The Housing Bubble

We NEED something to look up to…and NASA’s budget is such a tiny piece and the ROI is incredible….

In fact its one of the few thing governments can do that’s well worth the money…new products new technology…

2. The Apollo 11 computers had less processing power than a cellphone.

Comment by aNYCdj
2012-10-15 08:53:03
You NEED something to look up to…
——————

There fixed it for you.

I love space….had telescopes for years thinking of getting another i have a great view of the new WTC…and a dark yard once the tree loses its leaves… also have a classic magnavox Short wave receiver, how many kids today even know what one is?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MAGNAVOX-PHLIPS-D2999-WORLD-RECEIVER-EXCELLENT-/271081585359?pt=US_Ham_Radio_Receivers&hash=item3f1db8bacf

aNYCdj, economics should drive such things. Not this silly fantasy you people have about moons, planets and stars. And there is an economic argument, ultimately: The wealth of the solar system is so vast that an entire Earth’s worth of material wealth could be allocated to every person alive at the moment. The only clincher is that it takes massive, real investment to bootstrap a group of settlers into space. Humanity is unwilling to make such an investment, particularly since there’s no way to recover the investment by investors who remain behind.

I wrote a paper for a government class about the NASA overall game plan which, at the time, called for a permanent manned space station and then on to manned exploration of Mars.

My conclusions were that no one had even started the process to figure out if there were valid science or economic reasons to do it. No good studies of what could be gained by the process. Nothing. And back then, when computer based research was tough to non-existant, I had access to all of Robert Jastrow’s files - well, the non-classified ones. All his magazine and journal clippings and he got all the important ones.

A year or more later a government panel wrote a report that came to the same conclusion after a process that was significantly more long and involved than a 19 year old writing a class paper. Professor gave me a B+. Said the conclusion was too wishy washy.

The where is my Ohbewanna Phone, and my $3000 stimulus EBT card so I can get in on the action and buy a new laptop?

Lookie at all the green jobs we created and with so much government money too…..

2000 dead to save the poppy fields from the taliban….is that a good investment?

————–
aNYCdj, economics should drive such things. Not this silly fantasy you people have about moons

Maybe it’s similar to Mallory’s reason for wanting to climb Everest.

Humanity is unwilling to make such an investment, particularly since there’s no way to recover the investment by investors who remain behind.

So you’re saying we’re the proverbial monkeys trying to pull the potential escapees back down to our level?

A disheartening bunch of replies here. Have we all become so jaded and incurious that space exploration can only be justified by its potential economic return? Are our nation’s aspirational priorties really this pedestrian ?

The processes and engineering challenges posed and met by NASA over the years have lain the groudwork, and in many cases the actual infrastructure, for most of the technological innovations and scientific advances of the last fifty years. Moreover, NASA serves as a National Repository and Sanctuary for many of our finest minds. That fact alone is reason to keep its funding a priority.

When mankind stops wondering, stops looking beyond the beyond and facing down the unknown, we truly are doomed as a species. But look! Here comes Honey Boo Boo.

Personally, I liked Newt’s idea of a moon base. Could have worked out a lot of the problems for biospheres and close enough to bail if something went drastically wrong. As a kid I remember that lack of water was always the reason it could not be done as getting enough water out of the earth’s atmosphere and to the moon would take too much fuel. Turns out there is already water on the moon.

“Could have worked out a lot of the problems for biospheres and close enough to bail if something went drastically wrong.”

Some folks already tried that.

Heaven’s Gate Cult Initiation Tape Part 1
Heaven’s Gate Cult Initiation Tape Part 2

Dale, the lunar base is necessary if you actually plan on colonizing off the Earth. The moon is Humanity’s factory floor. The gravity well is light enough, combined with the lack of atmosphere, to make it economically viable to export materials and products from the lunar surface. The lunar regolith is chock full of aluminum, oxygen, iron, silicon, calcium and so on, and all you need to do is just scoop it up, since it’s the 2nd best pulverized ore body known to man (the first being Earth’s oceans, of course).

But since nobody is really applying economic laws to the pursuit of space efforts, nothing will come from it. Humans only act on these scales for economic reasons. There are no other reasons and it’s extremely foolish to claim there are.

It’s sad to see that even here on the HBB, people are so profoundly mal-educated that they believe the US and EU space programs are being run for anything other than deceitful economic reasons. All space efforts are pursued because some rich aerospace industrialist gets a fat paycheck from it. Again, there are no other reasons. And that fully explains why NOTHING made for space operations is kept around like real infrastructure, with the exception of a few launch gantries. Nothing put into space lasts. Everything put into space is soon enough destroyed. It’s a modern form of POTLATCH, really. Pumping money into equipment that just gets destroyed is the hallmark of the bastards in the military-industrial complex.

The ISS will be allowed to re-enter and be destroyed, soon enough, for example. No space stations are preserved, even at launch costs of $10000 per kilogram. That colossal waste tells you all you need to know about why and who.

How difficult/practical would it be to move the ISS to the lunar surface and anchor it there? What do they do on the ISS anyway?

“Some folks already tried that.”

Yes, but if you take away their ability to “cheat”, by say - pumping in extra oxygen, it might be a little more credible. Up there it would be for real and not just some publicity stunt.

