On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wf3h wrote:

yep, the right keeps confirming that LIBERALS have the right ideas.
LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcs, not right wing bull****, makes an economy
grow.

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

There was a lot more complexity to the investment in WWII.

We were investing our money in an enterprise to destroy all of our
competition ... literally.

We built the bombs that laid waste to the industrial capacity of
virtually all of our competition while the rest of the western world
paid us to build them more bombs.

yep. a govt spending program.


That is not likely to happen today.

absolutely agree. the right wing believes in 'american exceptionalism'
which is another term for '**** the US'


he industrial capacity has left
the country.

yep. we destroyed the unions and manufactuing. cause and effect.
strong unions lead to strong manufacturing



Nukes have made that an unlikely prospect tho. That is why we have had
to declare wars, for no particular reason, on backward countries who
can't really fight back. Our idea of the WWII prosperity today is the
million dollars a man we **** away in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is
really not providing much employment and we are doing more damage to
our own economy than we are to the rest of the world.

WWII analogies simply do not apply.

sure they do. govt spending is govt spending. deficit spending is
deficit spending. the results are the same

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 9:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wrote:

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

There was a lot more complexity to the investment in WWII.

We were investing our money in an enterprise to destroy all of our
competition ... literally.

Yep. Just raises costs, making USA less competitive.

funny that countreis with strong unions have the strongest
manufacturing.


Which is why Obama opens up on China then quietly shuts up. China just
might write off $2T of bad US debt and let USA take its chances with the
valueless dollar. Would make oil for Chinese cheaper.


HAHAHAH guess he forgot the keynesian dictim

if you owe the bank $1000 you have a problem

if you owe $1 million, the bank has a problem


Watch Chinese inflation, that is where the weak USD is driving the
pressures. If the Chinese let the USD float down in value, the USA will
see major inflation pressures.

really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle
class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years

you're just too stupid to know that


Bottom line, US economics is now owned by China. Far too much money
expansion from the US Fed and government debt to stop it now. The
reality hasn't set in, but China is already in many ways the #1 world
economy.

the chinese hold about 5% of US debt

so tell me again how they rule us

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 4:09 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:33:29 -0700, wrote:


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

yep, the right keeps confirming that LIBERALS have the right ideas.
LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcs, not right wing bull****, makes an economy
grow.

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

Keynes was an unemployed liberal economist looking for a job, so he told
politicians what they wanted to here.

HAHAHAHA he was rich! what a moron!


3 years of Keynes and just a load of debt to show for it. No results,
just more bu11sh1t.

HAHAHAHA you apparently never heard of 1929! we DIDNT do what keynes
recommended

how'd that work out?? ROFLMAO!


You can't debt-spend your way out of a debt problem

sure you can. the US did it in 1939 when we started spending on ww2

idiot

you're so ****ing stupid they have to put you on a ventilator because
you forget how to breath, right winger

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:



yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

That is national suicide and we are seeing it occur right in front of
our eyes.

We have borrowed and spent our self to near insolvency.

actually what we did is transfer a massive amount of wealth to the
already rich

and yes, borrow and spend does work. in fact it's how the 29
depression ended.

what wrecked us is wall street taking money and turning into a non
productive liquidity trap

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:06:44 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 4:08 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:




yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

Well what is really happenign is:

-borrow and spend in good times
-borrow more and spend in bad times

yep. the right cut taxes and borrowed to finance the rich

guess what happened?


Even a brain fart knows that isn't sustainable

yep. and yet the right wing says we should continue

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.


and that, ladies and gents, is the essence of right wing ideology

You whine about the evil rich people yet you have a Masters degree and
you can't seem to break into the ranks of the rich.

well you're right wing and kind of stupid, (a redundancy), so let me
educate you

-in teh US, the biggest predictor of income level is your father's
income
-the US has the lowest social mobility of any country in the OECD
except the UK
-the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN
-a college educated person from the LOWEST QUINTILE has LESS of a
chance of breaking into the TOP quintile than a NON college educated
person whose parents are already in teh top quintile

and yet you right wing MORONS still believe the amercan dream BULL****


our economy today is the result of the richest 1% doing what's right
for america

Risk and reward. What are you willing to risk to receive the reward? Are
you willing to invest all of your money?

HAHAHAH he beleives that wall street EARNED the money they stole!


and proof of that is they're better than we are. that's why our
economy is so strong

The proof is that they are out working rather than posting to this
newsgroup all day long, like you do.


really? uh....how did wall street WORK to earn the money they stole
you right wing moron?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:24:03 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 6:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.


and that, ladies and gents, is the essence of right wing ideology

You whine about the evil rich people yet you have a Masters degree and
you can't seem to break into the ranks of the rich.

I seriously doubt wf3h has a degree of any kind, unless it is a Masters
in Bu11sh1t and fleabaggerism.

hey if it enables you to sleep at night, go for it!


Risk and reward. What are you willing to risk to receive the reward? Are
you willing to invest all of your money?

wf3h is too chickensh1t. Easier to whine and bitch. The limits of the
cranium in his genetic mess.


ah, the fairy tales of the right. wall street works hard! they're rich
not because of greed but because they're smart!!

HAHAHAHAHA


and proof of that is they're better than we are. that's why our
economy is so strong

The proof is that they are out working rather than posting to this
newsgroup all day long, like you do.

Hey, you can't get enough money in your successful years that your
capital does the work for you. I spend 2 hours each morning doing the
markets...self employed investor? I suspect a few of us in this group
hit this category.

no one gives a **** about you and your little readers digest history

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:48:14 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:16:40 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:52:13 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wf3h wrote:

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

Because government tax policies and import policies made it a lot more
profitable to make things offshore and import them.

meaningless cliches.

It may be a meaningless cliche but you go on to demonstrate why it is
right.

so the rich structured financial policy in the US so that

-the middle clss got gutted
-they made HUGE amounts of money

yep.the right wing has controlled the economic debate for 30 years.
that's pretty much right

yep.

Then you had the Clinton era deregulation that made the idea of money
making money more attractive than actually making anything.

yep. authored by a GOP congress...repeal of glass steagall made the
banks free to do what they wanted

That just made the banks free to consolidate (AKA too big to fail)

and the right defends this.


then came consolidated supervised entities...the final coup de grace
authored by george bush and the right wing GOP congress where the
banks promised to regulate themselves and be good. honest!!! TRULY!!

Which bill was that?]

it wasnt a BILL it was a regulatory (or lack of regulatory) scheme
called 'consolidated supervised entities' where investment firms
promised, on the souls of their grandchildren, to regulate themselves.

and we all know how that worked out. but the right still thinks it's a
good idea

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wrote:

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

Because government tax policies and import policies made it a lot more
profitable to make things offshore and import them.
That started in the 90s (GHW Bush/Clinton)
Then you had the Clinton era deregulation that made the idea of money
making money more attractive than actually making anything.
Most of that Clinton era business boom was just an illusion (fraud,
phony profits and irrational exuberance in the stock market) and the
GW Bush boom was all based on borrowing money that didn't exist.

The people who got rich were the ones who knew when to cash in before
both bubbles popped.

And the only politician to call it right on, Ron Paul.

you should have been a standup comedian.

the kluxer has no more understanding of economics than he does of his
love affair with the KKK

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on?