So much for Bush's one leg to stand on...

[db44]

I don't think I've seen a rah-rah economy from Brad for a few months now... Why is that?

Because the Dow's dropped over 2,000 points in about three months? Because MSNBC's exit polls suggested last night the failing economy was the biggest issue?

Maybe because it's big business and oil driving us to drink? Bush's buddies, left unchecked, are now hurting the country as a whole... I can't wait to see how the Bushies try to spin this as the fault of a Democratic congress.

But then, I guess I shouldn't be surprised Brad hasn't posted. Up Rush's butt, where the "MSM" can't reach, all must still be peachy.

[Annoyedlistner]

its very unsettling that inflation is growing at a staggering rate, its being reported that we are seeing the largest jump in inflation in 17 years.

This is thanks to a bad president and high gas prices.....gas prices are killing the economy.

i think many people here (including myself) have said time and time again that high gas prices is going to kill the economy....well we are finally seeing it.

[pinky]

What's worse is that our banks are bleeding money, and no one is in a position to help them out except wealthy foreign investors. And many of those investors are part of OPEC.

[Incident]

I don't think I've seen a rah-rah economy from Brad for a few months now... Why is that?

Because the Dow's dropped over 2,000 points in about three months? Because MSNBC's exit polls suggested last night the failing economy was the biggest issue?



Because the Michigan economy does suck, that is where the poll was taken, that is where the election yesterday was. Notice the Republicans selected a fiscal Conservative in Romney. The rest of the US economy is going along just fine. Not perfect, but just fine.

[Richard Tafoya]

AP:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwHbki86OAoUhqDveb6JLDol_4-gD8U78C780

Retailers, home builders and many manufacturers should brace for even more rough times ahead, a somber Federal Reserve suggested Wednesday amid growing fears that the U.S. might be sliding into recession.

The Fed's snapshot of business conditions showed a national economy losing momentum heading into the new year and a future riddled with uncertainty. The persistent housing slump and harder-to-get credit are making people and businesses ever more cautious, it said.

Separately on Wednesday, more big banks reported losses and said people were having trouble making payments for everything from credit cards to cars. Stocks were mostly down for the day, the Dow Jones industrial average declining 34.95 points, or 0.28 percent.

The Fed report was the unwelcome icing on a recent batch of economic indicators — ranging from a plunge in retail sales to a big jump in unemployment — raising concern that the country is heading for its first recession since 2001.

At the beginning of last year, many economists put the chance of a recession at less than 1-in-3; now an increasing number say 50-50 or even worse. Goldman Sachs, the biggest investment bank on Wall Street, thinks a recession is inevitable this year.

The Fed report said the economy did grow during the survey period — from the middle of November through December — but more slowly than during the late fall. Credit problems intensified in December as did troubles in the housing market. That threw Wall Street into new turbulence.

The economy probably grew at a feeble pace of about 1.5 percent or less in the final three months of last year and will stay weak in the first quarter of this year as consumers — major shapers of the nation's economic health — tighten their belts.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Rising gas prices, rising unemployment, credit crunch, housing slump, more bank losses, falling DOW, falling retail sales = slowing economic growth. Just fine? Doesn't sound "just fine" to me. Or to the Fed, or to Goldman Sachs, or to a bunch of economists or to a lot of voters.

[pinky]

Paul, would you care to back up that claim with some data?

[Incident]

Paul, would you care to back up that claim with some data?

Sure, for example the 2007 Unemployment rate is lower than the 1997 Unemployment rate. I doubt you would call 1997 an economic nightmare.

[Incident]

Rising gas prices, rising unemployment, credit crunch, housing slump, more bank losses, falling DOW, falling retail sales = slowing economic growth. Just fine? Doesn't sound "just fine" to me. Or to the Fed, or to Goldman Sachs, or to a bunch of economists or to a lot of voters.

Sure Economic Growth has slowed from the incredibly fast growth rate over the past several years as the country has recovered from the Clinton Recession. But that doesn't mean the ecomomy is bad, it means that it is not outstanding and that is just fine.

[Richard Tafoya]

More from around the Net:

Citigroup Layoffs Could Reach 24,000 (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-citigroup16jan16,1,1661335.story)
CNBC is reporting the number of layoffs at Citigroup could climb to 20,000 to 24,000 in 2008. That's up from the 17,000 reported in November.

Citigroup employs 320,000 people.

The company lost almost $10 billion dollars in the 4th quarter, the largest in the bank's almost 200 year history.

IndyMac (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-indymac16jan16,1,7466410.story)
IndyMac Bancorp Inc., a major nationwide home lender based in Pasadena, said Tuesday that it would eliminate 2,400 jobs, or 24% of its remaining workforce, in reaction to "gut-wrenching" changes in the mortgage business.

The cuts are in addition to 1,600 jobs slashed by IndyMac last fall. And Mike Perry, chief executive of the savings and loan, said he would probably have to fire an additional 500 to 1,000 employees in the next six months.

Maersk (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-shipping9jan09,1,2453648.story)
The struggling U.S. economy has claimed some victims that few Americans have heard of. Copenhagen-based A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, the world's largest ocean shipping line, plans to lay off as many as 3,000 of its container division's 25,000 workers, in part because of a slowdown in U.S. trade in 2007.

"The U.S. situation is a problem for us and for the entire industry," said Eivind Kolding, chief executive of Maersk Line, the company's container shipping division. "We are expecting no growth to very slow growth in the U.S. this year."

Maersk is the biggest player in a fragmented global cargo movement industry dominated by foreign conglomerates. Maersk controls more than 16% of the world's liner fleet, according to AXSMarine, a French maritime research company. Maersk's fleet is so enormous that it can put to sea at once more cargo containers than all but the largest U.S. ports handle in an entire year.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

You do realize that there are economic cycles, times of growth and times of recession? Yeah. We're on the downswing. I don't know about you, but I'm moving more into cash.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Let's look at the key economic indicators for last week (new ones are out tomorrow):

GDP is up just slightly.
Housing starts are down.
Producer's Price Index is up.
Consumer Price Index is up.
Purchasing Managers Index shows contraction.
Retail sales are down.
Unemployment rate is up.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ratewatch/key-economics.asp

Every key indicator is headed the wrong way. The GDP is already beginning to reflect these downward trends. How long do you think it will be before the GDP shows contraction?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

An today's news? Fed Chairman Bernanke says, "To be useful, a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next twelve months or so."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/17/news/economy/fed_bernanke/index.htm?cnn=yes

[DoubleEdgeSword]

More bad economic news:

Homebuilding: Sharpest drop in 27 years

Steeper than expected plunge in December ends year that saw home building, permits post declines not seen since past recessions.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
January 17 2008: 9:55 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Housing starts and building permits plunged in December much more than expected, resulting in a full-year decline in new home construction that was the sharpest drop in 27 years.

