Me? You're the one *inventing* history on the fly. Sheesh! You are nuttier than Howie Dean.
You *clearly* are blind as a bat and dumber than a stump.
Bullshit. The US economy is doing quite well, thanks. It could be better if the leftists and liberals in congress would get a grip.
No, an *excuse*. ...or rather a series of lame excuses.
More lame excuses. You really are lazy for an unemployable net- loon.
-- Keith
Yeah, not everyone transmogrifies into a self-righteous prig.
Thanks! Rich
...
I've read Molly Ivins' writing, and find it surprisingly innocuous. Clearly, she's too middle-of-the-road for extremists at either end - if you're a right-winger, she's a liberal weenie, and if you're a left- winger, she's a nazi sympathizer.
What a bunch of mindless maroons.
Thanks, Rich
True, not all go the other way into blue-nosed leftist weenieism.
-- Keith P.S. Killfile acting up Rich?
I can't understand from where comes this idea that "blue-nosed" is in any way connected to leftist weenieism - ever since I've been reading the articles in Playboy (and the letters, too), and Hustler, the "blue-noses" have been the censors, which have historically been right-wing religious nuts.
Maybe it's just that doublethink has taken this long to take root in the reich-wing excuse for a brain.
Thanks, Rich
Show me.
Ah. Ad Hominem. The standard response of the one who isn't man enough to face up to actual facts.
You present such well-reasoned arguments.
Do you have a single fact available to back up your lame insults? I think that probably you do have access to actual facts, but your fanatacism is preventing you from admitting that what facts _are_ available are contrary to your dogma - you're a perfect example of blind faith.
Guess I should re-plonk you, but your silliness is marginally amusing.
And unlike the other reich-wing fanatics, you don't seem to have anything of value to contribute even when you're not ranting. Is there any time when you're not ranting/preaching?
Thanks! Rich
I hadn't noticed that I needed a regular dose of blame in order to enjoy a book. Neal Stephenson and Ian Banks aren't known for their high blame content, nor is Jonathon Israel.
Camille might amuse me yet.
----------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
In article , wrote: [...]
You must have a strange definition of "robust". The US has very low interest rates and a large budget deficit. Bot of these tend to stimulate the ecomonmy in the short term. The US's economy is like a car with the gas pedal pushed to the floorboard. It should be roaring ahead. Instead it is making about 45 MPH. Faster than I can run I'll admit but not much to crow about.
What is being worried about is the start of inflation. The money supply is growing faster than the goods and services it is chasing. We are starting to see the resulting inflation. To keep a lid on inflation, the money supply will have to be restrained. This means reduced spending, higher interest and/or higher taxes.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
Moron, these blue-nosed leftist weenies aree *exactly* the ones who want to take your tobacccco away from you. They have no fun (think Win) and want to make sure you don't either. ...and if you think it's the conservatives that are trying to steal the country from underneath your sorry butt, take a look at eminent domain (it was the leftist weenie branch of SCotUS that decided that you have no property rights).
You're the lazy-ass who hasn't figured out who the enemy really is. It's not George Bush, rather Goerge Soros and his legions of leftist loons, like (is Connecticut within the US and Canada?) Howie Dean.
-- Keith
4.3 percent annual growth rate in the past quarter. Robust is a euphemism meaning 'a little too fast for comfort.' Marginally unsustainable. Hence concern of inflation. But not bad. 3.2-to-3.5% growth would be more comfortable.
(For reference: during the internet boom, compound annual growth rate of tax revenue was nearly 11% in FY 1999-2000)
I don't like the interest rates--they penalize savers--but they're part of the Greenspan tour-de-force that saved us from post-bubble collapse. The Federal Reserve is fixing this remaining side-effect.
I don't like the deficit, but it's a) not that big a part of GDP, b) comprises much in temporary items that will in time resolve, and c) is appropriate in harder economic times--such as those we've recently dodged--just as surpluses are appropriate in boom times.
Post-bubble, we needed *some* spending, and we got that *in spades.* Still, overspending is my chief criticism of the President, and the Congress.
Greenspan's foreseen this, and has been adjusting stimulus downward for nearly two years already. A little overshoot is inevitable.
Yes, of course, except for the 'higher taxes'...I don't see how that follows. Reduced spending? Sign me up !
Regards, James Arthur
Sad but true.
-- * * * * Mike
Which, I hope you will admit is a a strange definition of the word "robust". "Unsustainable" would be better.
No, the increasing money supply is the real inflation concern. Economies can grow that fast without inflation. It can't happen for very long periods. At some point the effective unemployment rate gets low enough that you start to run short of labor, or the plant and infrastructor becomes fully used, or raw materials run short.
