The Tea Party won!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now your retorts are personal attacks? Boo fucking hoo. I thought you liberals were so tolerant of other views? Except when the views contradict your own? Most of you are so intolerant. You sit here and bash Christians, pro life voters all day on these boards. Hypocrites.

Spend a second reading financial news and you'll see that rather than small or ,arge business expanding they're eking out more productivity from their current workforce. Why hire one more worker when the current employees will work harder in this tough environment. Admit it that Obama is bad for business. America is a much more conservative country and people are tired of spend and spend. I heard an idiot democrat from Georgia complaining about federal workers being laid off. Encapsulated the thinking of democrats, that the government should create jobs not the private sector.

You are such a moron. There's your personal attack.

In all recessions, employers have increased productivity to maintain profits in a slow-growing market. This is in any macro econ textbook. Show me a recession where it didn't.

This sort of comment makes you look foolish. Clearly you have never run, or know people who run, anything bigger than a cell phone kiosk at the mall.

[Anonymous]

The Tea Party won?? I have never in my life seen people work so hard to make sure rich people had a fair shake.

I could vomit. These people are not Americans, they are willing to throw this country down a sewer drain for their ideology and to make sure a black man doesn't get re-elected.

THE LAST THING THEY CARE ABOUT IS THIS COUNTRY OR OTHER AMERICANS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tea Party won?? I have never in my life seen people work so hard to make sure rich people had a fair shake.

I could vomit. These people are not Americans, they are willing to throw this country down a sewer drain for their ideology and to make sure a black man doesn't get re-elected.

THE LAST THING THEY CARE ABOUT IS THIS COUNTRY OR OTHER AMERICANS

I agree. But they couldn't be that evil, right? They must just be stupid and don't see the error in their logic. If they really did know what they were doing then this country is doomed for sure.

[Anonymous]

I think they did win in the sense that they largley got thier way. They held all the cards though; they refused to lift the debt ceiling without significant spending cuts. The center has held better than I thought it would, since most reasonable people of both parties agree we need to get a handle on the debt. The checks will keep coming. If the Tea Party had voted down the compromise the House and Senate leaders had negotiated then I think you would see a backlash against them.

[Anonymous]

the tea party is 100% right in their thinking: the govt's budget long-term is not sustainable. the budget does not need to go up by $1.5 trillion in the next few years - there is no reason behind it other than built in increases that are much higher than inflation.

that said, I disagree with their approach but it seems to have worked.

and the tea party is not at all concerned with race. playing the race card just makes YOU look stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now your retorts are personal attacks? Boo fucking hoo. I thought you liberals were so tolerant of other views? Except when the views contradict your own? Most of you are so intolerant. You sit here and bash Christians, pro life voters all day on these boards. Hypocrites.

Spend a second reading financial news and you'll see that rather than small or ,arge business expanding they're eking out more productivity from their current workforce. Why hire one more worker when the current employees will work harder in this tough environment. Admit it that Obama is bad for business. America is a much more conservative country and people are tired of spend and spend. I heard an idiot democrat from Georgia complaining about federal workers being laid off. Encapsulated the thinking of democrats, that the government should create jobs not the private sector.

You are such a moron. There's your personal attack.

In all recessions, employers have increased productivity to maintain profits in a slow-growing market. This is in any macro econ textbook. Show me a recession where it didn't.

This sort of comment makes you look foolish. Clearly you have never run, or know people who run, anything bigger than a cell phone kiosk at the mall.

And you are a stupid bitch. Look at all the cash companies are holding on the sidelines. They are refusing to put this back to work. The government has crowded out private investment. Don't talk to me about economics because I'll run circles around you. What the fuck do you do? Please state your occupation. You decided to get personal when I was posting a thread from a global view. Sentiment is a real business gauge, but I bet you probably didn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the tea party is 100% right in their thinking: the govt's budget long-term is not sustainable. the budget does not need to go up by $1.5 trillion in the next few years - there is no reason behind it other than built in increases that are much higher than inflation.

that said, I disagree with their approach but it seems to have worked.

and the tea party is not at all concerned with race. playing the race card just makes YOU look stupid.

I'm sure folks here can unearth enough Tea Partiers of moderate importance who've said some racist/racialist drivel to disprove it. It's kind of like Islam: in the absence of a central Pope-like authority figure, those who are going to oppose it no matter what will be able to find some wacko espousing Tea Party views to confirm their already-held opinions.

In a previous thread, I split the Tea Party into two groups: a (mostly) older and less-educated group who are upset about the direction of the country, and tend to be more nativist and even racist from time to time, and a (mostly) younger and more-educated group who are more libertarian in their leanings. The former are the sort that'd protest/complain about any cuts to programs that affect them, the latter seem to be more cognizant that a move to minarchy (smaller government) would potentially affect programs that affect them.

It's not a perfect correlation, though: my non-college educated father, when pressed for things to cut, acknowledged that Social Security would need to be cut and that it'd affect him, and I have never heard a racist word from him. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And you are a stupid bitch. Look at all the cash companies are holding on the sidelines. They are refusing to put this back to work. The government has crowded out private investment. Don't talk to me about economics because I'll run circles around you. What the fuck do you do? Please state your occupation. You decided to get personal when I was posting a thread from a global view. Sentiment is a real business gauge, but I bet you probably didn't know that.