Here is one unfortunate past use for a Rancho Santa Fe mansion:

CNN: Heaven’s Gate suicides remembered

ahansen, I could not agree more. We’re at a grim pass. Scientists are dying out because there are vanishingly few ways to make a living at it. Without the fundamental discoveries, engineers have no grist to work with, even assuming there WAS a real demand for their capabilities. “Software engineers” - the only ones who are making a living before being aged out - are not engineers in the traditional sense of building a bridge, or a water system or - for that matter - a metal pot.

The space program used to be a place where a scientist or engineer who knew how to make things, or who was drawn by the mysteries of the electromagnetic spectrum, could go to make an honorable living. Thus keeping those capabilities alive.

One of these days the psychopaths that run things will push the red button, and we will blow one another to smithereens. At a point where things stop cooking, enough to start rebuilding, we will wish we knew how to do it.

I want to see a bankster figuring out how to design and build a viaduct, such as the Romans engineers built, that is still working 800 years later. With all of our bluster, we cannot duplicate that feat today - that knowledge was lost, and it has not been recovered.

In Einstein’s famous words, after the great cookoff, we will fight the local starvation wars with sticks and stones.

That’s the limiting case applied to the war on critical thinking.

Dammit! I missed this continuation!

Those stupid Swedes must be miserable with their socialist health, right?

Countries reporting the highest levels of life satisfaction per the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development:

1- Denmark
2- Norway
3- Netherlands
4- Switzerland
5- Austria
6- Israel
7- Finland
8- Australia
9- Canada
10- Sweden

Notice a pattern with these? They ALL have marxist communist socialist nationalized health care.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html?page=all

High levels of life satisfaction is commie.

In that case they should take care of (and pay for) policing the world instead of us. No more interference in Libya/Syria/Iraq/Iran/Egypt by the US.. It’s Denmark’s job dammit!

“And btw, taxes are just costs passed on to the customer. If taxes are cut, will these corporations cut their prices accordingly, or will they simply feed the extra profit to the Bottomless Stockholder Maw?”

Assuming that the corporation is in a competitive industry, prices eventually get cut, though it may take a while. Think gas prices- they go up quickly when crude prices go up and they do eventually come down after crude prices drop.

If the corporations always kept all the extra profit then gas prices would NEVER come down.

I can’t agree. Gas prices are rising according to a classic “three steps forward, two steps back” pattern. They make it look like gas prices drop, but in the end they always take a step forward.

Anyway, taxes aren’t the ONLY variable in the price of gas, or anything else. So 2banana’s original assumption — that low taxes are necessary and sufficient for thriving business — makes this a moot discussion.

Besides, I’m not sure that this push for low taxes is really about taxes and the role of government. It’s more about cutting costs, raising profits, and feeding the Bottomless Stockholder Maw. After outsourcing, cutting retirment and benefits, rightsizing etc, automatization, mergers, and bullying the Fed into lowering tax rates to near zero, etc., what costs are left to cut? Taxes and regulations. They are just phrasing this cost cut as “Business-friendly vs. Evil government” as a frame to buy Congress and to trick the little guy into screwing himself.

Mathguy

Canada has also been holding up it’s end of the stick with the USA. Air, land, and sea forces in Afganishtan; we were in command of the Libya fight; helped you with our elite in Iraq (your President gave a unit decoration to our CTF22 corp for saving some American elite combatants). Your not in Syria or Eygpt - yet. Nor are we.

With the greatest respect to our deceased heros I sure hope you are not implying Canada is a “free cheese” state.

We are a law abiding country who believes in protecting the equal rights of others.

Patrick… I’m good with that.. We need to get our house in order here in the US, so I think we will just withdraw from the world for a bit and let you guys in Canada handle things mmmkay? If you need any help, just ask Denmark, Finland, and Sweden to pony up.

Mathguy

Not a problem. I think you guys have done more than your share anyway.

Besides, we’ll be using Made in USA equipment so you’ll still be there.

How about using Ireland as an example?

I thought Ireland’s economy wasn’t doing so hot at the moment.

Companies have figured out that jobs make very effective cost-cut hostages. Lower our taxes or you don’t get any jobs (trade orgs). Let us bring our offshore profits on shore, and we’ll use the money to create jobs. Let us merge with another company into a semi-monopoly, and we’ll create 5000 jobs (AT&T). Let us build this pipeline so we can export crude oil and that will create X number of temp jobs (Keystone). Get rid of these regulations or we’ll have to cut jobs to pay for regulatory compliance (coal industry). If your union goes on strike at our facility, we’ll pakc up and ship ALL the jobs the China (happened to a friend of mine at Martin Marietta). If you give us bunches of tax breaks, we’ll choose to create jobs in YOUR city instead of some other city. Vote for this pro-gambling referendum and the casinos will create Jobs (Question 7 in Maryland).

Funny that companies seemed to do well enough with higher taxes in previous decades. And through all of this, companies seem to be squeaking by with plenty of profit even now. This has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with the Bottomless Stockholder Maw. Jobs are just a bargaining chip.

Yeah - you are right.

And they are right in the cross hair for obama’s tax massive increases. Because they are the “rich” and need to pay their fair share.

