- CuteOldGuy
- 07-27-2012, 11:58 PM
Are you serious? You want to have a contest to determine the stupidest post? Here? On this board?
- joe bloe
- 07-28-2012, 12:09 AM
we need to have a poll Originally Posted by cptjohnstoneI would nominate AF Freakin, except he's more than just stupid. He's so blinded by hatred, he's in a special category.
On a good day, Fast Gunn is tough to beat. What makes Fast Gunn's stupidity so special is that he posts incredibly stupid observations and you can tell he thinks he's being profound.
- Laz
- 07-28-2012, 01:23 AM
This could get entertaining.
- Seedy
- 07-28-2012, 02:14 AM
Are you serious? You want to have a contest to determine the stupidest post? Here? On this board?Fuckin A right, now that would be a kick in the head, and good for some serious laughs
This could get entertaining. Originally Posted by LazIt for sure has serious potential....LMFAO
- Sidewinder
- 07-28-2012, 02:40 AM
2.The US didn't do much to defeat Germany because the combat power of US foreces was pathetically so low...because of lack of morale, bad equipment, and so forth. It was the Soviet Union which really defeated the Germans. Originally Posted by theaustinescortsUtter bullcrap.
How the bleep did you pass World History without learning about Normandy and D-Day?
- joe bloe
- 07-28-2012, 09:12 AM
- Texas Contrarian
- 07-28-2012, 10:23 AM
The real surprise is not that the economy is stuck in a depressing slow-growth rut; it's that anyone is really all that surprised. That's what happens when you continue pummeling an economy with bad policy choices year after year.
From World War II up until 2008, our recessions were essentially cyclical in nature and could be ended with the passage of time, often boosted by a little Fed loosening. Now the problems are deep and structural, and even four years of near-zero short rates and multiple rounds of QE appear not to have helped much.
The problem has been brewing for many years. We've accumulated about $8 trillion of balance-of-payments (mostly trade) deficits over the last 35 years. That is, of course, separate from the multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits we've racked up in recent years, although the two obviously go hand-in-hand. As a nation, we have been living way beyond our means for a long time, and now the bills are coming due. There's no easy way out, notwithstanding what vote-buying politicians and clueless academic economists may try to tell you about "stimulus packages" and "jobs programs."
For most of the '00s, the problem was covered up by a debt-fueled and obviously unsustainable consumption boom. It should be noted that we increased federal spending by about 60% in nominal dollars during the first seven Bush years, and that binge occurred before TARP and other "crisis spending" in FY 2009. Absent that, the growth rate would have been painfully low, as it is now. But the resuscitation of another debt-fueled mini-boom would do nothing more than kick the can down the road a little further and set the stage for an even bigger bust when it becomes clear that it can no longer be sustained.
No one has even made a serious attempt to address the most critical problems facing us.
The tax code is a complete mess. In fact, it's a national embarrassment. We need something that looks like it was designed on purpose; not a clusterfuck which started out as a mess and had more and more junk added over the last 25 years.
We need to get serious about long-term entitlement reform. If we do nothing, the resulting fiscal crises or the tax burden necessary to finance Medicare and Medicaid will crush the economy and render prospects for robust long-term economic growth virtually nil.
We need to fix trade policy. That's hard to do, but it must be done. Failing to do so will permanently doom our struggling economy to also-ran status. A number of issues need to be addressed here.
We need to reform defense budgeting. We must provide for our national security and for the individuals (and their families) who serve in our armed forces, not for every politically-connected contactor with an army of highly-paid K Street lobbyists. If something expensive is going to be purchased or contracted for, it needs to be justifiable.
We need to fix health care reform in such a way that there are actually incentives to control costs. Subsidizing and expanding an already very expensive and inefficient system does the reverse.
Most of all, in my view, we need to actually reform the financial system, not just pass the confused, phony, do-nothing Dodd-Frank and call it a day. The first priority in 2009 should have been to design a new version of something similar to Glass-Steagall, adjusted and updated for the 21st century. Most urgently, something should have been done about too-big-to-fail (TBTF). Now the biggest of the TBTF banks (B of A, JPM. Citi, Wells, Goldman, and a couple of others) are 50-60% bigger than they were five years ago! They all know that the Fed and the Treasury have their backs if there are any sudden and inconvenient interest rate shocks, or if anything else unexpected happens. They still figure they can make "heads we win, tails taxpayers lose" bets with other people's money, maintaining huge bonus pools for those at the top of the food chain.
