More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[kaz]

Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs

So industry being owned by government and industry being in technical private ownership but controlled by government are "distinct and separate constructs?" Seriously? LOL, stick to deskside support, junior.

Seems you don't understand Fascism.

Corporations, Religion and the Military control the state in the Fascist government. And I don't do deskside support. I am a UNIX/Networking guy.

LOL, the corporations, religion and the military controlled Hitler, Mussolini and Francos wow, now I get it, you do know what you are talking about!!!!



You'll swallow anything if it comes from a Democrat. Wow. Hitler and Mussolini quaked in fear when a business guy or a minister walked in the room. Unbelievable. And you'd pass a lie detector test you believe that, wouldn't you?



Hitler and Mussoulini. Living in fear. I hope Krupp doesn't walk in the door, he scares the snot out of me! Damn. Thanks for the laugh. Wow.

 

[kaz]

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

Strawman. What the hell are you talking about? I have never said that, try to stop posting what the voices in your head say, it doesn't make you sound, let's go with "smart."

I said "the Bush cataclysm" was caused by his continuing to follow Clinton's policies. In your partisan stupor, when Clinton blackmailed banks to loosen lending standards and funded the market with virtually zero interest money to fund it artificially driving up the price of housing to stratospheric heights, it's a "Bush cataclysm."

When Bush and Clinton followed the same policy, I blame both of them. You think W is the devil and Clinton's farts don't stink. Seriously, stick to IT, you're just yammering here.

 

[Faun]

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

Strawman. What the hell are you talking about? I have never said that, try to stop posting what the voices in your head say, it doesn't make you sound, let's go with "smart."

I said "the Bush cataclysm" was caused by his continuing to follow Clinton's policies. In your partisan stupor, when Clinton blackmailed banks to loosen lending standards and funded the market with virtually zero interest money to fund it artificially driving up the price of housing to stratospheric heights, it's a "Bush cataclysm."

When Bush and Clinton followed the same policy, I blame both of them. You think W is the devil and Clinton's farts don't stink. Seriously, stick to IT, you're just yammering here.

Following a thread is too daunting a task for ya, huh? Sallow didn't say that to you ... he said that in response to:

"You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment. And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike." - Androw ​

As far as your idiocy about Clinton's CRA requirements causing a crash after 8 years of Bush policies; to do so requires you to ignore the reality that the vast majority of toxic loans which crashed the economy were given by greedy banks voluntarily and not because they were required to due to the CRA. CRA loans accounted for only about 6% of all the toxic loans.

And to blame Clinton for near zero interest rates indicates you're hittin' the bottle again too hard. Here, in reality, the Federal fund rate was at a healthy 6% when Clinton left office. It was under Bush in 2002 when it was lowered to under 2%, and then to 1% the following year. That is when the housing market went through the roof. So yeah, the fault of the crash lies mainly at the feet of Bush and his fellow brain-dead Republicans.

 

[kaz]

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

Strawman. What the hell are you talking about? I have never said that, try to stop posting what the voices in your head say, it doesn't make you sound, let's go with "smart."

I said "the Bush cataclysm" was caused by his continuing to follow Clinton's policies. In your partisan stupor, when Clinton blackmailed banks to loosen lending standards and funded the market with virtually zero interest money to fund it artificially driving up the price of housing to stratospheric heights, it's a "Bush cataclysm."

When Bush and Clinton followed the same policy, I blame both of them. You think W is the devil and Clinton's farts don't stink. Seriously, stick to IT, you're just yammering here.

Following a thread is too daunting a task for ya, huh? Sallow didn't say that to you ... he said that in response to:

"You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment. And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike." - Androw​

You are correct regarding Sallow. I was going back and forth, and I did get mixed up on the posts and responded to one that was written to Androw, not me. My apologies for that Sallow, you did not say that to me as I said you did.

As for you, sorry I'm not perfect as you think are, you may want to pretend you don't think you are perfect so you don't look like such a dick. Just a suggestion.

As far as your idiocy about Clinton's CRA requirements causing a crash after 8 years of Bush policies...

Now see, at this point you already went strawman, so I stopped reading. That isn't what I said, I said both had the same policies and I blame both. I did not say I blame only Clinton as you suggested. Bush continued the policies, they were both at fault. I love not being a partisan hack, it's very liberating. Try it some time.