Funny how that works. No jobs seem to be created when you tax the snot out of the people that historically create jobs…

Oh, and bananas, the overwhelming majority of small businesses don’t pay corporate tax at all. They are included in the owner’s individual taxes after being reported on schedule C.

Yes Polly I made a mistake, but if we eliminated this by no corporate income taxes on profits, what do you think would happen?

They don’t get credits for running up losses. They get to carry forward and carry back losses as deductions. The difference in theory and effect is giant.

“if we eliminated this by no corporate income taxes on profits, what do you think would happen?”

Massive tax avoidance through the use of corporate structures and much, much more wealth concentration because the owners of capital will have even more incentive to keep the money in the corporation even if the company has nothing useful to do with the money.

And bananas? Those income tax increases are about to happen because Bush intended his tax decreases to be temporary. The president would like to keep them down for almost everyone in the country, including something like 97% of small businesses because they DON’T make close to enough money to be impacted by the increases that Bush included in his plan that the President would like to leave in place. I help some friends of mine with their taxes. They have two small businesses. Income for both of those businesses together is less than $20K a year.

“No jobs seem to be created when you give tax breaks to the people that historically create jobs…”

Fixed it for you.

Corporate taxes are at a 40 year low.

it’s not about the (tax) rates, it’s about the philosophy.

No it is not. It is about the rates. The rates drive the philosophy, not the other way around. This is why one track, narrow minded, dogmatic thinking drives so many people crazy.

For example: When taxes are 99% and there is no economic growth, the philosophy on what should be done is different than the philosophy of when taxes are 1% and (because of anarchy and no structure and rules) there is no economic growth.

It’s like the “philosophy” of salt. The “philosophy of salt” changes when there is too much or too little salt in the food.

How do you know that he would have said the same thing if the numbers were different? The words of all people have to be taken in context, including the words of politicians.

Besides, since the “philosophy” is blatantly false if you move to 0% tax rate since 0% of anything is still zero, the context is obviously required.

Look, John Kennedy was a staunch anti-communist and always an American first. He cared about the economy, he cared about the middle class and businesses. John Kennedy was not out to “Fundamentally change America”, he could read the writing on the wall and used basic economic principals to bring about economic growth.

How do you know that he would have said the same thing if the numbers were different? The words of all people have to be taken in context,

There it is.

“Besides, since the “philosophy” is blatantly false”

False only to University Indoctrinated Anti-capitalists who continue to expose themselves with every comment. The armchair commies need to slow down and admit they were programmed. Programmed by malcontents in the education establishment bent on the destruction of America and the western way of life.

“if you move to 0% tax rate since 0% of anything is still zero, the context is obviously required.”

Context? You are the only one posting the number 0, a number that any rational person would understand without context.

Inequality and the world economy
True Progressivism
A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth
Oct 13th 2012 | from the print edition

BY THE end of the 19th century, the first age of globalisation and a spate of new inventions had transformed the world economy. But the “Gilded Age” was also a famously unequal one, with America’s robber barons and Europe’s “Downton Abbey” classes amassing huge wealth: the concept of “conspicuous consumption” dates back to 1899. The rising gap between rich and poor (and the fear of socialist revolution) spawned a wave of reforms, from Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting to Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Governments promoted competition, introduced progressive taxation and wove the first threads of a social safety net. The aim of this new “Progressive era”, as it was known in America, was to make society fairer without reducing its entrepreneurial vim.

Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention—to come up with ways of mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth. That dilemma is already at the centre of political debate, but it mostly produces heat, not light. Thus, on America’s campaign trail, the left attacks Mitt Romney as a robber baron and the right derides Barack Obama as a class warrior. In some European countries politicians have simply given in to the mob: witness François Hollande’s proposed 75% income-tax rate. In much of the emerging world leaders would rather sweep the issue of inequality under the carpet: witness China’s nervous embarrassment about the excesses of Ferrari-driving princelings, or India’s refusal to tackle corruption.

At the core, there is a failure of ideas. The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income-tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further—unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments, already far bigger than Roosevelt or Lloyd George could have imagined, are overburdened with promises of future largesse. A far more dramatic rethink is needed: call it True Progressivism.

To have or to have not

Does inequality really need to be tackled? The twin forces of globalisation and technical innovation have actually narrowed inequality globally, as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. But within many countries income gaps have widened. More than two-thirds of the world’s people live in countries where income disparities have risen since 1980, often to a startling degree. In America the share of national income going to the top 0.01% (some 16,000 families) has risen from just over 1% in 1980 to almost 5% now—an even bigger slice than the top 0.01% got in the Gilded Age.

It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.

That is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.

In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.

Even the sort of inequality produced by meritocracy can hurt growth. If income gaps get wide enough, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. Social mobility in America, contrary to conventional wisdom, is lower than in most European countries. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is roughly 30-40% wider than it was 25 years ago. And by some measures class mobility is even stickier in China than in America.

Some of those at the top of the pile will remain sceptical that inequality is a problem in itself. But even they have an interest in mitigating it, for if it continues to rise, momentum for change will build and may lead to a political outcome that serves nobody’s interests. Communism may be past reviving, but there are plenty of other bad ideas out there.

