Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Yamato

Schiff: The Real State of the Union 2013

116 posts in this topic

Not but if I took a picture of one of our local soup kitchens it does not lucky that far from. Remember the dust bowl also displaced many people during the 30's. Which we have not suffered during this recession.

Worse. Likely your right. But this one isnt over yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same measure we have been using. In order to compare historical trends, you have to use the same base numbers.

No it isn't, as the video in my response 'Inflation Propaganda Exposed' proved. It used to be pretty accurate in the 1970s. They deliberately and repeatedly modify the way they calculate the data and it's turned it into a hoax that some people actually believe. If someone lives a life where they don't have to pay any of their own bills, they never go to college, and never get sick, then that person might believe the bill of goods government is selling them. Meanwhile people who live in reality and do pay for their own food, energy, health care, insurance, and education know how badly they're getting screwed and don't accept these bogus numbers for a minute.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile people who live in reality and do pay for their own food, energy, health care, insurance, and education know how badly they're getting screwed and don't accept these bogus numbers for a minute.

so show me where it's hyper-inflationary as the poster claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almost all of which was passed in the last Congress/Administration. The Bush era tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the Iraq/Afghan wars, TARP

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I believe government needed a deficit during a recession.

actually they were very unsettling, disruptive and bad times in our history. And with economies that were nothing like what we have now.

I agree with that to a point. Too big to fail. The result of GM going away would have been disastrous. Should we have too big to fail? no. I think not. If it's too big to fail then it should be broken up. That's a real failure of those government bureaucrats you hate so much.

We had a recession in 2008. You should be agreeing with the lion's share of what I posted here by condemning Obama and Co. for running massive deficits since 2010 when the recession was long over.

The result of "GM going away" wouldn't have been all bad like it never is when companies go bankrupt, it would have spawned new American car companies with zero debt and a sustainable future. There must be consequences for failure or else the economy makes no sense. The way the price fixers are running our economy, it's a completely fiat system where if the government feels like saving you, it will. If it doesn't, it won't. Why do we appreciate the opinions of liars and crooks who sell their souls to special interests? Small companies close their doors down every day. It's sad, but it's the honest, responsible, fair and transparent way to go. And they're not too big to fail.

If you don't support the Corporatocracy, then join me in condemning it. Partisan politics isn't an important enough reason to let this continue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almost all of which was passed in the last Congress/Administration. The Bush era tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the Iraq/Afghan wars, TARP

So basically, everything that's going wrong today is still Bush's fault.

Damnit, I'm a Liberal and I'm agreeing with the Republicans here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have an exaggerated notion of what a president can do, and this leads to people blaming him or her for everything that goes wrong. There are always plenty of others around willing to claim credit for things that go well, but when they go wrong the buck stops at the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have an exaggerated notion of what a president can do, and this leads to people blaming him or her for everything that goes wrong. There are always plenty of others around willing to claim credit for things that go well, but when they go wrong the buck stops at the president.

The Presidents have an exaggerated notion of what a President is supposed to be able to do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So?

You quoted the current Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The result of "GM going away" wouldn't have been all bad like it never is when companies go bankrupt,

you have no idea of what you are talking about. The shear depth that US businesses were/are linked to certain others - like GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, everything that's going wrong today is still Bush's fault.

yes it is. And it will continue for some time yet. The republicans screwed up the country so bad that it will take decades to undo.

You'll notice that originally I said the "Bush era". We note certain events by what president was there when many others were also responsible. I don't solely blame Bush.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have no idea of what you are talking about. The shear depth that US businesses were/are linked to certain others - like GM.

Spoken just like an oil lobbyist. I don't believe in statist protectionism, sorry. GM's time was up. Their demise would serve as a lesson for others not to commit the same mistakes. As the economy stands now, there is little to no responsibility, unknown accountability, and fiat consequences.

As much as bankruptcy doesn't mean "demise", even if we followed the rule of bankruptcy law in this country like we're supposed to, contracts would have been given to Ford and other automakers. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with rewarding success? The market would have been ripe for a new startup with competitive advantages GM didn't have, without the $100+billion pension debt that drove GM under. I had no idea that you believed in corporate Americana so greatly that you think they should be saved by the pockets of the innocent who had nothing to do with their failure. It's a new era of liberalism in this country. Rewarding losers and punishing winners. The economics of anti-common sense.

Your thinking is symptomatic of the Corporatocracy's mindset: If GM ceases to exist, the entire economy is doomed! Conversely, if the federal government doesn't do something, it won't get done any other way! It's either big-business and big-government in bed together, or the sky will fall. That's not even any good definition of liberal I've ever seen. It's Fascism.

We've had scores of recessions in our country's history, and we never needed this nanny-Statism that our modern day Keynesians acting more like Fascists keep claiming we do. This is the greediest most immoral generation in the history of America. I'm ashamed of what we're putting up with.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quoted the current Congress.

I did? In what reply #? It is meaningless whether these pathetic programs were started under George W. Bush or not. Isn't that enough reason to join me in opposing them? No, because it's okie dokie when Obama does it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it is. And it will continue for some time yet. The republicans screwed up the country so bad that it will take decades to undo.