 

[Faun]

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

Strawman. What the hell are you talking about? I have never said that, try to stop posting what the voices in your head say, it doesn't make you sound, let's go with "smart."

I said "the Bush cataclysm" was caused by his continuing to follow Clinton's policies. In your partisan stupor, when Clinton blackmailed banks to loosen lending standards and funded the market with virtually zero interest money to fund it artificially driving up the price of housing to stratospheric heights, it's a "Bush cataclysm."

When Bush and Clinton followed the same policy, I blame both of them. You think W is the devil and Clinton's farts don't stink. Seriously, stick to IT, you're just yammering here.

Following a thread is too daunting a task for ya, huh? Sallow didn't say that to you ... he said that in response to:

"You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment. And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike." - Androw​

You are correct regarding Sallow. I was going back and forth, and I did get mixed up on the posts and responded to one that was written to Androw, not me. My apologies for that Sallow, you did not say that to me as I said you did.

As for you, sorry I'm not perfect as you think are, you may want to pretend you don't think you are perfect so you don't look like such a dick. Just a suggestion.

As far as your idiocy about Clinton's CRA requirements causing a crash after 8 years of Bush policies...

Now see, at this point you already went strawman, so I stopped reading. That isn't what I said, I said both had the same policies and I blame both. I did not say I blame only Clinton as you suggested. Bush continued the policies, they were both at fault. I love not being a partisan hack, it's very liberating. Try it some time.

Doubling down on bullshit doesn't help you. They did not have the same policies. You fail. While they did both seek to increase home ownership among minorities, that is where the similarities end. Clinton's policies still required minorities to have some responsibility for their loans; Bush stripped away those responsibilities. Instead, Bush changed the policies so folks who couldn't afford a loan under Clinton's policies could now get a loan at interest rates as low as 1% (2003) without a down payment (2002) which banks could afford to lose because the GSE's would cover them (2002). THAT was the perfect storm which caused the economy to crater. And to Bush's credit, he asked Congress (2002) to give him a bill to sign to add oversight of the GSE's to prevent the calamity which resulted from Bush/Republican policies -- but the Republican-led Congress never did. And while Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue, they were in the minority party and could not, and did not, block the majority party Republicans from passing such oversight.

You may now return to finishing off your bottle.

 

[kaz]

Doubling down on bullshit doesn't help you. They did not have the same policies. You fail. While they did both seek to increase home ownership among minorities, that is where the similarities end. Clinton's policies still required minorities to have some responsibility for their loans; Bush stripped away those responsibilities. Instead, Bush changed the policies so folks who couldn't afford a loan under Clinton's policies could now get a loan at interest rates as low as 1% (2003) without a down payment (2002) which banks could afford to lose because the GSE's would cover them (2002). THAT was the perfect storm which caused the economy to crater. And to Bush's credit, he asked Congress (2002) to give him a bill to sign to add oversight of the GSE's to prevent the calamity which resulted from Bush/Republican policies -- but the Republican-led Congress never did. And while Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue, they were in the minority party and could not, and did not, block the majority party Republicans from passing such oversight.

You may now return to finishing off your bottle.

I won't try to make you question your delusions about how the housing bubble came about since you don't have a critical mind, you just want to pin it on Bush, but the government has been blowing air into the balloon for decades. It starts with the home mortgage deduction, which doesn't make homes more affordable, it inflates the cost and warps value from the true value, which is set by the market.

Clinton started blowing air faster into the balloon, W continued that. Your view that it's only the guy who was President when the balloon burst is just childish data parsing by a political hack. Ironically, if you were not politically motivated, I think you are capable of grasping it. But you're hell bent on letting the Democrats off the hook, so that dominates your analysis.

 

[Faun]

Doubling down on bullshit doesn't help you. They did not have the same policies. You fail. While they did both seek to increase home ownership among minorities, that is where the similarities end. Clinton's policies still required minorities to have some responsibility for their loans; Bush stripped away those responsibilities. Instead, Bush changed the policies so folks who couldn't afford a loan under Clinton's policies could now get a loan at interest rates as low as 1% (2003) without a down payment (2002) which banks could afford to lose because the GSE's would cover them (2002). THAT was the perfect storm which caused the economy to crater. And to Bush's credit, he asked Congress (2002) to give him a bill to sign to add oversight of the GSE's to prevent the calamity which resulted from Bush/Republican policies -- but the Republican-led Congress never did. And while Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue, they were in the minority party and could not, and did not, block the majority party Republicans from passing such oversight.

