED 65% vs a year ago.

if that's failure, i'll take it.

If not for Obama part time low wage jobs, 15,000,000 unemplyed would be
15.411,000 unemployed. Putting real unemployment over 10%.

Long term unemployed unchanged at 6.8 million.

ah. so the rate of job loss has dropped to ZERO. that's ALOT better
than the legacy of your rich white buddy bush which saw unemployment
rocket from 4.7% to 10%

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 13/06/2010 6:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0600,
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 6:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:06:19 -0600,
wrote:

unemployment dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% doesnt do much for your view
that the economy is collapsiing


Ya, Obama type jobs. You want them, you take them.

yeah i know. to the rich and the right wing, the middle class deserves
starvation.

No they don't but Obama seems to think so.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

that new is so old it's rancid. why not look at more recent data:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37464845/Job_...llenger_Report

The Challenger report indicated that the pace of job losses edged
slightly higher in May, as employers announced plans to cut 38,810
jobs from their payrolls.

This was 1.3 percent more than the four-year low of 38,326 job cuts
announced in April, but 65 percent lower than one year earlier, when
planned job cuts totalled 111,182.

Does not mater how you cu it, it is bad news.

so the rate of job loss has DROPPED 65% vs a year ago.

That is like saying I gushed 6 pints of blood and don't have as much to
blead any more.

if that's failure, i'll take it.

Yep, for 3 trillion in debt I expected better. Or about 30,000 per
working citizen of debt. How long can that go on before we declare USA
bankrupt?

If not for Obama part time low wage jobs, 15,000,000 unemplyed would be
15.411,000 unemployed. Putting real unemployment over 10%.

Long term unemployed unchanged at 6.8 million.

ah. so the rate of job loss has dropped to ZERO. that's ALOT better
than the legacy of your rich white buddy bush which saw unemployment
rocket from 4.7% to 10%

With over 95% of the new hires part time government employees....

You think that is good news?

Not sustainable. But is a fast road to bankruptcy.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:00:51 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2010 6:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0600,
wrote:

The Challenger report indicated that the pace of job losses edged
slightly higher in May, as employers announced plans to cut 38,810
jobs from their payrolls.

This was 1.3 percent more than the four-year low of 38,326 job cuts
announced in April, but 65 percent lower than one year earlier, when
planned job cuts totalled 111,182.

Does not mater how you cu it, it is bad news.

better than it was a year ago. you just want an excuse to blame the
darkie president


so the rate of job loss has DROPPED 65% vs a year ago.

That is like saying I gushed 6 pints of blood and don't have as much to
blead any more.

or that the bleeding has slowed...and the patient is recovering.


if that's failure, i'll take it.

Yep, for 3 trillion in debt I expected better.

of course you would. he's black. he CANT do right by you.

Or about 30,000 per
working citizen of debt. How long can that go on before we declare USA
bankrupt?

we did OK in ww2 with a larger debt.


If not for Obama part time low wage jobs, 15,000,000 unemplyed would be
15.411,000 unemployed. Putting real unemployment over 10%.

Long term unemployed unchanged at 6.8 million.

ah. so the rate of job loss has dropped to ZERO. that's ALOT better
than the legacy of your rich white buddy bush which saw unemployment
rocket from 4.7% to 10%

With over 95% of the new hires part time government employees....

glad you focus on 1 data point? me? i take a longer term view. latest
data shows private industry is starting to hire


You think that is good news?

Not sustainable. But is a fast road to bankruptcy.

tell it to truman.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:55:41 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:48:12 -0400, wrote:


Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but
the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because
the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused
a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to
the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to
power in1933). Without millions of Germans out of work and hanging
around street corners looking for something to do and someone who
promised a solution, he would have just been an unknown crank.
The US putting abusive tariffs on European goods only made that
problem worse.
That was just one of FDRs flawed policies that we don't hear much
about.

unfortunately we hear ALOT today about repeating the 'do nothing'
policies that let the banks fail rather than increase debt. the
american right is a fundamentalist organization in many ways. they
think debt must be reduced even if it leads to 25% unemployment like
it did during the depression

It is a balance. If the US can't sell it's debt anymore we might be
longing for the days of a mere 25% unemployment rate.
We can't assume the world will keep lending us unlimited amounts of
money, just because they have in the past.


You're right. We can't assume this. We're actively working to reverse this
trend of out of site debt. It's fixable, and it's a problem that every major
economy that lends to us is aware of and wants us to get it fixed.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:07:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely, but
the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because
the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That caused
a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise to
the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

From 23% to 13% then back up a few percentage points, then back down PRIOR
to 1942 when we entered the war.


It started going under 16% when we started lend lease, before we were
officially in the war.

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to

NOT OUR DEPRESSION. Germany's depression. Our depression didn't cause his
rise to power. That depression started long before 1933.

The Germans crashed at the same time we did., They had a borrow and
spend economy in the 20s and the illusion of prosperity. It was when
the US (and other democracies) got hungry in 1929 and called the
German debt that they crashed. If anything that should be a harbinger
for us.
One opinion
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...0s/Econ20s.htm
I do find it interesting that this author says it was not about debt,
and then goes on to describe the deficit spending that caused the
collapse.
Hitler came up out of that crash.



As I said, from the first paragraph:

"Germany was economically devastated after a draining defeat in World War I.
Due to the Versailles treaty, Germany was forced to pay incredibly sizeable
reparations to France and Great Britain. In addition, the Versailles treaty,
which many agreed was far too harsh, forced Germany to give up thirteen
percent of its land."

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:39:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:07:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Unemployment before WW2 under FDR went from 25% to 10%. That's pretty
amazing. WW2 certainly ended the depression finally and completely,
but
the
US depression had little to do with Hitler. He came into power because
the
European powers after WW2 were obscenely harsh with Germany. That
caused
a
terrible depression and runaway inflation in Germany, which gave rise
to
the
extremist movement.


I don't know where you got that number for unemployment but the double
dip hit in 1938 At worst it was 23%, after the New Deal started and in
the double dip was back up to 18. We were well intro WWII before it
got to 10%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1890-2009.gif

From 23% to 13% then back up a few percentage points, then back down
PRIOR
to 1942 when we entered the war.


It started going under 16% when we started lend lease, before we were
officially in the war.

Again. Hitler was a German response to the depression (he rose to

NOT OUR DEPRESSION. Germany's depression. Our depression didn't cause
his
rise to power. That depression started long before 1933.

The Germans crashed at the same time we did., They had a borrow and
spend economy in the 20s and the illusion of prosperity. It was when
the US (and other democracies) got hungry in 1929 and called the
German debt that they crashed. If anything that should be a harbinger
for us.
One opinion
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...0s/Econ20s.htm
I do find it interesting that this author says it was not about debt,
and then goes on to describe the deficit spending that caused the
collapse.
Hitler came up out of that crash.



As I said, from the first paragraph:

"Germany was economically devastated after a draining defeat in World War
I.
Due to the Versailles treaty, Germany was forced to pay incredibly
sizeable
reparations to France and Great Britain. In addition, the Versailles
treaty,
which many agreed was far too harsh, forced Germany to give up thirteen
percent of its land."



... but they used the same borrow and spend solution we are using to
prop up their economy. It worked as long as they could sell their
paper. When they could find no more buyers, their money became
worthless.

But they had completely different underlying problems. We have the most
open, vibrant economy in the world. That's not going to change any time
soon.