The financial system is still extraordinarily vulnerable to exogenous shocks. And I don't think politicians are going to do much of anything to mitigate the risks unless (until?) the next blowup causes an outraged public to demand real reform. As with so many other things, just follow the money. Big financial interests keep both parties very nicely lubricated.
Regarding the financial system, as well as the economy as a whole, addressing the few items I mentioned would simply amount to scratching the surface.
A whole lot more really needs to be done. Most of it is very difficult and impolitic. That's why I've written that what we really need is the government equivalent of a superstar corporate turnaround expert, not just another pandering politician.
Unfortunately, both Obama and Romney fall into the latter category.
From World War II up until 2008, our recessions were essentially cyclical in nature and could be ended with the passage of time, often boosted by a little Fed loosening. Now the problems are deep and structural, and even four years of near-zero short rates and multiple rounds of QE appear not to have helped much.
The problem has been brewing for many years. We've accumulated about $8 trillion of balance-of-payments (mostly trade) deficits over the last 35 years. That is, of course, separate from the multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits we've racked up in recent years, although the two obviously go hand-in-hand. As a nation, we have been living way beyond our means for a long time, and now the bills are coming due. There's no easy way out, notwithstanding what vote-buying politicians and clueless academic economists may try to tell you about "stimulus packages" and "jobs programs."
For most of the '00s, the problem was covered up by a debt-fueled and obviously unsustainable consumption boom. It should be noted that we increased federal spending by about 60% in nominal dollars during the first seven Bush years, and that binge occurred before TARP and other "crisis spending" in FY 2009. Absent that, the growth rate would have been painfully low, as it is now. But the resuscitation of another debt-fueled mini-boom would do nothing more than kick the can down the road a little further and set the stage for an even bigger bust when it becomes clear that it can no longer be sustained.
No one has even made a serious attempt to address the most critical problems facing us.
The tax code is a complete mess. In fact, it's a national embarrassment. We need something that looks like it was designed on purpose; not a clusterfuck which started out as a mess and had more and more junk added over the last 25 years.
We need to get serious about long-term entitlement reform. If we do nothing, the resulting fiscal crises or the tax burden necessary to finance Medicare and Medicaid will crush the economy and render prospects for robust long-term economic growth virtually nil.
We need to fix trade policy. That's hard to do, but it must be done. Failing to do so will permanently doom our struggling economy to also-ran status. A number of issues need to be addressed here.
We need to reform defense budgeting. We must provide for our national security and for the individuals (and their families) who serve in our armed forces, not for every politically-connected contactor with an army of highly-paid K Street lobbyists. If something expensive is going to be purchased or contracted for, it needs to be justifiable.
We need to fix health care reform in such a way that there are actually incentives to control costs. Subsidizing and expanding an already very expensive and inefficient system does the reverse.
Most of all, in my view, we need to actually reform the financial system, not just pass the confused, phony, do-nothing Dodd-Frank and call it a day. The first priority in 2009 should have been to design a new version of something similar to Glass-Steagall, adjusted and updated for the 21st century. Most urgently, something should have been done about too-big-to-fail (TBTF). Now the biggest of the TBTF banks (B of A, JPM. Citi, Wells, Goldman, and a couple of others) are 50-60% bigger than they were five years ago! They all know that the Fed and the Treasury have their backs if there are any sudden and inconvenient interest rate shocks, or if anything else unexpected happens. They still figure they can make "heads we win, tails taxpayers lose" bets with other people's money, maintaining huge bonus pools for those at the top of the food chain.
The financial system is still extraordinarily vulnerable to exogenous shocks. And I don't think politicians are going to do much of anything to mitigate the risks unless (until?) the next blowup causes an outraged public to demand real reform. As with so many other things, just follow the money. Big financial interests keep both parties very nicely lubricated.
Regarding the financial system, as well as the economy as a whole, addressing the few items I mentioned would simply amount to scratching the surface.