You may now return to finishing off your bottle.

I won't try to make you question your delusions about how the housing bubble came about since you don't have a critical mind, you just want to pin it on Bush, but the government has been blowing air into the balloon for decades. It starts with the home mortgage deduction, which doesn't make homes more affordable, it inflates the cost and warps value from the true value, which is set by the market.

Clinton started blowing air faster into the balloon, W continued that. Your view that it's only the guy who was President when the balloon burst is just childish data parsing by a political hack. Ironically, if you were not politically motivated, I think you are capable of grasping it. But you're hell bent on letting the Democrats off the hook, so that dominates your analysis.

Your reply doesn't even closely resemble what I said. Oh well? Maybe someone else who can understand what I said will help you out?

 

[kaz]

I won't try to make you question your delusions about how the housing bubble came about since you don't have a critical mind, you just want to pin it on Bush, but the government has been blowing air into the balloon for decades. It starts with the home mortgage deduction, which doesn't make homes more affordable, it inflates the cost and warps value from the true value, which is set by the market.

Clinton started blowing air faster into the balloon, W continued that. Your view that it's only the guy who was President when the balloon burst is just childish data parsing by a political hack. Ironically, if you were not politically motivated, I think you are capable of grasping it. But you're hell bent on letting the Democrats off the hook, so that dominates your analysis.

Your reply doesn't even closely resemble what I said. Oh well? Maybe someone else who can understand what I said will help you out?

You look at two parties with virtually identical policies and see good and evil. It's ridiculous, you see what you want. You researched only to prove the answer which you had formulated before you started looking. That's as deep as it goes.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?

Absolutely. The fact you don't take it seriously, reflects poorly on you. Have you ever taken a course on economics?

Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.

And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?

And no socialist based system has corporate and military entities which form most of the government............ really? Socialist system seek to eliminate religion to bend people toward their views. Fascism seeks to bend religion to bend people toward their views.

In both cases, they seek to dominate the people. Different sides to the same coin.

Capitalism, doesn't seek to bend people to their will, but simply allows Freedom.

Yes, GM and Honda are very comparable. It reflects poorly on you, that you think they are not.

You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.

Nissan s 10 Million CEO Set to Top Japan Pay Rankings - Bloomberg
Ghosn was paid a total of 995 million yen ($9.8 million) in salary and bonuses for the fiscal year ended March 31, an increase of 0.7 percent from a year earlier, he said at the carmaker’s annual shareholders’ meeting today in Yokohama, Japan. Including dividends, his total compensation rises to more than 1 billion yen.

The CEO of UPS, was paid $10 Million. It's true that on average, Japanese CEOs are paid less than US CEOs, but not nearly the 'upper middle class' wages the left is constantly barking on about.

Yes, and Japan's gov-care is far worse than ours. Their survival rates are so much lower, they tend to not be included in international stats.

Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. The problem with your commentary, is not that it isn't somewhat true, but that it ignores basic economics.

People could not find jobs. They simply didn't exist. Why didn't they exist? Because businesses couldn't be profitable.

Greek Companies were still earning revenue from production and service, that was greater than that of China. Yet, they were not profitable, but China based companies were.

Why? Because the labor cost is lower. No matter how little you are earning from your production, if you can find labor cheaper than that cost, you will hire people, and be successful.

They couldn't do this in Greece. Every year, the minimum wage increased, because it was tied to automatic cost of living increases. As such, the cost of labor was going up, while the value of the labor was not. End result, businesses closed, employment disappeared, people were laid off. Everything else you said is still true, but even in the worst governmental budget problems, if people can hire labor profitably, they will do so.

That's why when they eliminated the cost of living increase, and rolled back the minimum wage, suddenly employment started going back up.

Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.

And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.

You keep bringing up all these countries that have health care that is much worse than ours. Are you saying you want more people to die? Let's go adopt a health care system that has a lower survival rate, so more people die.... but it is 'free' even though they pay much much higher taxes, taxes much greater than how much health care premiums are... but that doesn't matter because we want our 'free' myth.