Hence the need for a True Progressive agenda. Here is our suggestion, which steals ideas from both left and right to tackle inequality in three ways that do not harm growth.

Compete, target and reform
…

Reform is fine within the bounds of the constitution - throwing out the current system of government and replacing it with communism is ridiculous.

…throwing out the current system of government and replacing it with communism is ridiculous.

Aside from yourself, who is proposing this?

Hey, Rio, you appear to be pleased with yourself! After reading your BS I see you forgot to include the total taxation we are under now versus JFK’s days. If you total up ALL the forms of tax we are now paying I think you’d find everyone pretty well tapped out.

If you total up ALL the forms of tax we are now paying I think you’d find everyone pretty well tapped out.

Everyone but the rich. Where you been?

only to University Indoctrinated Anti-capitalists who continue to expose themselves with every comment. The armchair commies need to slow down and admit they were programmed. Programmed by malcontents in the education establishment bent on the destruction of America and the western way of life.

I like it when you get excited because you get dumber.

so when do you park the boat for winter?

Usually by Thanksgiving. I’ll be out early this year because of plans to travel. I have friends near here who stay aboard all winter, they are more crazy than me.

I could see if you were in South Carolina living all year but upstate NY….that’s hard core

I sailed out of Salem, MA. There were a few year round liveaboards there on the freezing No. Atlantic. We sailed till Thanksgiving a few times. That’s what fleece, Gore-Tex and thermals were made for.

Did both of you at least take them off before going to bed?…..oops

That’s what fleece, Gore-Tex and thermals were made for.

Not many “look forward” to the inevitable continued disintegration of our economy (regardless of who the Clown in Chief is). I look forward to what comes after that and hope that it will be more sustainable.

inevitable continued disintegration of our economy

That phrase right there says it all. The Lucky Ducky future is the ONLY future for Amerikwa! We look forward to a Romney/Ryan administration, and to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, we hope they FAIL!

Take America Back!

Take my wife, please!

To democrats and liberals - there is NOT a problem out there that can’t be FIXED with just higher and higher taxes.

Here is a history lesson for you on Social Security.

Social Security started out as a 1% tax on the “richest Americans”

It has been “fixed” over the next 70 years so now that we all pay almost 15% in taxes for Social Security (up to a certain high income level).

Well played democrats. Well played.

‘It has been “fixed” over the next 70 years so now that we all pay almost 15% in taxes for Social Security (up to a certain high income level).’

The ‘non-tax’ was “fixed” at 15.3% on Republican president Ronald Reagan’s watch in 1983 by a committee headed by Republican economist Alan Greenspan.

Nice try!

Reference:

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People
by Allen W. Smith / April 14th, 2010

David Leonhardt’s article, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer,” in Tuesday’s New York Times was excellent, but it just scratches the tip of the iceberg of how the rich have gained at the expense of the working class during the past three decades. When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam. For more information, please visit my website or contact me.

Dr. Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Eastern Illinois University. He is the author of seven books and has been researching and writing about Social Security financing for the past ten years. Read other articles by Allen, or visit Allen’s website.

This article was posted on Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 at 9:00am and is filed under Economy/Economics, Social Security, Tax.

To democrats and liberals - there is NOT a problem out there that can’t be FIXED with just higher and higher taxes.

Taxes on the rich have been trending down for 32 years. Where are the higher taxes on the rich? Where? Show me a trend of higher taxes on the rich. Show me a 30 year chart. Show me. Show us. Explain the numbers on how the taxes have been rising on the rich the past three decades.

Where are the numbers? Enlighten us. Please. We’re ready now to see the numbers.

I find it amusing how SS is so demonized. Where it not for the temporary SS tax holiday, it wouldn’t even contribute to the deficit at all at this point in time.

“4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything.”

Where was it to be saved and what was it to be invested in? Remember, Treasurys don’t count because that’s just temporarily moving money from Uncle Sam’s back pocket to his front pocket, where it is still promptly spent. And when it comes time for SS to redeem those Treasurys because the money is needed, the taxpayers have to come up with the dough.

So, invest in Greek or Italian bonds? Municipal bonds from Stockton and other Cali cities? The “old” GM bonds? Give it to Pimco and the like to invest?

What’s been the recent investment history of CALPERS, the entity that’s probably most similar to Social Security?

Sorry but SS has always been and always will be pay as you go- an annual transfer from my kids to me.

Thanks, kids!

I find it amusing how SS is so demonized

Ask yourself who is interested in demonizing SS. It sure isn’t your average American. There is a well funded propaganda operation in play.

“Taxes on the rich have been trending down for 32 years…”

Hey, we fixed that. Old money has been inflated away to practically nothing. If old money was put into real assets, inflation increased the price ten fold without making it more valuable. When the asset is sold, we tax the so called profit! It’s a great system.

Exactly.

What would make everything fine is plenty of inflation. Things are not going to be fine.

Unemployment was 7.8% in January of 2009 when obama took power.

Feb, 2009 Unemployment 8.2%. (Obama’s been in office 10 days)

Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in January 1981 which went on to peak at 10.8 percent in 1982

Reagan inherited unemployment rate of 7.5% and it went to 10.8%

Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8-8.2% and it went to 10.1%. So Obama did better on a lower max unemployment rate.