A whole lot more really needs to be done. Most of it is very difficult and impolitic. That's why I've written that what we really need is the government equivalent of a superstar corporate turnaround expert, not just another pandering politician.
Unfortunately, both Obama and Romney fall into the latter category.
- joe bloe
- 07-28-2012, 10:49 AM
Great post. I agree completely. We have gotten ourselves into one Hell of a mess. We're not going to get back on course by fine tuning or tweaking the system. Major changes need to be made. You mentioned that what needs to be done is impolitic; that is the heart of the problem. We have existing policy that was driven by politics, not because it made sense.
I'm afraid the actions that need to be taken are not politically possible, and consequently will not be taken. This is going to get very ugly.
I'm afraid the actions that need to be taken are not politically possible, and consequently will not be taken. This is going to get very ugly.
- icuminpeace
- 07-28-2012, 01:17 PM
CaptainMIdnight - I totally agree. Great post. Which is why I can't understand the love for Romney. The changes the country needs neither party will make because they will lose power. We're stuck in an institutional dictatorship ruled by the same people. The two-party system is an illusion of choice to keep the people divided. We should stop fighting and taking sides with the parties, the only side we should take is OUR side. I find it laughable how people on this board defend their party and their candidates, when the reality is we're in the same car, with two drivers going down the same road. Both drivers take turns at the wheel but won't take the detour needed to go down the RIGHT road.
- CJ7
- 07-28-2012, 01:27 PM
thanks for the insight CM .. spot on, IMO.
when you remove the names of the candidates, and their party affiliation, and simply list the effects of their projected policies on the economy, Romney's answer for the economy adds approx 25% MORE to the debt picture than Obie's current policies if left in place and nothing changes ..
question being, who wants whats better for the economy and who wants another president, regardless ??
when you remove the names of the candidates, and their party affiliation, and simply list the effects of their projected policies on the economy, Romney's answer for the economy adds approx 25% MORE to the debt picture than Obie's current policies if left in place and nothing changes ..
question being, who wants whats better for the economy and who wants another president, regardless ??
- joe bloe
- 07-28-2012, 01:44 PM
CaptainMIdnight - I totally agree. Great post. Which is why I can't understand the love for Romney. The changes the country needs neither party will make because they will lose power. We're stuck in an institutional dictatorship ruled by the same people. The two-party system is an illusion of choice to keep the people divided. We should stop fighting and taking sides with the parties, the only side we should take is OUR side. I find it laughable how people on this board defend their party and their candidates, when the reality is we're in the same car, with two drivers going down the same road. Both drivers take turns at the wheel but won't take the detour needed to go down the RIGHT road. Originally Posted by icuminpeaceI freely admit that neither party is likely to take the actions that are needed to solve the problems we face. Having said that, I am still left with the choice of Romney or Obama. One of them is going to win. As imperfect as Romney is, he is better than Obama.
At the end of the day, we can't really just blame the politicians for our predicament. If Romney woke up tomorrow, and started proposing the sort of actions that would actually prevent the coming economic collapse, his approval ratings would plummet; Obama would win in a landslide.
The necessary actions are probably not politically possible. Like Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
- CJ7
- 07-28-2012, 02:49 PM
I freely admit that neither party is likely to take the actions that are needed to solve the problems we face. Having said that, I am still left with the choice of Romney or Obama. One of them is going to win. As imperfect as Romney is, he is better than Obama.
At the end of the day, we can't really just blame the politicians for our predicament. If Romney woke up tomorrow, and started proposing the sort of actions that would actually prevent the coming economic collapse, his approval ratings would plummet; Obama would win in a landslide.
The necessary actions are probably not politically possible. Like Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
not from a fiscal standpoint ... Romney sucks 25% more than Obie does
welcome to the hypocritical regardless club
- theaustinescorts
- 07-28-2012, 08:07 PM
Utter bullcrap.To be specific the US units that landed at Normany had less than 30 percent of the combat power they were supposed to have had, and 90 percent of the American soldiers hadn't even fired their weapons on the first day. The success at Normany came despite these shortcomings.
How the bleep did you pass World History without learning about Normandy and D-Day? Originally Posted by Sidewinder
This as opposed to the British units in their sectors which landed with the full combat powers they were supposed to have.
