DescentBB

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy ... -1B7815683

looks like economic upswing is on schedule just fine. Should bode well for increased revenue, deficit reduction and, as considerable study has shown,
will keep the Dems in power for one or two decades.

Yeah, that seems to be what they're doing right now--trying to portray the political system as incompetent because of what it is and not who it is. My company experienced growth over last year (actually the last 2 quarters), but it's hard to know just how much was growth, and how much was insisting that management grow a brain and put a salesman out on the road instead of waiting for business to find us.

I don't know slick, your link contains the caveat "once Washington gets out of the way" and you suggest this conditional good news will keep Dems in power?! Kind of a conflicted prophesy considering how Dems live to get in the way!

Makes me think of all the times I've been told California is such a prosperous place...10 th largest economy in the world, all the best resources and labor and climate, it doesnt get any better than that, etc. yet the Dems took control and they can't seem to stop taxing themselves into economic failure! It's all fun and games until the Hippies actually have to run things then the fun dies and we get the bill for the burial.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't know slick, your link contains the caveat "once Washington gets out of the way" and you suggest this conditional good news will keep Dems in power?! Kind of a conflicted prophesy considering how Dems live to get in the way!

Makes me think of all the times I've been told California is such a prosperous place...10 th largest economy in the world, all the best resources and labor and climate, it doesnt get any better than that, etc. yet the Dems took control and they can't seem to stop taxing themselves into economic failure! It's all fun and games until the Hippies actually have to run things then the fun dies and we get the bill for the burial.

the GOP did better in California? Hardly, and now, as with the nation as a whole, the Dems get put in charge to try and fix the mess. That sort of ★■◆● doesn't get fixed overnight. Oh, and the reference in the article to Washington getting out of the way was referring to stuff like defaulting on the debt, or dithering over budget issues. And, yes, history does show that the party in charge when a recovery occurs will stay in charge, and it has little bearing upon ideology, nor whether that party had a damned thing to do with the recovery, by the way.

callmeslick wrote:.....
Oh, and the reference in the article to Washington getting out of the way was referring to stuff like defaulting on the debt, or dithering over budget issues.
...

I forgot, in your mind the Dems had nothing to do with any of that.

But if the media says they didn't then I guess in a sick sad way they didn't.

I hope you are correct though. A big solid recovery would be great and if it gives your team a lift i could care less. Good is good. But if you are wrong we'll end up with a cross between David Duke and Paul Ryan for an equally long run....

And remember just who it is that makes up this team you are betting on. Disturbing.

Recession started in July people.

http://www.businesscycle.com/ecri-news- ... sion-start

hilarious article, Heretic. Paraphrased, it states: We were wrong about a recession last year, wrong again early this year, but trust us, even though we don't base our declaration on anything near traditionally accepted definitions of a recession, now we're correct.
Priceless. Utterly wrong, and completely amateurish, but priceless.

To will, please note that I nowhere suggested that the Dems were blameless, I merely stated historical data from democracies around the world, studied for over 100 years, that suggests that economic recoveries retrench whatever party is holding power when they occur.

We'll never know... but:

I really think that an upswing is on its way no matter who is in power (or was for the last four years). I think the difference will be how long it lasts and how high it goes... which, again, we'll never really know.

Yeah, I think an upswing is on the way to. Along with 10$ gallon of gas and 8 dollar gallons of milk...............etc.

economics is cyclical, so an upswing is not only likely in place, but is damn near predictable. That was true in mid 2009, which was the time to buy US stocks.

Did anyone else see the WSJ article suggesting that the treasury print itself a few trillion to avoid the fiscal cliff? Great idea guys!

missed that.....link, for the sake of my laziness?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... 04653.html


From my phone sorry about the crappy formatting and mobile site.

Thanks, snoopy! Ok, that idea is dealing less with the fiscal criff than the debt crisis. Yes, it is sort of goofy, but as the article states, no less so than threatening to default the nation's credit for ideological stupidity.

Think the Dems will resort to using this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 86442.html

tunnelcat wrote:Think the Dems will resort to using this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 86442.html

Politicians don't 'resort' to anything. They rationalize and then while gloating at their perceived brilliance they simply 'do'.

tunnelcat wrote:Think the Dems will resort to using this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 86442.html

the 14th has long been considered to make this whole 'debt ceiling' thing unconstitutional, never been tested, yet.

Whole thing reads.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Obama says he will not bypass Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 10398.html

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Think the Dems will resort to using this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 86442.html

Politicians don't 'resort' to anything. They rationalize and then while gloating at their perceived brilliance they simply 'do'.

You don't give them enough credit. I think they're smarter than you think they are. It's more of a political game to most of them. They're just playing the game to best each other and win. The common people don't matter until the vote comes up. I'm betting Obama will play hardball and bypass Congress if they don't come up with a solution.

this should be getting discussed to death at the Inaugural bashes, after a few drinks are consumed. Of course, if the background music this time is as loud as the last one(Maroon Five), I likely won't be able to hear what is said. I suspect that you are right, TC, this time around, they will simply and publicly ignore Congress, bypass the artificial 'limit' and pay the debts, so as not to cause a ratings bump or other economic calamity. In so doing, no doubt, the GOP hardliners are going to get a public reaming, and rightly so. It seems clear that Obama has now learned that he can take a commonsense case to the public with very good results.