And there is little sign things will get better soon. According to government data released Thursday, the full-year total for building permits posted the biggest drop in 33 years. The sharp dropoff in building is one of the reasons that many leading economists are growing increasingly fearful that an economic recession is near, if it hasn't already struck.

The pace of housing starts in December dropped 14 percent to a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 1.01 million in December, according to the Census Bureau report.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/17/news/economy/housingstarts/index.htm

[pinky]

Sure, for example the 2007 Unemployment rate is lower than the 1997 Unemployment rate. I doubt you would call 1997 an economic nightmare.
One indicator, and an unreliable one at that. What about the foreclosure rate? Import/export ratio? Prices?

[db44]

Notice how quiet it's gotten since those pesky facts have become an issue.

[db44]

Weren't we only recently celebrating closing in on th 12,000 mark? Well, we're almost there again... But going the other way.

[Incident]

Let's look at the key economic indicators for last week (new ones are out tomorrow):

GDP is up just slightly.
Housing starts are down.
Producer's Price Index is up.
Consumer Price Index is up.
Purchasing Managers Index shows contraction.
Retail sales are down.
Unemployment rate is up.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ratewatch/key-economics.asp

Every key indicator is headed the wrong way. The GDP is already beginning to reflect these downward trends. How long do you think it will be before the GDP shows contraction?

So what, one would expect that these numbers would be down or up as we return to normal times after the incredible expansion and boom over the last 5 years.

Just because the numbers are not as good as they were a year ago, does not mean that things are bad, only returning to normal. The Key is what you do to make sure they don't keep heading in a negative direction.

BTW What political change has there been in Washington over the last year, that has coincided with these less positive economic indicators?

[db44]

One, we're still waiting to see numbers about anything you say, you aren't exactly considered a viable source for anything.

Two, To talk about the fluxuation is BS, or rather has no merit. Since Bush was constantly tellling us how he was leading a strong economy, he get NO quarter now that we're up the creek. If it is all about fluxuation, why does he have the right to tell us how he's responsible for a strong economy?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So what, one would expect that these numbers would be down or up as we return to normal times after the incredible expansion and boom over the last 5 years.


You'll pardon me if I take the word of the Fed Chairman and this nation's leading economists over yours? Thanks.

[Incident]

....
Two, To talk about the fluxuation is BS, or rather has no merit. Since Bush was constantly tellling us how he was leading a strong economy, he get NO quarter now that we're up the creek. If it is all about fluxuation, why does he have the right to tell us how he's responsible for a strong economy?

We are now up the creek? You talk about numbers what numbers do you define as being up the creek?

I was talking about fluxuation? I don't think so. That was DES. You do realize that there are economic cycles, times of growth and times of recession? Yeah. We're on the downswing. I don't know about you, but I'm moving more into cash


He was in great part responsible for the strong economy, just as he is now responsible in part for the economy slowing down (mostly because of his actions or inactions that resulted in a weak dollar)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'm not going to argue who is responsible for this latest slow down. At this point is doesn't matter. What matters is that the powers-that-be get on it and fix it.

[db44]

So what, one would expect that these numbers would be down or up as we return to normal times after the incredible expansion and boom over the last 5 years.

Sounds like fluxuation to me.

Check DES' link for numbers... Factor in the rising price of gas ant the fact that Richard posted in another thread how one oil company is expecting big gains... And I believe (no, I haven't looked it up) that I don't think the Dow has ever lost two thousand dollars so quickly, and yeah, I say "up the creek."

[Incident]

You'll pardon me if I take the word of the Fed Chairman and this nation's leading economists over yours? Thanks.

What in the following statements by the Fed chairman contridict my statements in this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7234154
Fed is not forecasting a recession


<LI class=publication>Reuters
Thursday January 17 2008WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday told lawmakers that even though the U.S. economy is facing a difficult combination of circumstances, the Fed is not forecasting a recession.
"The U.S. economy remains extraordinarily resilient," the U.S. central bank chief said in answering questions after testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee.
Bernanke added that growth will be worse this year. "We currently see the economy as continuing to grow, but growing at a relatively slow pace, particularly in the first half of this year," he said. "Recent indications suggest, though, that the economy has softened somewhat and that the growth prospects for 2008 are certainly below that of last year." (Reporting By Joanne Morrison; Editing by Theodore d'Afflisio)

[Incident]

Sounds like fluxuation to me.

Check DES' link for numbers... Factor in the rising price of gas ant the fact that Richard posted in another thread how one oil company is reporting record gains... And I believe (no, I haven't looked it up) that I don't think the Dow has ever lost two thousand dollars so quickly, and yeah, I say "up the creek."


It's not dollars it points
Look at the percentage of the loss, not the raw total

[Incident]

Sounds like fluxuation to me.



Sports analogy

Tom Brady threw 30 TD passes in his first eight games this year in his last eight games he threw only 20. A 33% decrease in production. Using your logic you would say that Tom Brady had a bad second half of the season.

[ConnieB]

its very unsettling that inflation is growing at a staggering rate, its being reported that we are seeing the largest jump in inflation in 17 years.

This is thanks to a bad president and high gas prices.....gas prices are killing the economy.

i think many people here (including myself) have said time and time again that high gas prices is going to kill the economy....well we are finally seeing it.

I agree with gas prices effecting our economy, and I too have said it was going to kill our nation's economy, but in reality what can we do? We can't put a cap on what companies can charge for gas, nor can we put a cap on the oil companies. I feel drilling here in the USA would help along with building more refineries. Yes, alternative energy is a good idea, but I don't think it will save much money since I've heard a gal. of ethanol will cost almost as much as gas right now.

Another thing influencing our economy is the increase in Min. Wage. When this was put in place, this wage was not meant to be lived on and it still should not be today. When this wage is increased companies can only take so much loss before they have to pass the increase on to us...so we are also feeling the effects of the wage increase. So yeah, the Min. wage people will feel the effects of the increase but the middle class gets nothing except we end up paying more out of pocket as things go up in price. I can guarantee within 7 years, this wage increase will mean nothing, and we'll be in the same position as we were before the increase. Increasing the Min. wage was not the answer...it only increases our products and services.

Another thing we are feeling the effects of is the union contracts from everywhere....as Unions demand an increase of benefits, their company/employer will have to get more money to pay for it, so again they will pass this cost on to us, the consumer. My husband who contracts into Ford and GM told me that every time the UAW demands better benefits, GM will increase the cost of their vehicles by at least $1,000 to cover the cost.

What about congress effecting our economy with their pork barrel spending for their agendas? For every bill that is passed, there is extra money included that shouldn't be there, but we'll end up paying for it through taxes....

So gas prices are not the only thing effecting our economy, nor is President Bush the only one responsible...what about Clinton and Bush Sr because this inflation didn't happen over night.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

What in the following statements by the Fed chairman contridict my statements in this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7234154

I have not once used the word "recession" in this thread. I have repeatedly talked about an economic "slowdown" and the numbers in the key indicators heading the wrong way. My contention has been that the economic news is not good. There is nothing in Bernanake's statment that contradicts what I've posted.