Obama did better than Reagan on the unemployment rate’s maximum level. And Obama did it with an industrial and economic base gutted like a fish to benefit the rich. Reagan had Carter appointed Paul Volcker at the FED. Obama had Ben Barebackie. Reagan’s America still had a large middle-class and industrial base to bounce back with. And the tax base had not been dismantled in favor of the rich. (That had just started) (And it started under Reagan).

Reagan had a nation at peace. Obama had 3 Wars, Afgan/Iraq/Terror. Reagan still had the largest Automotive industry in the world. Obama? An auto industry cold-cocked. We can go on and on.

He had to fight the cold war which was much more expensive than all the wars you mentioned combined in terms of the cost in GDP. Yes Rio you can go on and on with BS. Obama reappointed BB because he agreed with his policies. Reagan agreed with the inflation fighting policies of Volcker and supported them publicly but did not agree with other policies. But to say that Volcker’s policies would have ended inflation without the supply side policies of Reagan is a joke. Producing more goods and constricting the money supply if far more effective than just raising interest rates which is all Volcker could do.

(Reagan) had to fight the cold war which was much more expensive than all the wars you mentioned combined in terms of the cost in GDP.

Smokescreen BS alert:
“Cost in GDP”. Are you trying to be tricky with me…telling 1/2 the story? The maximum cost for wars “in GDP” was about the same under Reagan, W.Bush and Obama, EXCEPT what you did not mention was that the USA’s tax receipts compared to GDP are now much lower under Obama. (15% under Obama compared to 18% under Reagan source: taxpolicycenter dot org) The BushTaxCutsForTheRich are greatly responsible for this.

Therefore the costs of Obama’s Wars are a much higher percent of tax receipts than under Reagan.

the defense buildup during the Reagan era, from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP in 1986….and the Bush buildup from 3.6 percent in 1999 to 6 percent in 2010 to fight the first battles against Islamist extremism…usgovernmentspending dot com

BS? See, this is why we can’t take you seriously. He quoted verifiable facts and yet you call it BS.

Can’t comment on the specifics but willing to bet it’s an area/program that even fruitboi (despite his Grover Norquist fetish) would support funding, LOLZ!

“But some how the economy given to Obama with virtually no inflation, gasoline prices about half of what they are now and unemployment under 8% is worse than Reagan faced. Only in an alternative universe.”

Were you living under a rock when Bush oversaw a nuclear meltdown of the financial system in 2008?

Were you living under a rock when Bush oversaw a nuclear meltdown of the financial system in 2008?

That was 4 years ago, which means that it’s long forgotten by most people.

No were you living under a rock when Carter handed Reagan the biggest mess the country has ever faced? I remember reading the Nation and all the commentors in the leftist magazine actually happy Reagan won because they did not believe anyone could fix stagflation.

The misery index works. Reagan received 13.5 % plus 7.2% or 20.7% while the combined index Obama received was right around 10% less than half of what Reagan received.

Carter handed Reagan the biggest mess the country has ever faced?

But unlike W. Bush, Carter handed Reagan the solution. Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed and Paul Volcker (not grandpa Reagan) busted inflation. And unlike now, USA in the 80’s still had a broad industrial and economic base to bounce back with.

Paul Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed Chairman of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter…

Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn’t believe he was an adequate de-regulator. wiki

“No were you living under a rock when Carter handed Reagan the biggest mess the country has ever faced?”

Did you mean the one Nixon started when he went off the gold standard?

Or the one that started around the time when he resigned?

Typical Republican presidential ploy: Crash the economy, then watch your party hacks blame it on your successor…

Come to think of it, the dot com crash happened just after Clinton left office.

Perhaps crashing the economy just before leaving the WH is a bipartisan activity?

It would seem that way, except, well, Clinton left a surplus.

The dot com crash was in 2000, wasn’t it? He didn’t leave office until 2001.

No Rio, I nailed the man made global warming fraud because unlike you I just base my opinions on facts not my hopes. I encourage everyone to read the Drudge report link to the report that shows no global warming for 16 years.

Six years ago based on the data available at the time and scientific publications, I stated on the board that man made warming was only 1/7 of the rate that the alarmists were saying and history has vindicated me. You want to believe that a country with a per capita income one fourth of ours and a slowing economy has the magic answer but it cannot compete with the Asian countries such as South Korea which do not have its resources but are more capitalistic.

because unlike you I just base my opinions on facts not my hopes

Now you’re being funny. Facts: You ignore and twist facts all the time Albuquerquedan. Here’s some facts and a chart:

http://www.macrotrends.org/1339/unemployment-rate-last-ten-years

The unemployment TREND when Bush left office had already been skyrocketing for 2 years - from 4.5% in Jan 07 to 8% when Obama took office….under Obama, the rising unemployment trend was reversed in 9 months compared to it rising for 2 years under Bush.