Don’t you mean bypass the limits and “raise” the debt?

Sounds just like when someone makes the stupid mistake of using one credit card to pay off another...usually means the beginning of the end.

Edited

callmeslick wrote:It seems clear that Obama has now learned that he can take a commonsense case to the public with very good results.

You know, everything his administration does is about re-framing issues and debates so that their solutions are acceptable. I think sometimes people may kind of separate politics from reality (and anything else we're exposed to so primarily through media which is so other-than our day-to-day grind), but my opinion of people that engage in that level of deception is they're total dog ★■◆●. I wouldn't give them the time of day except to demonstrate to any ignorant onlookers just exactly what they are. It just doesn't get much lower than being willing to engage in deception under the guise of transparency and truth to get your way (and that at the highest office in our country). Maybe you can look beyond that... if you can, I'd say you need to reacquaint yourself with reality. No good will come of it.

Spidey wrote:Don’t you mean bypass the limits and “raise” the debt?

not really. The debt has been incurred, and the 'ceiling' doesn't take into account ongoing interest payments.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:It seems clear that Obama has now learned that he can take a commonsense case to the public with very good results.

You know, everything his administration does is about re-framing issues and debates so that their solutions are acceptable. I think sometimes people may kind of separate politics from reality (and anything else we're exposed to so primarily through media which is so other-than our day-to-day grind), but my opinion of people that engage in that level of deception is they're total dog ****. I wouldn't give them the time of day except to demonstrate to any ignorant onlookers just exactly what they are. It just doesn't get much lower than being willing to engage in deception under the guise of transparency and truth to get your way (and that at the highest office in our country). Maybe you can look beyond that... if you can, I'd say you need to reacquaint yourself with reality. No good will come of it.

what you are describing, though, isn't deception in the least. It's a straightforward debate--framing issues so as to explain logical solutions. One can differ, but one cannot call it deception merely because one disagrees.

One is not calling it deception because one "disagrees", God damnit. One is calling it deception because the bastards leave inconvenient aspects out entirely--remaking reality so that it doesn't conflict with their agendas.

I did say re-framing. This re-framing is not introducing new learning, or explaining why an existing understanding is incorrect. What it is, is taking advantage of people's short memories and lack of experience in order to convince them of something which only holds up to a cursory examination or resonates on a shallow emotional level, but serves the author's purpose. It is terribly irresponsible at the very best, and this ain't the very best--these folks know better. I dare say you do too. Maybe you should be more careful in the future.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:One is not calling it deception because one "disagrees", God damnit. One is calling it deception because the bastards leave inconvenient aspects out entirely--remaking reality so that it doesn't conflict with their agendas.

I did say re-framing. This re-framing is not introducing new learning, or explaining why an existing understanding is incorrect. What it is, is taking advantage of people's short memories and lack of experience in order to convince them of something which only holds up to a cursory examination or resonates on a shallow emotional level, but serves the author's purpose. It is terribly irresponsible at the very best, and this ain't the very best--these folks know better. I dare say you do too. Maybe you should be more careful in the future.

rant all you want......I'd like you to provide examples of where they have done more than re-frame, explain a rationale or otherwise perform a straightforward debate tactic. What should I be careful about, Thorne? Pointing out the truth?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:One is not calling it deception because one "disagrees", God damnit. One is calling it deception because the bastards leave inconvenient aspects out entirely--remaking reality so that it doesn't conflict with their agendas.

I did say re-framing. This re-framing is not introducing new learning, or explaining why an existing understanding is incorrect. What it is, is taking advantage of people's short memories and lack of experience in order to convince them of something which only holds up to a cursory examination or resonates on a shallow emotional level, but serves the author's purpose. It is terribly irresponsible at the very best, and this ain't the very best--these folks know better. I dare say you do too. Maybe you should be more careful in the future.

rant all you want......I'd like you to provide examples of where they have done more than re-frame, explain a rationale or otherwise perform a straightforward debate tactic. What should I be careful about, Thorne? Pointing out the truth?

So in the zimmerman case, saying how one wishes the victim were his son, or calling white cops arresting a black professor as racist...is somehow a rational debate tactic?

woodchip wrote:So in the zimmerman case, saying how one wishes the victim were his son,

which victim??? the one that got attacked and assaulted?? or the one that got shot??

woodchip wrote:So in the zimmerman case, saying how one wishes the victim were his son, or calling white cops arresting a black professor as racist...is somehow a rational debate tactic?

those were not the recent ( I used the words 'of late') efforts to take issues to the public, nor were they, I believe what Thorne was attempting to address. Feel free to share your petty little squabbles with the President's style with us all you want, though.

Also sprach NBC News. You're going to have to come up with something better than that. I'm not convinced.