I suppose it's just a matter of interpretation; you think it's "fine," I'm putting more funds into cash.

[db44]

Sports analogy

Tom Brady threw 30 TD passes in his first eight games this year in his last eight games he threw only 20. A 33% decrease in production. Using your logic you would say that Tom Brady had a bad second half of the season.

You're talking about one stat, in a set time period of 16 games, in a season that everyone on a team endures stress and injuries. Totally different than multiple indicators all showing the same thing, in a never-ending scenario, with nobody having to but their health on the line the same way.

[Annoyedlistner]

I agree with gas prices effecting our economy, and I too have said it was going to kill our nation's economy, but in reality what can we do? We can't put a cap on what companies can charge for gas, nor can we put a cap on the oil companies. I feel drilling here in the USA would help along with building more refineries. Yes, alternative energy is a good idea, but I don't think it will save much money since I've heard a gal. of ethanol will cost almost as much as gas right now.

Another thing influencing our economy is the increase in Min. Wage. When this was put in place, this wage was not meant to be lived on and it still should not be today. When this wage is increased companies can only take so much loss before they have to pass the increase on to us...so we are also feeling the effects of the wage increase. So yeah, the Min. wage people will feel the effects of the increase but the middle class gets nothing except we end up paying more out of pocket as things go up in price. I can guarantee within 7 years, this wage increase will mean nothing, and we'll be in the same position as we were before the increase. Increasing the Min. wage was not the answer...it only increases our products and services.

Another thing we are feeling the effects of is the union contracts from everywhere....as Unions demand an increase of benefits, their company/employer will have to get more money to pay for it, so again they will pass this cost on to us, the consumer. My husband who contracts into Ford and GM told me that every time the UAW demands better benefits, GM will increase the cost of their vehicles by at least $1,000 to cover the cost.

What about congress effecting our economy with their pork barrel spending for their agendas? For every bill that is passed, there is extra money included that shouldn't be there, but we'll end up paying for it through taxes....

So gas prices are not the only thing effecting our economy, nor is President Bush the only one responsible...what about Clinton and Bush Sr because this inflation didn't happen over night.

Unions and pork barrel spending are issues we have been dealing with for the past 100 years, I don’t think anything has chanced here to directly link them to our bad economy. I suspect you are saying this because you are now trying to lay the bad economy in the hands of the Democratic controlled congress. What has happened is our gas prices have gone up 200% in the past 7 years, has your paycheck gone up by 200%?

As gas prices climb, so does the price for everything else, we have to use gas to get our products to the store, therefore its an added cost to the manufacturer and distributor when gas prices go up. Why should they eat the cost? They are in business to make money, therefore they pass the price along to you.

[WannaBreatheYou]

Another thing influencing our economy is the increase in Min. Wage. When this was put in place, this wage was not meant to be lived on and it still should not be today. When this wage is increased companies can only take so much loss before they have to pass the increase on to us...so we are also feeling the effects of the wage increase. So yeah, the Min. wage people will feel the effects of the increase but the middle class gets nothing except we end up paying more out of pocket as things go up in price. I can guarantee within 7 years, this wage increase will mean nothing, and we'll be in the same position as we were before the increase. Increasing the Min. wage was not the answer...it only increases our products and services. You can't live on minimum wage regardless. I've lived on $7 an hour before, 10 years ago, and it barely paid my bills from month to month while I was living with my parents.

There are people who work two and three minimum wage jobs to put food on their table for their children. They deserve more than $5 an hour. Period.

I really dislike elitist ideals. "They aren't meant to live on that!" Well, when they barely have a high school education and they have children, you should be proud of them for trying to take care of their families on their own instead of relying on Welfare and your tax dollars.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I guess Bush has seen the light, and what a positive light he's shone on it. lol

Bush calls for broad-based tax relief to spur economy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday proposed a temporary, broad-based tax relief package aimed at spurring the nation's slowing economy.

"We can provide a shot in the arm" to the economy, Bush said Friday at the White House.

During remarks at the White House, Bush, flanked by economic advisers, said the nation's economy is at risk for a downturn and Congress must act to head off trouble.

"The package must be big enough to make a difference in an economy as large as ours," Bush said. "By passing a growth package quickly, we can provide a shot in the arm to keep a fundamentally strong economy healthy, and it will help keep economic sectors that are going through adjustments, such as the housing market, from adversely affecting other parts of our economy."

The president offered no specific details of the proposed package.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/bush.economy/index.html

[SparkleHugs]

I saw this on this news and it said that single, unmarried people will get 600 dollars and married people get another amount (i didnt pay attention cause i am not married...lol) if you make under a certain amount. and I just am kind of confused...it sounds too good to be true that I would be getting 600 bucks. they call it a "tax rebate" what is that exactly? any one have further info they can break down into dummy terms for Sparks? lol

[Annoyedlistner]

When are they talking about doing this?

I'm getting married in June and it would interesting to see how this will work out for us.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I don't think it's all hammered out yet. The numbers keep changing. But, yeah, looks like Bush wants to go with a tax rebate. Basically, the idea is that if the government gives everyone a few hundred dollars, they'll run out and spend it, thus boosting the economy. I'm no economist, and I can see how that might make retail sales rise along maybe consumer confidence, but I don't really see what that will do for some of the other key indicators, such as unemployment or new home starts.

[SparkleHugs]

they are talking about extending unemployment benefits so that is helpful, though not eliminating the problem. I figure its better than nothing.

My mom said they did this in the 70s. and she went out and bought a stereo for her car. that's what i would like to do....lol

[Incident]

I don't think it's all hammered out yet. The numbers keep changing. But, yeah, looks like Bush wants to go with a tax rebate. Basically, the idea is that if the government gives everyone a few hundred dollars, they'll run out and spend it, thus boosting the economy. I'm no economist, and I can see how that might make retail sales rise along maybe consumer confidence, but I don't really see what that will do for some of the other key indicators, such as unemployment or new home starts.

That is because you are liberal and don't understand that there are ramafications to an action beyond the first step.

Let us take a look at this together lets start with an assumption you made.

A tax cut (rebate) leads to increased consumer spending at the retail level, what ramifications does that have on other people and sectors of the economy?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

You were one of those fourth grade teachers that every kid hated, weren't you?

Gerald Ford tried this same tactic in 1975, in fact, that tax rebate was almost identical to what Bush is proposing, a 10% "refund." The idea then, as it is now, is that people would rush out and spend the money. It didn't happen. People either saved the money or used it to pay down debt. Why? Most economists believe it was due to a economic theory called "permanent income hypothesis," which says that people will only increase spending when they believe their income is permanent, just as they will borrow to maintain their consumption when their income is permanently lowered, i.e., through the loss of a job.