BTW, this is how income is really distributed in Brazil from wikipedia:

Brazil ranks 49.3 in the Gini coefficient index, with the richest 10% of Brazilians receiving 42.7% of the nation’s income, while the poorest 10% receive less than 1.2%.[1]

This is actually worse than the United States and if you can see any noticible improvement in the last five years, you are reading something into a graph that is not there. Ethanol is produced with exploited and some places slave labor. If Rio is doing well in Brazil, he is doing it on the back of the poor despite telling us how wonderful and progressive the government is in Brazil.

this is how income is really distributed in Brazil…..
This is actually worse than the United States

Albuquerquedan, You blow my mind. What planet have you been living on? Income distributed “worse in Brazil than in the USA”? No kidding Sherlock? LOL You are surprised? You didn’t know that? Do you even own a Passport?

Your above “observation” of a snapshot in time shows your ignorance and ignorance of TRENDS as I have been pointing out. The trend in Brazil is more income and wealth equality whereas the trend in the USA is more wealth/income inequality.

Any noticible improvement in Brazil the last five years? Are you kidding? There’s been immense improvement in Brazil the past 5 years. In fact, there’s been immense improvement the past decade.

35 million Brazilians ascend to middle class in past decade: Study

http://english.cntv.cn/20120921/104648.shtml

Some 35 million Brazilians were lifted in the past 10 years from poverty to middle class, representing around 21 percent of the country’s population, according to a study published on Thursday.

At the same time, six percent of the population ascended from the middle to the rich class, the study said.

It predicted that middle-class population will make up for 57 percent of the total by 2022 if the current policies maintain.

The study attributes the middle class’ growth to two main factors: a reduction in inequality and overall economic growth in Brazil.

Strategic Affairs Secretary Moreira Franco said that the expansion of the middle class is very important, for this section of the population is responsible for 38 percent of household wealth and consumption.

“Some 18 million jobs were created in the past decade,” he said, adding “this was associated to an adequate minimum wage policy.”

If Rio is doing well in Brazil, he is doing it on the back of the poor

Totally wrong. But the things you are ignorant of could fill terabyte hard drives.

The other post is missing but here is the P.S. In 1984, the American public recognized the job that Reagan did turning around the country and reelected him with 525 electoral votes. You can try to rewrite history but the people at the time were the best judge of his record.

You can try to rewrite history but the people at the time were the best judge of his record.

I guess that’s why FDR got re-elected. Twice.

Rio, the article you cite reads like government propaganda. This is middle class: The study identified middle class citizens as those who have a household per capita income of 291 to 1019 reais (144 to 504 U.S. dollars) per month, and are unlikely to have their income fall below this level in the near future.

Looking at the Gina coefficient on wikipedia, I see hardly any movement and economic growth has collapsed in Brazil so good luck with those projections.

Brazil the country of the future and always will be.

For starters, lets’ try comparing apples to apples

http://tinyurl.com/yfw5zxj

Please note that the SGS number (that I prefer) is calculated the way the unemployment number USED to be calculated, before everyone started fudging numbers to:

-Hide the truth
-Make their performance look better

Opinion: Unemployment skyrocketed just as Obama was taking office. Evidently, as they are threatening to do now, they slashed employment to show the Socialists/parasites a thing or two.

The unemployment TREND when Bush left office had already been skyrocketing for 2 years - from 4.5% in Jan 07 to 8% when Obama took office.

Isn’t this the part of the discussion where focus is directed away from the POTUS and toward Congress as in, “Did any of you notice how unemployment skyrocketed once the Democraps took over Congress?”

Rio, the article you cite reads like government propaganda.

It was not a government study but the fact that you think it reads like gov propaganda shows Brazil is progressing. Almost 20% of the Brazilian population has left poverty and joined the lower middle class in ten years. 6% have joined the upper class.

per capita income of 291 to 1019 reais (144 to 504 U.S. dollars) per month,

That you would try to make this a point shows that you are entirely ignorant of Brazil. Where it was and where it is going. The TREND. As I asked. Have you ever owned a Passport? Does it have any stamps in it? (Hawaii does not count.)

Brazil the country of the future and always will be.

I guess you’re partially right. Headlines:
BBC News - Homeland beckons for UK’s Brazilians BBC

Why Brazilian expats are moving back home to work with startups …Thenextweb dot com

Brazil’s economic boom drawing immigrant workers home LA Times

Why go home: Brazil is the future | IT Decisions

A-dan, are you going to answer the Rio’s post about unemployment in the US, or will you continue to distract with posts about global warming and Brazil?

As for electing Reagan… HBB has spent the last 6 years proving that the electorate is pretty darn stupid. Why should we trust their expert judgment from 1984?

I guess that’s why FDR got re-elected. Twice.

FDR was re-elected 3 times - elected 4 times.

A-dan is some kind of masochistic denier who would never let facts stand in his way.

FDR was re-elected 3 times - elected 4 times.

Oh, yeah!

I guess that’s why FDR got re-elected. Twice. Thrice.

They had “five year plans” for production levels which somehow never panned out.

One of my favorite bits of folklore from the failed Soviet central planning system was the story about workers on collective farms, whose output went directly to the state, who also were allowed to farm a small plot for their own private use. Care to venture a guess which land yielded the most?

It’s too bad that our Fed seems to be following the central planning track, instead of fostering fertile economic conditions to encourage markets to reach their full potential.

“She sold equipment to unproven startups on CREDIT? What a bozo!”

Under the company’s agreement with Fiorina, which was characterized as a golden parachute by some, she was paid slightly more than $20 million in severance.