The combat power of US units in France was so low that they could not advance against German units even when they held far superior numbers. That's why tactical air was brought in to bomb German armour, and it was US airpower that was responsible for 80 percent of German casualties in Germany. Low US combat power was a result of low morale [60 percent of US soldiers were draftees] combined with inferior tanks.
Read any history on the topic.
And stop watching hollywood movies.
- Laz
- 07-28-2012, 08:16 PM
To be specific the US units that landed at Normany had less than 30 percent of the combat power they were supposed to have had, and 90 percent of the American soldiers hadn't even fired their weapons on the first day. The success at Normany came despite these shortcomings.What an idiot. To stupid to even try to argue with.
This as opposed to the British units in their sectors which landed with the full combat powers they were supposed to have.
The combat power of US units in France was so low that they could not advance against German units even when they held far superior numbers. That's why tactical air was brought in to bomb German armour, and it was US airpower that was responsible for 80 percent of German casualties in Germany. Low US combat power was a result of low morale [60 percent of US soldiers were draftees] combined with inferior tanks.
Read any history on the topic.
And stop watching hollywood movies. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
- essence
- 07-28-2012, 11:35 PM
It was only after reading this thread that I discovered tae is Norwegian. Really? Is he trying to pull our legs?
Tae:
I am norwegian, and norway is the greatest nation on earth, and has a great education system, which can be demonstrated by the fact that I, a clearly super intelligent person, consider Norway to be a great country.
Some facts:
- I've known and worked with many Norwegians, and have taken holidays there.
- prostitution is illegal there (I tried to take a girl into a hotel in oslo once, but the guy at the desk said he would call the police if i did, so we went back to her place and enjoyed a lovely conversation).
- not sure why tae is pimping if he thinks Norway is so great but prostitution is illegal
- Norway gets most of its wealth from oil, it was just the luck of the geology, not because of their industry
- ever read Ibsen?
- Grieg's piano concerto is the most irritating chocolate box rubbish
- Norwegians are very very stubborn and insular
- a significant number of Norwegians were collaborators
- Norwegians do not make good travellers (as evidenced), they are always running back to their wonderful country (thank God, hint hint tae).
- Norwegians are very keen on the 'team'. Because they come from a village culture, they want to make all decisions as a team or town hall meeting, which means nothing is ever decided. They do not take kindly to any outsiders or anybody with any imagination or slightly eccentric. They only occasionally travel outside their village, so are uncomfortable with other cultures.
- Never never never make the most mild criticism of Norway to a Norwegian. They go beserk.
- They welcome refugees, but send them to the farthest Northern corner to 'encourage the others'.
Despite all that, I get on very well with most Norwegians. The one thing you can say is that they tell it how they see it, they are not slimy politicians.
Tae:
I am norwegian, and norway is the greatest nation on earth, and has a great education system, which can be demonstrated by the fact that I, a clearly super intelligent person, consider Norway to be a great country.
Some facts:
- I've known and worked with many Norwegians, and have taken holidays there.
- prostitution is illegal there (I tried to take a girl into a hotel in oslo once, but the guy at the desk said he would call the police if i did, so we went back to her place and enjoyed a lovely conversation).
- not sure why tae is pimping if he thinks Norway is so great but prostitution is illegal
- Norway gets most of its wealth from oil, it was just the luck of the geology, not because of their industry
- ever read Ibsen?
- Grieg's piano concerto is the most irritating chocolate box rubbish
- Norwegians are very very stubborn and insular
- a significant number of Norwegians were collaborators
- Norwegians do not make good travellers (as evidenced), they are always running back to their wonderful country (thank God, hint hint tae).
- Norwegians are very keen on the 'team'. Because they come from a village culture, they want to make all decisions as a team or town hall meeting, which means nothing is ever decided. They do not take kindly to any outsiders or anybody with any imagination or slightly eccentric. They only occasionally travel outside their village, so are uncomfortable with other cultures.
- Never never never make the most mild criticism of Norway to a Norwegian. They go beserk.
- They welcome refugees, but send them to the farthest Northern corner to 'encourage the others'.
Despite all that, I get on very well with most Norwegians. The one thing you can say is that they tell it how they see it, they are not slimy politicians.