So what happened in 1975? Little to no economic stimulus. The conclusion among leading economists? Permanent tax cuts rather than temporary tax refunds would have stimulated the economy much more efficiently. And, this proved true with later tax cuts in the Reagan administration.

So, my initial assumption was that tax rebates would increase consumer spending, enough to stimulate the flagging economy; however, a little research has proven me wrong. Historically, tax rebates haven't worked.

Do a bit of research for yourself, Incident. You'll see that I'm right.

[LesterX]

John Fund, not exactly a liberal, was on Bill Maher last night. He doesn't think the one-time rebates are a good idea either.

Incident, since your economics expertise far outshines everyone else here, why don't you give us some background into how you gained such expertise. Let me guess...you hold a doctorate in economics from the University of Google. You earned it after the one you received in Islamic Studies from the same fine educational institution.

[db44]

Anyone remember how when Paul returned to the board, about how he was concerned about us assuming his situation ("how do you know I own a computer...?")?

If you do know all this about what's best for the economy, then you have your own computer, the money to pay for it and top-notch internet coverage. If this isn't the case, then tell us why we should take your opinions seriously about the economy if you can't afford what is pretty much a basic household item these days.

[pinky]

You were one of those fourth grade teachers that every kid hated, weren't you?

Gerald Ford tried this same tactic in 1975, in fact, that tax rebate was almost identical to what Bush is proposing, a 10% "refund." The idea then, as it is now, is that people would rush out and spend the money. It didn't happen. People either saved the money or used it to pay down debt. Why? Most economists believe it was due to a economic theory called "permanent income hypothesis," which says that people will only increase spending when they believe their income is permanent, just as they will borrow to maintain their consumption when their income is permanently lowered, i.e., through the loss of a job.

So what happened in 1975? Little to no economic stimulus. The conclusion among leading economists? Permanent tax cuts rather than temporary tax refunds would have stimulated the economy much more efficiently. And, this proved true with later tax cuts in the Reagan administration.

So, my initial assumption was that tax rebates would increase consumer spending, enough to stimulate the flagging economy; however, a little research has proven me wrong. Historically, tax rebates haven't worked.

Do a bit of research for yourself, Incident. You'll see that I'm right.
Game.

[pinky]

John Fund, not exactly a liberal, was on Bill Maher last night. He doesn't think the one-time rebates are a good idea either.

Incident, since your economics expertise far outshines everyone else here, why don't you give us some background into how you gained such expertise. Let me guess...you hold a doctorate in economics from the University of Google. You earned it after the one you received in Islamic Studies from the same fine educational institution.
Set.

[pinky]

Anyone remember how when Paul returned to the board, about how he was concerned about us assuming his situation ("how do you know I own a computer...?")?

If you do know all this about what's best for the economy, then you have your own computer, the money to pay for it and top-notch internet coverage. If this isn't the case, then tell us why we should take your opinions seriously about the economy if you can't afford what is pretty much a basic household item these days.
Match.

[Incident]

You were one of those fourth grade teachers that every kid hated, weren't you?

Gerald Ford tried this same tactic in 1975, in fact, that tax rebate was almost identical to what Bush is proposing, a 10% "refund." The idea then, as it is now, is that people would rush out and spend the money. It didn't happen. People either saved the money or used it to pay down debt. Why? Most economists believe it was due to a economic theory called "permanent income hypothesis," which says that people will only increase spending when they believe their income is permanent, just as they will borrow to maintain their consumption when their income is permanently lowered, i.e., through the loss of a job.

So what happened in 1975? Little to no economic stimulus. The conclusion among leading economists? Permanent tax cuts rather than temporary tax refunds would have stimulated the economy much more efficiently. And, this proved true with later tax cuts in the Reagan administration.

So, my initial assumption was that tax rebates would increase consumer spending, enough to stimulate the flagging economy; however, a little research has proven me wrong. Historically, tax rebates haven't worked.

Do a bit of research for yourself, Incident. You'll see that I'm right.

I never said that I thought that this was a great plan, I believe it will help on the margins and will go a long way in help ensure that the economy will not slip into recession. In other words it is nothing more than a short term fix. At worst it will do nothing to hurt the economy.

However, that is not the point of my previous post. My previous post was questioning your belief that increased retail sales do not have an effect on the rest of the economy. It is that stated belief of yours that a find pathetically ignorant. Or have you changed your mind about that belief, also.

[Incident]

...
If you do know all this about what's best for the economy, then you have your own computer, the money to pay for it and top-notch internet coverage. If this isn't the case, then tell us why we should take your opinions seriously about the economy if you can't afford what is pretty much a basic household item these days.

Is it possible, that even in your feeble little mind you can imagine that one can understand economic principles and have intelligent opinions on those principles, while at the same time choose to lead a life, based on his faith, that isn't driven by the pursuit of peronal wealth and chooses, because of that faith, to live a life of modest means in which owning a computer is not nessecary because his computing needs are met in other ways?

[Incident]

Game.

Then perhaps you would care to explain DES's stated position that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no effect on other sectors of the economy?

[Incident]

John Fund, not exactly a liberal, was on Bill Maher last night. He doesn't think the one-time rebates are a good idea either.

Incident, since your economics expertise far outshines everyone else here, why don't you give us some background into how you gained such expertise. Let me guess...you hold a doctorate in economics from the University of Google. You earned it after the one you received in Islamic Studies from the same fine educational institution.

I notice that you are not defending DES's idiotic belief that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no further positive effect on any other segment of the economy?

So you attack me (not my positions) instead? How typically liberal of you.

BTW Pinky ---- Game, Set, Match to Incident

[LesterX]

I notice that you are not defending DES's idiotic belief that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no further positive effect on any other segment of the economy?

Maybe that's because she never said that. Why must you lie? This is what she said:

I'm no economist, and I can see how that might make retail sales rise along maybe consumer confidence, but I don't really see what that will do for [b]some[b] of the other key indicators, [b]such as unemployment or new home starts.[b] (I added the bolds.)

Note the word "some" and the specific indicators mentioned. Then note your claim about "DES's idiotic belief that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no further positive effect on any other segment of the economy." Do I need to define the difference between "some" and "all" for you? Or can you just admit that you are being disingenuous due to your pathological need to feel superior? (Note that I didn't say to be superior, but to feel superior. There is a difference.)

So you attack me (not my positions) instead? How typically liberal of you.

How typically whiny and hypocritical of you, oh Emperor of the Personal Attack.

[Incident]

Maybe that's because she never said that. Why must you lie? This is what she said:

(I added the bolds.)

Note the word "some" and the specific indicators mentioned. Then note your claim about "DES's idiotic belief that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no further positive effect on any other segment of the economy." Do I need to define the difference between "some" and "all" for you? Or can you just admit that you are being disingenuous due to your pathological need to feel superior? (Note that I didn't say to be superior, but to feel superior. There is a difference.)