I think we agree on this point.
Yes but people seem to disagree about whether these are good times or bad times. If it is good times, the interest rates should go up and the federal deficit should be decreased rapidly. If they are bad times, they should not, or perhaps further lossening is in order. The FED has raised interest rates but they just increased the deficit.
It isn't just "over spending" it is wasteful spending. That bridge in Alaska is a classic. More people will be needed to build it than there are local peope to use it.
BTW: Come back in a few years time and look at who is using that bridge. I predict a surprise on that subject.
The war in Iraq is another case of "very wasteful" spending. Every dollar that goes into bombs is lost forever to the economy. At least the bridge in Alaska will still be there in 10 years.
If the money was going to improving the rail system, building power plants, or even research you could perhaps call it an investment in the future.
But congress has been turning it up.
When spending exceeds taxes there is an increase in the money supply. You can cut spending or increase taxes to make the two numbers equal. As far as inflation goes, both are effective.
The bulk of the spending that will happen over then next few years is the result of promices made in the past or things like the Iraq war. Breaking those promices or stopping the war is not going to happen. As a result, in the short term, either taxes or interest rates will have to rise.
I don't see any political will for the government to stop making promices either. The new drug plan is a good example. The politicians seem to have discovered that they can buy peoples votes with their childrens money.
Increasing the interest rates has its own problems. The interest on the federal debt will also be increased. This will put the federal budget even further out of balance.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
"So Karl Rove managed to plant what was probably a retyped copy of a real document on a couple of luckless reporters - brilliant manipulation of the media..."
Kinda looks like history being invented right in front of your stupid little nose. I do notice you trimmed out that little part to try to make your lie work.
Facts? Sloman wouldn't know a fact if hit by a louisville clue-by-four. He stated *NONE*, BTW.
Observations, dummy.
You do trim closely when you want to make your lie^h^h^hargument.
Please do. It only means you can't respond.
You're full of shit, Rich. You and Sloman are the ranters here. You are in good leftist-weenie company, though I can't see how you and Sloman line up leftist-libertairan vs. leftist-leftist crap. Maybe your common ground is your hate.
Do have a nice day.
-- Keith
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:01:18 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: ...
Yeah, and mine is that the vast lion's share of the overspending is on the US's own weapons of mass destruction.
This seriously sickens me, and should do so to any rational person.
Thanks, Rich
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:06:57 +0000, Ken Smith wrote: ...
Wanna invest in the future? Build big spaceships to send the war-lovers to Mars, where they can kill each other to their heartlessness' content, and leave the rest of us to live in peace and harmony with Mother Earth and with each other.
And put the factories in orbit, and get raw materials from the asteroids.
But, I guess I'm a dreamer. Hope I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us, and the World can live as one.
Imagine! ;-)
Cheers! Rich
There is a theory[1] that, that is how humans got to the earth in the first place. They were the unwanted from another planet. It explains a lot.
[1] Adams was one of the great thinkers of our time.
Depending on what you are making putting the factory on the asteroid would be a better idea. Exporting a low mass makes more sense.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
In article , Mike Alder wrote: [..correct up to here..]
Some people have done quite well during a recession. The makers of contraceptives typically see better times when the economy turns down. Barbers usually see little change. Collection agents see a boom.
Some people have been worse off in booming economies beyond those that it is obvious from the above. A boom involving a slave trade is the most brutal example but there are many more. Industrial run-off destroying a fishing industry is a very common case.
On both sides, over simplifications make nice bumper stickers but poor policy.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
On 11/12/2005 the venerable Mike Alder etched in runes:
. .
. .
This would explain why my pension has gone to ratshit whilst my financial advisors, lawyers and bank managers are driving mercs and beamers.
-- John B
"Modern Capitalists" have no, and indeed should have no, say in the matter. Their function is to make stuff and make money. The unintended consequence is that they need labor, and the more of them who are successful, the more they compete for labor, both in monetery terms and in intangibles. Businesses cannot survive by being more generous than the market allows, or less.
What creates material wealth is not distribution - that mostly takes care of itself - but productivity.
As far as the partisan thing goes, it's my opinion that Democrat-driven welfare programs were structured, perhaps deliberately, to put poor women and their kids in a negative-slope poverty trap, in the borrom of a slippery economic bowl, and then convinced them to vote for the people who tossed them enough scraps to survive there.
John
Your pension? Perhaps if you'd taken care of yourself your "pension" would be fine - they have. That said, I will rely on my pension (100% vested and 100% funded) to retire (soon, I hope), though I won't stop working. The pension rules simply make it silly for me to continue to continue where I am.
-- Keith
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.