Perhaps not such a bozo. It worked out well for her, not so well for HP.

Xerox did the same thing in the late 90’s and the stock went from 60 to under 8.. … a friend of my brother cashed out in the 50’s yeah he knew

Financial adviser bought me lots of Xerox, Lucent, Skyworks, Microsoft, and a few others, thereby reducing a $15k retirement account established in 2002 to under $10k.

Yes, I have fired the financial adviser.

“She sold equipment to unproven startups on CREDIT? What a bozo!”

Now hold on a minute. If HP accounted on the accrual method, couldn’t she have booked those sales on credit to unproven startups as accrued revenues, generating accrued profits, a rising stock price, and hefty bonus pay?

Or am I missing something?

“…golden parachute…”

Must be nice to ride to a soft landing in a golden parachute while watching your shareholders crash and burn to a crisp, no?

Oops. Monday Spelling Syndrome has struck!

Final word missing a letter. I meant to say conversation.

And nobody knows how to fix the problem.

This seems to be the world’s new theme song.

What about the other five examples where austerity failed? Every one was run with bad numbers?

And of course you keep referring to the British deficit, when the example was citing the debt.

Yes but when you are left a deficit the debt will increase until to the deficit is eliminated and when you are left a 12.2% deficit that is going to take some time to bring down, all the time the debt will increase.

And nobody knows how to fix the problem.

I can’t get away with that excuse in my work. Can we start firing some people at the top?

when you are left a 12.2% deficit that is going to take some time to bring down, all the time the debt will increase.

So we should cut Obama some slack, eh?

Wasn’t handed anything near that and adopted policies that made it worse not better. If he had cut the deficit in half like he promised I would certainly give him slack. By his own criteria, unemployment never going over 8%, down to 6% by now, deficit cut in half and bending the bar on health care spending, he is a failure and deserves to be replaced. At least the new guy will have to run for reelection and that is some check on his behavior.

and adopted policies that made it worse not better.

But the example showed that Obama’s actions made it better, not worse. Austerity produced worse results in the UK.

No, we lost our credit rating GB did not and they cut their deficits in terms of the GDP much greater than the U.S. They have advanced much farther in cutting their structural deficit. All you showed is the debt went up faster but that is the natural result of being handed larger deficits. It is interesting the only program which paid back the government with interest was TARP. That was a Bush II and Obama program. However, since they did it one can reasonably say that Bush only handed Obama about a $400 billion deficit since it is unfair for Obama to get the repayment of the loan in his calculation of the deficit but saddle Bush II with the cost of the loan. But Obama is better at spin and propaganda than governing so somehow a loan is treated as an expenditure.

and they cut their deficits in terms of the GDP much greater than the U.S.

And yet their debt– which we agree is the more important number- has gotten worse.

If (Obama) had cut the deficit in half like he promised I would certainly give him slack.

Like hell you would. This shows your complete disregard of reality in favor of dogma. Can you imagine what it would have taken to “cut the deficit in half”? With 3 ongoing wars, a gutted tax base due to TaxCuts and a Depression and millions of jobs lost. “Cut the deficit in half”??? By now?

This is like Dumb and Dumber.

Obama was Dumb to say it. But anyone who thinks that it was even remotely possible to halve the deficit without starving people, 30% unemployment, a defeated military, total loss of national prestige and an economy in total ruins is Dumber.

Stop, alpha! You’re only confusing yourself with facts! Listen to A-dan! Facts are not your friend. They just make you unhappy and sad when they show you how wrong you are!

The US credit rating was reduced because Congressional shenanigans made it look like there was a good chance of the debt ceiling not being raised. It has presumably, stayed there because the rating agencies think there is a chance we end up in the same situation once the election is over.

The US credit rating was reduced because Congressional shenanigans made it look like there was a good chance of the debt ceiling not being raised.

For a large part yes. And:

If you want to take a longer view of how the US debt reached this height, Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly made a timeline illustrating how it is almost entirely the Republicans’ fault. But the long view is not of any interest to the modern Republican Party. source: The Nation

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_timeline_of_events031362.php

“It concluded that two conditions were essential for success: very low interest rates and adequate rates of economic growth.”

Did it differentiate between cases where fundamental economic conditions resulted in low interest rates and others where monetary policy was used to artificially suppress them?

I understand the spin being pitched. The article claims that the differences are significant. They are insignificant.

Germany used fiscal austerity quite well. It was fortunate or prudent enough to do it prior to the crisis.

I agree it is best to use it before the entire world is growing slowly but sometimes like now you have to do it because you have increased your debt too much. Broke is broke and whether you are Greece or the United States you can only accumulate so much debt. Perhaps if the stimulus had been better designed we could have increased the GDP more and it would have been easier to cut later but too much went to projects such as mob museums and it did not generate growth.

I agreed with the shovel ready infrastructure projects unfortunately there were too few. I think that one thing that wasn’t done but could have is to speed up the defense spending on equipment and then cut defense spending later. In one sense that is what we did with the Reagan/Bush and Clinton years. Winning the cold war which was a result of spending more on defense during the Reagan and Bush years allowed for the cutting of defense during the Clinton years.
But back to my main point, it is actually cheaper, usually, to produce 150 planes a year for two years than 100 planes for three years so they would have been cost savings. We could have stimulated the economy with spending that was going to occur anyway, instead of wasting the money on deadend projects that increase the debt.

we lost our credit rating

Let’s check the facts. If one reads the S&P actual REASONS why USA lost our AAA credit rating, I’d say any objective person could put the vast majority of the blame on the Republicans. And forget the editorial. Read the S&P’s words.