How typically whiny and hypocritical of you, oh Emperor of the Personal Attack.

Whatever, then defend her belief that an increase in retail sales will not have a positive effect on the unemployment rate. Or are you going to deny that she said that?

[LesterX]

How about I offer the same defense as you just offered for lying: "Whatever."

I'm done. Have fun.

[Incident]

Maybe that's because she never said that. Why must you lie? ....

LesterX the Hypocrite

the Proof

I said in response to DES, accepting her assumption (not mine) on the stimulus plan.

That is because you are liberal and don't understand that there are ramafications to an action beyond the first step.

Let us take a look at this together lets start with an assumption you made.

A tax cut (rebate) leads to increased consumer spending at the retail level, what ramifications does that have on other people and sectors of the economy?

But how does LesterX respond to that by insinuating I said something I didn't. That the plan was a good idea. John Fund, not exactly a liberal, was on Bill Maher last night. He doesn't think the one-time rebates are a good idea either.

Incident, since your economics expertise far outshines everyone else here, why don't you give us some background into how you gained such expertise. Let me guess...you hold a doctorate in economics from the University of Google. You earned it after the one you received in Islamic Studies from the same fine educational institution. I only said that if you assume as DES did that the stimulus plan increased retail sales it would also have a positive effect on other economic indicators, implying that increased reteail sales would have a positive effect on the unemployment rate.

[pinky]

BTW Pinky ---- Game, Set, Match to Incident
Not really. DES, Dave, and Leslie argued on merits, you resorted to name-calling.

[db44]

Is it possible, that even in your feeble little mind you can imagine that one can understand economic principles and have intelligent opinions on those principles, while at the same time choose to lead a life, based on his faith, that isn't driven by the pursuit of peronal wealth and chooses, because of that faith, to live a life of modest means in which owning a computer is not nessecary because his computing needs are met in other ways?

I'll let the "feeble little mind" bit slip.

Before, in the same thread as the living poorly bit, you assailed me for having the stance that Jesus wanted people to give away their wealth, whether by choice or not. I can imagine what you say and a great deal more. However, your words before once again are not logical if that's how you really feel.

Besides, somebody driven by faith as you are now suggesting wouldn't likely be such an insulting soul. Furthermore, such a person is very unlikely to be Libertarian, as you just posted you were.

Desipte not being religious, I know all about living in accordance to faith. Nothing in the way you post: Your demeanor, your views, your timing, your inability to argue your points with research, makes me believe you about anything.

[pinky]

Dave, he's just like Pat Buchanan.

[Incident]

I'll let the "feeble little mind" bit slip.

Before, in the same thread as the living poorly bit, you assailed me for having the stance that Jesus wanted people to give away their wealth, whether by choice or not. I can imagine what you say and a great deal more. However, your words before once again are not logical if that's how you really feel.

.....

First, when did I ever assail you for saying that Jesus wanted people to give away their wealth, by choice? You just made that up.

Why is it not logical, then, for me to live, by choice, a modest existence?

[Incident]

....

Besides, somebody driven by faith as you are now suggesting wouldn't likely be such an insulting soul. Furthermore, such a person is very unlikely to be Libertarian, as you just posted you were.

Desipte not being religious, I know all about living in accordance to faith. Nothing in the way you post: Your demeanor, your views, your timing, your inability to argue your points with research, makes me believe you about anything.

I will admit that I'm not perfect, but then who is. One of my weaknesses is being driven to hold people to standards which they demand of others. I do so by giving people a dose of their own Medicine, so to speak.

[db44]

First, when did I ever assail you for saying that Jesus wanted people to give away their wealth, by choice? You just made that up.

Why is it not logical, then, for me to live, by choice, a modest existence?

He didn't say any such thing. You are just making that up. He said his individual followers should freely give to the poor. Nowhere does he say one must require their neighbors to give "freely" to the poor.

As for not fighting giving where on earth did you pull that crap about Conservatives from? If anything Liberals are the ones that don't want to open their pocketbooks. (But want others to do so.)

Followed by the exchange between you and Pinky.

What is it about the Libertarian Party that you like so much?

[pinky]

And yet, when others do the same to you, you can only call them names.

Oh, and for the record, most of us that you attempt to insult by calling us "liberals" actually wear the label proudly.

[Incident]

Not really. DES, Dave, and Leslie argued on merits, you resorted to name-calling.

Yes, really. No they haven't in fact they have done the opposite.

[pinky]

Points on merit that you don't happen to agree with are points on merit nonetheless.

[Incident]

Followed by the exchange between you and Pinky.

What is it about the Libertarian Party that you like so much?


He didn't say any such thing. You are just making that up. He said his individual followers should freely give to the poor. Nowhere does he say one must require their neighbors to give "freely" to the poor.

As for not fighting giving where on earth did you pull that crap about Conservatives from? If anything Liberals are the ones that don't want to open their pocketbooks. (But want others to do so.)

How does that statement in anyway demonstrate that I was assailing you for "having the stance that Jesus wanted people to give away their wealth, whether by choice or not."?

[Incident]

Points on merit that you don't happen to agree with are points on merit nonetheless.

So why don't you follow that standard?

[Incident]

.................
What is it about the Libertarian Party that you like so much?

The aspect of having the Government stay out of people's lives as much as is possible.

For example the true Libertarian position on Marriage is that the Government should have no involvement in it what-so-ever. Which also happens to be my opinion. This is obviously not the Conservative or for that matter the Liberal view.

[Incident]

How about I offer the same defense as you just offered for lying: "Whatever."

I'm done. Have fun.

In other words you can not defend her position? And actually realize I'm right. But you can't bear to criticize a fellow liberal or admit I'm right. So you just quit.

[pinky]

So why don't you follow that standard?
I do. You don't make only points on merit. More often than not, you attack.

I have no respect for that.

[Incident]

..... More often than not, you attack.....



OK, back that up with facts, demonstrate the merit in that statement.

[Incident]

Game.

Is this an attack or a point based on merit?

[Incident]

Set.


Is this an attack or a point based on merit?

[Incident]

Match.

Is this an attack or a point based on merit?

[Incident]

Dave, he's just like Pat Buchanan.

Is this an attack or a point based on merit?

[pinky]

That depends on what you think of Pat Buchanan.

[pinky]

OK, back that up with facts, demonstrate the merit in that statement.
Easy:That is because you are liberal and don't understand.......your feeble little mind.......DES's idiotic belief ...LesterX the HypocriteAnd can I presume that you recall the reason for your little vacation from LiveDaily a while back?

[pinky]

My Game, Set, and Match responses weren't attacks, and wouldn't be taken as such be anyone who isn't overly sensitive to criticism..

[Incident]

That depends on what you think of Pat Buchanan.


No, it would actually depend on what you think of Pat Buchanan. And unless you think of Pat Buchanan in a general positive light, the comment was meant as an attack upon me. So do you generally agree with Pat Buchanan?