And no, I have not ignored Iceland at all. I wish we had followed the policies of Iceland, and let our banks fail.

And lastly, it's possible Iceland may break up their banks into separate parts, but that isn't going to solve anything. Glass-Steagall would not have prevented a single bank in the US, from doing everything that they did. Nor would it have prevent a single bank from failing. Not one.

The left has their panties all in wad around a myth. Hint.... AIG? Was just an insurance company. Glass-Steagall would not have affect AIG at all. Hint.... Bear Stearns? Was just an investment bank. GSA would not have affected Bear Stearns at all. Countrywide, Wachovia, IndyMac, Meryl Lynch, the list goes on and on and on and on. The vast vast majority of all banks that failed, would not have been covered by Glass Steagall at all. If the 1999 repeal had never happened, the entire sub-prime boom, housing price bubble, and resulting melt down would have occurred exactly as they did.

Besides that, the sub-prime boom, and price bubble, started before 1999. There is no evidence that anyone intelligent, can point to, to suggest Glass-Steagall would have helped anything.

 

[kaz]

Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.

Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.

You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.

You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.

And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.

Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?

Absolutely. The fact you don't take it seriously, reflects poorly on you. Have you ever taken a course on economics?

Sallow believes liberal lawyers have forgotten more economics than anyone else ever will know.

 

[rightwinger]

More economic good news:

S&P 500 broke 2000 for the first time today

 

[kaz]

More economic good news:

S&P 500 broke 2000 for the first time today

The rich get richer and the job market is abysmal and you celebrate that? The continuing to widen wealth gap? No wonder you're a Republican. Thanks for W, BTW, he sucked, you can have him back.

 

[rightwinger]

More economic good news:

S&P 500 broke 2000 for the first time today

The rich get richer and the job market is abysmal and you celebrate that? The continuing to widen wealth gap? No wonder you're a Republican. Thanks for W, BTW, he sucked, you can have him back.

He sucked?

Would you mind telling us who you voted for in 2000 and 2004? I bet he was really good

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

 

[rightwinger]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

I have no issues with the rich gaining wealth

My issues are with the feeble tax rates they pay on that increased wealth

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

I have no issues with the rich gaining wealth

My issues are with the feeble tax rates they pay on that increased wealth

Because poor people pay way more right?

 

[rightwinger]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

I have no issues with the rich gaining wealth

My issues are with the feeble tax rates they pay on that increased wealth

Because poor people pay way more right?

No, actually because we have some of the lowest tax rates for high earners in our history and those low rates have not delivered the economic rising tide or jobs that were promised

Why should we continue failed policies?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

I have no issues with the rich gaining wealth

My issues are with the feeble tax rates they pay on that increased wealth

Because poor people pay way more right?

No, actually because we have some of the lowest tax rates for high earners in our history and those low rates have not delivered the economic rising tide or jobs that were promised

Why should we continue failed policies?

What's this we shit? Do you think you have ownership over others money & what they do or don't contribute?

 

[kaz]

More economic good news:

S&P 500 broke 2000 for the first time today

The rich get richer and the job market is abysmal and you celebrate that? The continuing to widen wealth gap? No wonder you're a Republican. Thanks for W, BTW, he sucked, you can have him back.

He sucked?

Would you mind telling us who you voted for in 2000 and 2004? I bet he was really good

2000 - Harry Browne
2004 - Ralph Nader

2004 was the most abysmal election candidate slate I've experienced in my lifetime. I went for Nader because when he was attacked by Democrats for running harming Kerry, he said it makes no difference, the parties are the same. I also just didn't care for Badnarick.

So why are you celebrating a jobless recovery where the rich keep getting richer? Is it just because you think it will help Republicans defeat Obama?

 

[rightwinger]

So on one hand the rich get richer on the stock market as it soars and it is cheered by the left.

The other hand whines endlessly about income inequality.

How the hell do lefties do anything that requires the use of both hands at the same time?

I have no issues with the rich gaining wealth

My issues are with the feeble tax rates they pay on that increased wealth

Because poor people pay way more right?

No, actually because we have some of the lowest tax rates for high earners in our history and those low rates have not delivered the economic rising tide or jobs that were promised

Why should we continue failed policies?

What's this we shit? Do you think you have ownership over others money & what they do or don't contribute?

As a matter of fact, as a voter

I do