On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700,
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the
same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero

Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of
which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March
or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to ****
it away.

gee. and how much have local govts cut?

Haven't a clue

That pretty much sums you up.

On Feb 20, 8:44*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700,
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
* wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. *I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. *I just though people would like to know who got it.

more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the
same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero

Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of
which has been added since he was elected. *And better get more in March
or he be broke (again). *Man has no concept of money, just how to ****
it away.

gee. and how much have local govts cut?

Haven't a clue

That pretty much sums you up.

"It's truly shocking how small-minded and how much of a simpleton you
are. You don't have a clue about how economics work, and you foam at
the mouth when someone wants to help those who are worse off. You're
really a despicable person. " [ guote by ND'P]

On 2/20/2011 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:21:41 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.
I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.
Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.
No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.
Real stimulation would not cost much at all. Get government downsized
and off of peoples backs, especially the producers of wealth, people who
make real stuff and grow society need more, parasites, lawyers,
politicians and government freeloaders need less.

But today, government is supporting parasites on a credit card.
It's truly shocking how small-minded and how much of a simpleton you
are. You don't have a clue about how economics work, and you foam at
the mouth when someone wants to help those who are worse off. You're
really a despicable person. Please don't even try to enter this great
country. We don't need people like you here.
Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight.

On 2/20/2011 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:19:05 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.
I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.
Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.
Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently
redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes
real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton
previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job.

Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too
many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like
growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics,
politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough
producers to support the size of the system.
Incorrect. You don't know how an economy functions. You're an idiot,
and you're worse, you're an uneducated idiot.
Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight.

On 2/20/2011 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:19:05 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 12:20 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.
I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.
Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.
Correct. Government can only confiscate it and inefficiently
redistribute it. 100% of government si consumption based. What makes
real money is like a cotton grower. Makes cotton where no cotton
previously existed before. That is a wealth producing job.

Trouble is too many consumers and not enough producers. We pay far too
many to be government and bankers, not enough pay for producers like
growers, miners, etc. Same problem when Rome fell, too many academics,
politicians and parasites on the governments behind. Not enough
producers to support the size of the system.
Incorrect. You don't know how an economy functions. You're an idiot,
and you're worse, you're an uneducated idiot.
Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight.

On 2/20/2011 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700,
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.
more paranoia. the amount of money obama put into the economy was the
same amount local govts cut. the balance is zero
Last I check Obama was on the brink of $14.5 trillion of debt, 5 of
which has been added since he was elected. And better get more in March
or he be broke (again). Man has no concept of money, just how to ****
it away.

Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen.
Last you checked there might be another beer in your fridge. That's
about the extent of your ability to think about being on the brink of
anything.
Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight.

On 2/20/2011 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:24:04 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:24:04 -0700,
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.
I don't think anyone in DC has the guts to ask that question.
I agree. They would be involuntarily committed.
Or dead, maybe like Ashley Turton or John Wheeler. The Ashley Turton
case sure stinks of cover-up.
Everything is a conspiracy for you.. you're one paranoid guy... in a
stupefying way.
Jessie DE Plume, you certainly are making a fool of yourself tonight.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:30:47 -0700,
wrote:

gee. and how much have local govts cut?

Haven't a clue, just know some are out of money.

they cut almost as much as the stimulus spent. there's been almost no
growth in govt across state, federal and local spending

you just dont follow the news. you have glen beck and he gives you
the party line

Can't get Glen Beck up here, I guess I could do the Internet though.

Yep, Obama, the largest debt-spender the world has ever seen.

except for george bush

but, then, bush was white...

Actually, Obama outspent Bush's 8 years of combined deficit some time ago.

actually he didn't. bush's last budget was about 1.2 trillion in
debt. obama's is 1.4

not a large difference. but, bush is white...


But Obama is in a debt spiral, and the longer your in that mode, the
worse it will get. No one ever had financial success with trying to
debt-spend their way out of a debt problem.

really?

how did we get out of the 29 depression?

oh. we spent our way out in ww2

sux to be you!

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:56:33 -0500, L G wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote:


In ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:


Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.


No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.


You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package.

Economic growth.

Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent
people from falling off a cliff
but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of
people who have lost jobs are getting
by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt
tightening and controlled spending.

The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and
competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for
outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business.

Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks.

With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with
Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay
scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high
to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at
China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the
Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled
around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car.
People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what
would be expected here in the USA.
That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and
are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years
ago.

In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA
and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit
packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But
that's a long way off.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain
a market for their manufactured goods.
The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the
Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the
world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will
hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away.
It's happening right now.

The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to
have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes,
property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of
living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales
and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland.

Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content)

Eisboch

Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated
American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are
already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for
its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves
and have nots.

China has its own problems.

It's unfortunate that many of the have nots breed a disproportionate
amount of future have nots.

There are much nicer ways to say that.

For example...In Washington D.C. about 20% of the babies are born to *married*
mothers. Or...Almost 20% of the prison population in 2008 was *not*
African-American or Hispanic.

Emphasize the positive, so to speak.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:36:07 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:56:33 -0500, L G wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote:


In ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:


Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.


No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.


You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package.

Economic growth.

Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent
people from falling off a cliff
but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of
people who have lost jobs are getting
by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt
tightening and controlled spending.

The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and
competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for
outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business.

Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks.

With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with
Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay
scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high
to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at
China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the
Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled
around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car.
People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what
would be expected here in the USA.
That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and
are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years
ago.

In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA
and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit
packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But
that's a long way off.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain
a market for their manufactured goods.
The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the
Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the
world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will
hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away.
It's happening right now.

The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to
have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes,
property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of
living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales
and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland.

Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content)

Eisboch

Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated
American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are
already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for
its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves
and have nots.

China has its own problems.

It's unfortunate that many of the have nots breed a disproportionate
amount of future have nots.

There are much nicer ways to say that.

For example...In Washington D.C. about 20% of the babies are born to *married*
mothers. Or...Almost 20% of the prison population in 2008 was *not*
African-American or Hispanic.

Emphasize the positive, so to speak.

In your case, emphasize the racism.