[pinky]

I think he's an ultra-conservative. That, by definition, means that I disagree with him.

But that fact does not equate to my having "attacked" you by the comparison.

[Incident]

Easy:And can I presume that you recall the reason for your little vacation from LiveDaily a while back?


Why just because I thought since a moderator (you) can repeatedly use the word "bitch" that I should be allowed to do the same. That you can repeatedly call someone else a "bitch" but insist that when someone treats you the same as you treat others that they should be suspended.

Like I said you can't live by your own standards.

[Incident]

My Game, Set, and Match responses weren't attacks, and wouldn't be taken as such be anyone who isn't overly sensitive to criticism..

Like I said you cannot live by the standards you hold others to.

[Incident]

...More often than not, you attack.

.

Come on still waiting for the facts. Demostrate that more than half the content of my posts are attacks.

You only named four things that I said, three of which were responses to attacks on me.

Try again

[pinky]

Why just because I thought since a moderator (you) can repeatedly use the word "bitch" that I should be allowed to do the same. That you can repeatedly call someone else a "bitch" but insist that when someone treats you the same as you treat others that they should be suspended.

Like I said you can't live by your own standards.
(1) I haven't used the word repeatedly. You did.

(2) I didn't insist that you be banned. Actually, I had nothing to do with it. Your assumption that I did proves that you have no clue about my thought processes and motives.

[Incident]

(1) I haven't used the word repeatedly. You did.

(2) I didn't insist that you be banned. Actually, I had nothing to do with it. Your assumption that I did proves that you have no clue about my thought processes and motives.

Nonetheless you believe that I was banned for a legitmate reason, (repeatedly using the word "bitch" when referring to you, only after you repeatedly used that word) while you believe that you should not have been banned for repeatedly using the word "bitch" refferring to someone else. Correct?

[pinky]

No, not correct. I didn't use the word repeatedly, but only once or twice over a rather long time span. I also used it in reference to a public figure, someone who deliberately courts strong negative reactions. You used it against private citizen, and did most assuredly use it repeatedly.

Whether or not I believe your ban was warranted is not related to the fact that you were, as I made no request that you be banned, and took no action, despite the fact that I have the power to do so.

[Incident]

No, not correct. I didn't use the word repeatedly, but only once or twice over a rather long time span.

Proof of the lie --you used the word bitch 3 times (which is repeatedly) in an eighteen minute span refferring to Ann Coulter. http://talk.livedaily.com/showpost.php?p=11869348&postcount=20
http://talk.livedaily.com/showpost.php?p=11869406&postcount=22

I also used it in reference to a public figure, someone who deliberately courts strong negative reactions. You used it against private citizen, and did most assuredly use it repeatedly.

So what, there is not really any difference. BTW you are a Public Figure in that by posting on this Board open to the Public you are making your opinions Public.

Whether or not I believe your ban was warranted is not related to the fact that you were, as I made no request that you be banned, and took no action, despite the fact that I have the power to do so.

Perhaps that is true, but how do we know that? Can you prove it? We should demand that Richard release all Emails, Private Messages, a complete transcript history from the Moderator Applications Board. Right?

[Incident]

.... More often than not, you attack.

....

still waiting Come on still waiting for the facts. Demostrate that more than half the content of my posts are attacks.

You only named four things that I said, three of which were responses to attacks on me.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Then perhaps you would care to explain DES's stated position that increased retail sales and increased consumer confidence would have no effect on other sectors of the economy?

I'll address this: that wasn't what I posted. And since others have done a very good job explaining that to you, I'll let their explanations stand for mine.

[Incident]

I'll address this: that wasn't what I posted. And since others have done a very good job explaining that to you, I'll let their explanations stand for mine.

You said you couldn't see how increased retail sales could have a positive impact on unemployment.

No one, including yourself, has come to the defense of that statement. Why, because it is an ignorant one.

The best they or you can say is I didn't phrase your statement correctly. Even though I think all my statements, get the gist of what you were saying. That the tax cut would have little effect beyond an increase in retail sales.

[pinky]

Proof of the lie --you used the word bitch 3 times (which is repeatedly) in an eighteen minute span refferring to Ann Coulter. http://talk.livedaily.com/showpost.php?p=11869348&postcount=20
http://talk.livedaily.com/showpost.php?p=11869406&postcount=22

Three times in 18 minutes IS a long time, as compared to four times in the same post. The fact that I miscounted and wasn't obsessed enough to go back and check threads from October to count (but you did) is irrelevant, and proof of only one thing: I really don't get overworked about this message board, but you do.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

You said you couldn't see how increased retail sales could have a positive impact on unemployment.

No one, including yourself, has come to the defense of that statement. Why, because it is an ignorant one.

The best they or you can say is I didn't phrase your statement correctly. Even though I think all my statements, get the gist of what you were saying. That the tax cut would have little effect beyond an increase in retail sales.

Perhaps you're just slow, so I'll repeat it for you: that is not what I posted.

That's it. That's all you're going to get. Deal.

[Incident]

Perhaps you're just slow, so I'll repeat it for you: that is not what I posted.

That's it. That's all you're going to get. Deal.

Typical cop out. Why, because you cannot defend what you said?

You post without thinking, and then whine when you get challenged.

[pinky]

Ah, another attack.

[Incident]

Three times in 18 minutes IS a long time, as compared to four times in the same post. The fact that I miscounted and wasn't obsessed enough to go back and check threads from October to count (but you did) is irrelevant, and proof of only one thing: I really don't get overworked about this message board, but you do.

Again proving my point you are such hypocrite. And now a proven liar.

You are complaining that I'm presenting facts and did research. Whereas Dave complains that I don't. Figures with liberals running a message board.

[Incident]

Ah, another attack.

Again only in response to one.

[pinky]

Again proving my point you are such hypocrite. And now a proven liar.

You are complaining that I'm presenting facts and did research. Whereas Dave complains that I don't. Figures with liberals running a message board.
And another.

[pinky]

Again only in response to one.
Aren't Christians supposed to "turn the other cheek?"

[Incident]

Aren't Christians supposed to "turn the other cheek?"

Sure. But of course my attacks are just meant as a teaching tool. There is no actual malice, I'm just reflecting back to you your own image in which there is actual malice.

[Incident]

And another.

Sure part of the post was an attack, but most of it wasn't.

The difference is when you Libs attack it most likely is an attempt to avoid responding to a challenge. Whereas when I attack it is most likely to address a point that Libs want to avoid responding to.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Incident: You said orange. That's idiotic.
Poster: I said apple. Read it again.
Incident: Typical liberal, whining when they can't defend their point.