“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,”

GOP Causes S&P Downgrade, but Republican Candidates Blame Obama
August 8, 2011

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162612/gop-causes-sp-downgrade-republican-candidates-blame-obama

It is clear from Standard & Poor’s statement downgrading the federal government’s credit rating that it places the blame squarely on Republican actions and policies. Two of S&P’s biggest concerns about whether the United States will pay off its debt are whether Republicans will be so insane as to refuse to lift the debt ceiling, a possibility Republicans intentionally stoked fears of, and whether the United States will raise much-needed tax revenue.

Specifically, S&P changed its baseline assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire on schedule in 2012 because Republicans are so insistent that they must be renewed. “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” wrote S&P. That adds $4 trillion over ten years to the projected deficits.

So, how are Republican presidential candidates responding? By blaming President Obama, instead of their co-partisans in Congress who are actually responsible. “America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama’s failed record of leadership on the economy,” said front-runner Mitt Romney

Crazy talk.

We can’t stop fighting wars because we’d lose respect? I don’t want that kind of respect.

We can’t slow our government spending because millions of us would starve?! Unbelievable. $1 Tr a year is enough to pay every American’s grocery bill. Period.

We can’t stop fighting wars because we’d lose respect? I don’t want that kind of respect.

Maybe you don’t deserve it then. If you don’t recognize timelines, the economic consequences of a rapid retreat and the context of it YOU will lose respect. We ARE stopping the wars no? But to come close to halve the deficit Obama would have had to retreated 100% from day one of his administration. The dollar would have crashed and America would be less safe, secure and economically sound. You don’t see the difference? If not, why? And how not? Because of politics?

We can’t slow our government spending because millions of us would starve?!

Strawman 101. The context was to halve the deficit in a political environment in 4 years. If you think foodstamps could survive as a program in America whilst the military was cut to the bone and we were retreating in all wars as described above, you don’t know the country in which you were born.

“But anyone who thinks that it was even remotely possible to halve the deficit without starving people…..”

Not my strawman. The current administration has not been seriously interested in curtailing spending. This is obvious even to me. That part about starving people though, I’m pretty sure you made that up on your own.

The current administration has not been seriously interested in curtailing spending.

You tell me who increased spending

OK, I know it’s pumpkin season PB, but I don’t care so much for everything has to do with your party or the other one. It was possible to significantly reduce the deficit and it not only didn’t get done, it wasn’t the agenda these past years. It would have been painful and we just can’t have any of that. I’ve seen turnarounds (not on the grand scale of the US ofA) and they don’t take ten years. And they hurt. And then there is a chance for sustainability. We haven’t come close. Sure your Bush guy said deficits don’t matter. I don’t agree! Your Obama guy mumbles some things from time to time and nothing much changes. Your Romney guy wants to say things that will swing voters, so nothing is going to change. But it must. It will, just not time yet.

But then you go on to question whether a family “needs” so much space. What are you comparing?

I agree. There’s no legitimate comparison between two unlike properties. Compare like to like, and see where the numbers lead you.

I won’t argue with your Alpo. I hate rats.

To give you a sense as to how much we were willing to deal with the “Alpo” of a small house…

After being unable to find a larger, nicer house to rent (all we saw were landlords who were temporarily out of the area, and only willing to rent on a short-term basis–less than 2 years, mostly 1 to 1.5 years), in late 2010, we decided to hunker down for a while longer and stay in our current digs, despite the small size of the house. So, we spent money to replace all the insulation in the garage (lots of rat turds up there–nasty), spent money on kid play tiles, hired an exterminator to come on a regular basis, and turned the garage into a play area for our kids (two young children).

We figured this manufactured space for the kids could buy us another 2-3 years of socking away cash. We spent the money, and time, and a bunch of effort to get ourselves into this position.

In early 2011, I first saw rat urine on one of the play tiles in the garage (strike #1). Then one night, I once saw a little critter run through our kitchen on the floor (strike #2). A few days later, there was a half-eaten apple on the floor of the kitchen (strike #3).

My wife and I looked at the apple, and then each other, and said “f-it”, we’ve waited long enough to get out of this place. We started our hunt to purchase in earnest the next week, and moved within 6 months.

I originally thought it would take us a year or longer to find the right place. We were incredibly fortunate to find a place that fit all of our needs (and pretty much all of our wants), so we jumped on it.

If it was such a great idea, why aren’t the “free market” types throwing their money at it?

And BTW……are there ANY colleges in Red State Flyover-land that DIDN’T get a Level 4 biological warfare/research center, courtesy of Dubya’s NEWOT?

(NEWOT = Never Ending War on Terror)

I’m flying my browser in visual conditions and can’t find the above link. Should I switch to instrument?

Make that:

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/CoralSea/May.7th.html

Seconded.

And me, Gulfie.