You'll notice that originally I said the "Bush era". We note certain events by what president was there when many others were also responsible. I don't solely blame Bush.

375966_359649694115052_364713256_n.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so show me where it's hyper-inflationary as the poster claimed.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't exactly say we have hyper-inflation now. I said:

I'm afraid we may have what Germany had prior to WWII...runaway inflation, where money becomes essentially worthless. I'm 62 and I hope I'm not alive when and if that happens (I suspect it's more when and not so much if....although an alternate scenario is the government replaces our green currency with a different, pink- or red-colored currency, worth like a tenth as much...instantly cutting everyone's cash wealth by 90%), but I suspect I probably could be.

meaning that is one possible, and frightening, scenario. Even if we don't have that (let's hope we don't) I'm afraid we are in for a bumpy ride.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have no idea of what you are talking about. The shear depth that US businesses were/are linked to certain others - like GM.

Picking and choosing who gets bailed out has corruption oozing all over it... Get it yet?

Edited by acidhead
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The POTUS seems to be trying to help the middle class, but I think his policies are destroying the middle class.

He's not trying to help the middle class. All he's helping is himself. What he is trying to do is to combine the middle and poor classes into a controlled implement for the benefit of the state.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One group holds that the recipe needs more sugar, the other that it needs more salt. They reach a compromise. Then they go to the next ingredient and do the same thing. Over and over. One wonders what the dish will taste like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Yam, we're not suppose to concern ourselves with such things. Don't you know that Papa Bama has it all taken care of. All we need to do is admire the Emperor's new closthes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One group holds that the recipe needs more sugar, the other that it needs more salt. They reach a compromise. Then they go to the next ingredient and do the same thing. Over and over. One wonders what the dish will taste like.

Sweet and salty. How else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One group holds that the recipe needs more sugar, the other that it needs more salt. They reach a compromise. Then they go to the next ingredient and do the same thing. Over and over. One wonders what the dish will taste like.

Except when Socialism is the ingredient, there is no compromise possible. When Socialism is in the mix, it sours the recipe. The trait of Socialism is that it is like a greedy algorithm, it just keeps taking more and more from everything around it until it becomes the only ingredient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on what evidence? we are so far from runaway inflation it's not even worth discussing.

InflationNov2012.jpg

Nice graph! Now compare this to the graph of inflation in Germany (Weimar republic) pre WWII:

weimar_goldmarks_in_papermarks.png

Or the more recent Zimbabwe hyperinflation:

Zimbabwe-inflation-graph.jpg

As you can see, we are not even close to this scenario happening. I know people get scared because of the insanely large, impossible to comprehend, numbers (trillions of dollars) of debt that we have, etc. But our economy is equally just as vastly huge and impossible to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Impossible to comprehend, but not Zimbabwe."

The definition of inflation is the inflation of our money. Rising prices are just a by-product but that's what everyone defines as inflation today. We don't care how many more dollars are chasing after a flatlined or even smaller number of production because we're insulated by our capacity to borrow from foreign creditors. Everyone's got a warm buzz on, and besides we're not Zimbabwe. But that capacity does not last forever and if anyone has any sign of any politician saying anything about paying our creditors off, produce this evidence immediately so I can reevaluate. When China's economy is 70% consumption like ours is, everyone's going to wake up, no matter how badly they wanted to keep hitting that Snooze button.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken just like an oil lobbyist. I don't believe in statist protectionism, sorry. GM's time was up. Their demise would serve as a lesson for others not to commit the same mistakes. As the economy stands now, there is little to no responsibility, unknown accountability, and fiat consequences.

As much as bankruptcy doesn't mean "demise", even if we followed the rule of bankruptcy law in this country like we're supposed to, contracts would have been given to Ford and other automakers. And what's wrong with that?

Everything you said is right, except you still fail to understand the depth that GM and other car mfg's linked their suppliers. Suppliers linked to Suppliers linked to suppliers. The chain goes for a considerable number of levels. These business depended on the level above for a large part of their business, You can say it was a poor model and it is. But you're joe businessman with product X. You sell a few and live modestly. Suddenly a supplier to GM wants millions. Your business takes off like a shot. You live high on the hog and employ zillions and expand. etc. This is not isolated. The automotive supplier chains are massive. It takes a bunch of parts to make a car. And believe it or not there a thousands of businesses that make just a few of those parts. And it's a huge, if not sole, part of their business. I worked with a place that made just the timing chain for one car. It had a huge plant, with many workers. And just one link in the chain.

Car makers don't just move a car model from one to another. You won't find a GM in a Ford. The parts are unique and specialized specs to each company. "contracts would not be given to anyone" that whole sector would disappear.

I don't disagree that this is wrong to not let GM go under. The problem is they were too big. And federal regulators should have broken them up to stop it. ATT was too big and it got broken up. GM was as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of inflation is the inflation of our money. Rising prices are just a by-product but that's what everyone defines as inflation today. We don't care how many more dollars are chasing after a flatlined or even smaller number of production because we're insulated by our capacity to borrow from foreign creditors. Everyone's got a warm buzz on, and besides we're not Zimbabwe. But that capacity does not last forever n.

So you're agreeing that Hyper-inflation is hyperbole. And you're really just afraid that someday the sky will fall. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.