It's like some Abbott & Costello routine from the Twilight Zone. lmao! :crazy:

[pinky]

Sure. But of course my attacks are just meant as a teaching tool. There is no actual malice, I'm just reflecting back to you your own image in which there is actual malice.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

What, exactly, do you propose to teach any of us? That you've mistaken "liberal" for a four-letter word? Besides, I don't recall, in any Bible translation I've ever read, Jesus saying that it's perfectly okay to hit back, as long as you're trying to teach something. Do you know of an edition that includes that part of His words?

As for malice, you're again assuming that you know my mind better than I do. And you KNOW what they say about the word "assume." However, in this case, only the first part is true, because nothing you say reflects on me at all.

[pinky]

Incident: You said orange. That's idiotic.
Poster: I said apple. Read it again.
Incident: Typical liberal, whining when they can't defend their point.

It's like some Abbott & Costello routine from the Twilight Zone. lmao! :crazy:
Except that DES knows that Who's on first, What's on second, and I Don't Know is the guy on third. So that makes you the one who doesn't get it.

Why don't you actually go and read the post in question again? You might find that she actually did say "apple."

[WannaBreatheYou]

I work for an Employee Benefits company, and in the email today...
1. UNLUCKY 13 - Prior to this year, the worst start over its first 13 trading days for the S&P 500 since 1950 was a 5.9% loss to begin 1982. The first 13 trading days of 2008 (i.e., through last Friday 1/18/08) have lost 9.8%. The S&P 500 is an unmanaged index of 500 widely held stocks that is generally considered representative of the US stock market (source: BTN Research).
...
4. JUST BEFORE - The US has experienced 9 recessions in the last 55 years. The average performance of the S&P 500 in the 12 months prior to these recessions has been a loss of 4.4% (source: Citigroup, Financial Times).
...
7. WAY TOO SIMILAR - In the 6 months before the last official recession in the USA (which occurred in 2001), the unemployment rate rose +0.4% and the number of idled workers increased by +611,000. In the last 6 months, the nation's unemployment rate has risen +0.5% and the number of unemployed Americans have increased by +722,000 (source: Department of Labor).

Copyright © 2008 Michael A. Higley. All rights reserved. Email mick.higley@mahbtn.com for information.

Yes. The economy is going strong.

/sarcasm

[Incident]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

What, exactly, do you propose to teach any of us? That you've mistaken "liberal" for a four-letter word? Besides, I don't recall, in any Bible translation I've ever read, Jesus saying that it's perfectly okay to hit back, as long as you're trying to teach something. Do you know of an edition that includes that part of His words?

As for malice, you're again assuming that you know my mind better than I do. And you KNOW what they say about the word "assume." However, in this case, only the first part is true, because nothing you say reflects on me at all.


It is not uncommon to find Jesus verbally attacking people in the Bible. So it is unlikely that the "turn the other cheek" phrase applies to criticizing someone verbally.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk011.htm

Luke 11:38~5438 And the Pharisee (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/11789b.htm) began to say, thinking within himself, why he was not washed (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/15557b.htm) before dinner. 39 And the Lord said to him: Now you, Pharisees (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/11789b.htm), make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter: but your inside is full of rapine and iniquity (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/14004b.htm). 40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make also that which is within?...................52 Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/08673a.htm). You yourselves have not entered in: and those that were entering in, you have hindered. 53 And as he was saying these things to them, the Pharisees (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/11789b.htm) and the lawyers began violently (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/cathen/15446a.htm) to urge him and to oppress his mouth about many things, 54 Lying in wait for him and seeking to catch something from his mouth, that they might accuse him..

On the other hand when Db44 threatened me with physical harm, I did turn the other cheek, now didnt I?

[pinky]

Wha????? Dave threatened you with physical harm?

Surely you don't mean the comment about taping your fingers together so you couldn't type? If so, do us all a favor and go out and buy yourself a sense of humor.

If, of course, you can afford it on your modest lifestyle.

[Incident]

Wha????? Dave threatened you with physical harm?

Surely you don't mean the comment about taping your fingers together so you couldn't type? If so, do us all a favor and go out and buy yourself a sense of humor.

If, of course, you can afford it on your modest lifestyle.


Yes I mean exactly that, like most Liberals when it comes down to it, Dave is a thug.
Oh, when did threatening violence against others become funny?
Oh, when did mocking people because of their lack of money become funny?

[pinky]

Can I tape your fingers together so you can't type?You really consider that a threat of physical harm? A person who lives well over a thousand miles away from you, asking permission to do something?

Maybe he should be arrested for "threatening" to tape Bush's mouth shut!

As for mocking your lack of money, I'm not the one who brought your modest means into the discussion, am I now?

[db44]

Don't you know Pinky, he's allergic to the sticky stuff on tape. He caught me red handed. :o

[Incident]

....
As for mocking your lack of money, I'm not the one who brought your modest means into the discussion, am I now?

No, that was db44, what is your point?

But you do seem obssessed with it?

[pinky]

Actually, you did, in another thread. You brought the idea to LiveDaily.

[db44]

What mocking of your lack of money are you talking about? That is something I would NEVER make fun of... I think people around here who know me better than you do would understand that.

I'm questioning whether you are being truthful about your situation. You've been posting here what, a year or two, and all of a sudden you bring your financial situation into the fray? You brought it up so mysteriously and then start saying you live a certain way by choice... When I hear that, I tend to thing that is to help others. And yet, I have trouble picturing you doing that.

[Incident]

What mocking of your lack of money are you talking about? That is something I would NEVER make fun of... I think people around here who know me better than you do would understand that.

I'm questioning whether you are being truthful about your situation. You've been posting here what, a year or two, and all of a sudden you bring your financial situation into the fray? You brought it up so mysteriously and then start saying you live a certain way by choice... When I hear that, I tend to thing that is to help others. And yet, I have trouble picturing you doing that.

My financial situation has never been pertinent to any other discussion on this board. I only brought it up in response to you lashing out at me (without any knowledge of my financial situation) about not giving enough to the poor? So I rebuked you for assuming that I wasn't poor. And poor I am, but content to be so, which appaerntly is beyond your understanding. Which is suprising coming from an avowed Communist.

[db44]

I'm waiting for others to respond, as it sounds like I'm not the only one who still questions your description and motives.

I would say, considering in your first allegations that you are poor, that 9:28 at night is a rather awkward time for somebody to be posting from a public computer, or the computer of a friend... Both things you suggested you were doing.

[db44]

Oh, and please tell me what your definition of communism is? I missed the part where it was synonimous with poor...

[Incident]

I'm waiting for others to respond, as it sounds like I'm not the only one who still questions your description and motives.

I would say, considering in your first allegations that you are poor, that 9:28 at night is a rather awkward time for somebody to be posting from a public computer, or the computer of a friend... Both things you suggested you were doing.

Not that it is any of your business, but my parents are fairly elderly and need help around their house, I spend a great deal of time there. Occasionally, I make use of their computer to make posts on this board?

[Incident]

Oh, and please tell me what your definition of communism is? I missed the part where it was synonimous with poor...