Companies have been sitting on cash for the entire decade and have not been hiring. You can argue that Obama's actions aren't working and/or wouldn't work for this circumstance (personally, I believe there are larger forces at play that prevent Keynesian stimulus from being fully effective), but trying to paint this as something new -- that companies are just aching to hire people if only it weren't for the Kenyan Marxist and his Oppressive Regulations -- seems rather disingenuous considering that Bush's Presidency oversaw the worst employment growth since Hoover.

[Anonymous]

The United States was never built on redistribution of wealth. There very few really rich people in the United States. Most of the people who are the targets of an Obama tax would be people who are trying to become rich but will never make it. the harder they work, the more they get taxed. This is why the super rich are always liberal...The don't want the strivers to ever catch them while their wealth is in the form of dvidends taxed at 15%. It is important to have atax structure that allows people to become rich if they so desire (they hire people). Then maybe a high death tax at the stratospheric levels of wealth so you don't have generational wealth like Europe. The Obama type tax that goes after small business people and achievers is anti-American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you are a stupid bitch. Look at all the cash companies are holding on the sidelines. They are refusing to put this back to work. The government has crowded out private investment. Don't talk to me about economics because I'll run circles around you. What the fuck do you do? Please state your occupation. You decided to get personal when I was posting a thread from a global view. Sentiment is a real business gauge, but I bet you probably didn't know that.

Companies have been sitting on cash for the entire decade and have not been hiring. You can argue that Obama's actions aren't working and/or wouldn't work for this circumstance (personally, I believe there are larger forces at play that prevent Keynesian stimulus from being fully effective), but trying to paint this as something new -- that companies are just aching to hire people if only it weren't for the Kenyan Marxist and his Oppressive Regulations -- seems rather disingenuous considering that Bush's Presidency oversaw the worst employment growth since Hoover.

Again you are twisting the evidence. Take a look at the charts. Unemployment has skyrocketed under this president.


[img]
http://www.johnmauldin.com/images/uploads/charts/070811-02.jpg[/img]





This last chart was being paraded around by the White House showing what would happen if we didn't pass the stimulus. The red shows what actually happened. Unemployment went up after it was passed.




At some point this administration will have to look at the course it's taken and the way theyve decided to interact with business in America. If they continue to view business and entrepreneurs as opponents and the enemy and continue to engage in class warfare we will be stuck in this rut for another 4 years. I honestly thought Obama would be closer to Clinton but he seems to have decided to go Carter.

[Anonymous]

The Tea Party won, ok will let you savor your victory. I will sit back and take comfort in your huge government cutbacks when your neighbors get foreclosed on after losing their gov related job and the value of your house hits the skids. Enjoy my friend, it is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This sort of comment makes you look foolish. Clearly you have never run, or know people who run, anything bigger than a cell phone kiosk at the mall.

And you are a stupid bitch. Look at all the cash companies are holding on the sidelines. They are refusing to put this back to work. The government has crowded out private investment. Don't talk to me about economics because I'll run circles around you. What the fuck do you do? Please state your occupation. You decided to get personal when I was posting a thread from a global view. Sentiment is a real business gauge, but I bet you probably didn't know that.

Not the PP you were replying to but I agree that you have no idea what you're talking about. At best I imagine you might have had one course in Macro in college, and a little knowledge (especially when mostly forgotten) is a dangerous thing. Government spending can crowd out private investment, but only in times of growth and inflation. We haven't had any of those in many years and are stuck in a Keynesian liquidity trap.
Companies are certainly putting some of their cash to work, but abroad, where the demand and the low-paid labor is. Not sure what you meant when you said you are posting "from a global view", but if you read any reputable business news (the Weekly Standard and the National Review are not business news, FYI, they are just propaganda sheets from the billionaire next door) you would see that the articles state week after week that businesses are not planning on hiring because the American consumer isn't spending. The consumer isn't spending because the consumer is jobless, or fearful about losing his job, or mired in debt. That's a liquidity trap, and budget cuts are the last thing we need in a situation like this.
Why don't you state your occupation (assuming you're going to be truthful about it). The things you've said so far don't suggest you can run circles around anyone when it comes to economics.

[Anonymous]

PP. Sorry the second paragraph of the above is also supposed to be a quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tea Party won, ok will let you savor your victory. I will sit back and take comfort in your huge government cutbacks when your neighbors get foreclosed on after losing their gov related job and the value of your house hits the skids. Enjoy my friend, it is coming.

Ahh, so there it is. Because you are employed by the government you are willing to put the health of the nation's economy at risk for your own paycheck. So many people here feed at the teat of mother government a large obese matron that continues to grow unabated. Raping the people in rest if the nation who pay taxes to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tea Party won, ok will let you savor your victory. I will sit back and take comfort in your huge government cutbacks when your neighbors get foreclosed on after losing their gov related job and the value of your house hits the skids. Enjoy my friend, it is coming.

Ditto. But you forgot to say "and you lose your job and are only eligible for 26 weeks of unemployment, as is the rule after July 1st this year. And since unemployment benefits are only for losers and leeches on society, maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and refuse them."