More in the sense that a true communist would be content with being poor. I don't consider being poor a negative. Perhaps you do?

[SparkleHugs]

I think being poor is negative, i hate being poor. Living off ramen noodles and hamburger helper was never my idea of happiness.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

More in the sense that a true communist would be content with being poor. I don't consider being poor a negative. Perhaps you do?

Interesting concept, "content with being poor." How so? I suppose my first question would be, what do you consider "poor?" And I'm not asking how much money you make, but what resources you have. How do you live? You see, I think generally people live way above their means, using credit or forgoing basics such as health insurance in lieu of other material things, and that's a big problem in the U.S.

[pinky]

Poor is a relative term. The "poor" in this country and the "poor" in places like Sudan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, and about a hundred other countries you can name have almost nothing in common.

As for communists (note the lower-case "c") being content with being poor, I disagree. They would not be content with ANYONE being poor, so they'd willingly share their own resources to prevent it.

[Incident]

Where do you get the idea that being poor is a bad thing?

[SparkleHugs]

Who are you directing your question to?

[Richard Tafoya]

If by poor, one means destitute, unable to afford a regular place to sleep, unable to heat their home in the winter, unable to eat healthy or regular meals, unable to afford health care or treatment when ill, unable to afford transportation to hold down a regular job.... I'd lean toward considering that kind of poor a bad thing.

If by poor one means living simply and not lavishly but not in crisis about ability to sleep indoors or eat regularly, I wouldn't necessarily consider that person poor.

When I first moved out and spent a year in a shared apartment sleeping in a sleeping bag in my room and living on salads and noodles and driving my beater of a car to work, I didn't consider myself poor, just frugal and happy.

[pinky]

Where do you get the idea that being poor is a bad thing?
Who said I had that idea?

[Incident]

If by poor, one means destitute, unable to afford a regular place to sleep, unable to heat their home in the winter, unable to eat healthy or regular meals, unable to afford health care or treatment when ill, unable to afford transportation to hold down a regular job....
.

Then according to that definition, the number of actual poor people in this country is essentially zero, other than those who are severely mentally and/or physically disabled.

[pinky]

Statistics to back that up?

[Incident]

....
When I first moved out and spent a year in a shared apartment sleeping in a sleeping bag in my room and living on salads and noodles and driving my beater of a car to work, I didn't consider myself poor, just frugal and happy.

Did you have any many other assets, that would have allowed you a higher standard of living if you so chose. If not then you were poor, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Incident]

Statistics to back that up?

What statistics would you like me to produce?

How about you providing statistics that refute my point?

[Incident]

Who said I had that idea?

Ok, agreed you don't believe that being poor is a bad thing?

[pinky]

What statistics would you like me to produce?

How about you providing statistics that refute my point?
Your point, you find the backup.

[pinky]

Ok, agreed you don't believe that being poor is a bad thing?
As Richard showed, it may be, it may not. But I wouldn't be willing to generalize.

[LesterX]

If by poor, one means destitute, unable to afford a regular place to sleep, unable to heat their home in the winter, unable to eat healthy or regular meals, unable to afford health care or treatment when ill, unable to afford transportation to hold down a regular job.... I'd lean toward considering that kind of poor a bad thing.

If by poor one means living simply and not lavishly but not in crisis about ability to sleep indoors or eat regularly, I wouldn't necessarily consider that person poor.



Exactly, Richard. What Incident considers "poor" and what actual poverty looks like appear to be two very different things. The subsequent claim that there are virtually no truly poor people in this country except for those with severe mental or physical disabilities is mind-boggling.

Real poverty, as opposed to a modest lifestyle, is a bad thing. Just ask someone who is unsure of where his next meal is coming from or who has to choose between paying the rent and feeding the kids.

[Richard Tafoya]

And there are plenty of single parents caught in the rock/hard place conundrum of choosing to work or caring for their kids because they can't afford day care and don't have anyone to call on for babysitting duty.

[Richard Tafoya]

Did you have any many other assets, that would have allowed you a higher standard of living if you so chose. If not then you were poor, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I was working in a record store by day and working on songs and demos with my roomate by night. I had an acoustic guitar and an old Toyota Corolla to my name, that was pretty much it, but I was living the dream. Good times.

[Incident]

Your point, you find the backup.


My point was an observation. That Richard's definition of being poor does not apply in the United States as any non mentally ill or physically disabled person should be able to find enough income to provide himself shelter and a healthy diet if he so desires.

If you disagree with that opinion tell me why?

[pinky]

I disagree because there are many people in this country who are unable, for any of a number of reasons, to find adequate income to support themselves and their dependents.

[Incident]

Exactly, Richard. What Incident considers "poor" and what actually poverty looks like appear to be two very different things. The subsequent claim that there are virtually no truly poor people in this country except for those with severe mental or physical disabilities is mind-boggling.

Real poverty, as opposed to a modest lifestyle, is a bad thing. Just ask someone who is unsure of where his next meal is coming from or who has to choose between paying the rent and feeding the kids.

didn't say there weren't any poor people what I said is that there is no reason for them not to be able to provide themselves with enough income to meet the basics. If people cannot afford shelter, food, etc... it is not because they are unable to do so, it is because they are unwilling to do so.

[LesterX]

didn't say there weren't any poor people what I said is that there is no reason for them not to be able to provide themselves with enough income to meet the basics. If people cannot afford shelter, food, etc... it is not because they are unable to do so, it is because they are unwilling to do so.

No, that's not what you said. You said nothing about "unwillingness." You said exactly what I indicated you said:


Then according to that definition, the number of actual poor people in this country is essentially zero, other than those who are severely mentally and/or physically disabled.

I think your new contention -- that there is no reason for people to be unable to provide the basics and therefore anyone who can't do so is "unwilling" -- is equally mind-boggling.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Then according to that definition, the number of actual poor people in this country is essentially zero, other than those who are severely mentally and/or physically disabled.

Tell me how you came to this conclusion, and put some facts in there.

[WannaBreatheYou]

didn't say there weren't any poor people what I said is that there is no reason for them not to be able to provide themselves with enough income to meet the basics. If people cannot afford shelter, food, etc... it is not because they are unable to do so, it is because they are unwilling to do so.
That is a bunch of BS. I'm sorry, but it is. Tell that to someone who has to choose between food and paying the rent or electric.

When I moved into an apartment with my son in 2002, I was making $23k a year, and my debt ratio was 97%, which didn't include electric, food, or even the money taken out of my check for health insurance. I was bouncing checks to feed my child. I made too much money to get food stamps or any kind of assistance but child care, but too little to do anything else. My power was turned off 6 times in a year and a half. I was purchasing a car, but I had to have a car to get to and from work since where I lived, the public transportation was inadequate and I'd began the financing when I was in a better place financially. If I'd lost my job, I would have been living in that car until they repoed it. I didn't have cable at the time, because I couldn't afford it. I'd say I was living pretty poorly.