Conquer Club

stack 2010 on top of 2009. Will share when it becomes available. The projections are worse than 2009, and I'm gonna "guess" that since we are not creating 250/500k jobs/month, the projections are going to be.....way off.








I think we are going to double dip, and the next time around, the rest of the decent jobs are going with it.

I will be adding statistics. Feel free to introduce your perspectives and we can get the economy into perspective.

The US workforce shrank by 652,000 in June, one of the sharpest contractions ever.

The stimulus package is supposed to create 500,000 jobs in June...
We lost 550,000....(at least it wasnt 6 million!)



7-16-10 Home foreclosures are on pace to hit over 1 million this year. for the first 6 months ended June, 540k homes have been foreclosed on. That averages out to 180k more foreclosures than 2009 staggering 900k.

I thought there was some gov't program (to which we borrowed n spent tens of billions for) to help homeowners. When does it start??



Sales dropped to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 300,000, the lowest since records began in 1963

Scotty, we are going to start fixing this soon. It can only get better and it will. People are seeing the progressives for what they are. But we must never forget and never let our children forget.

Meanwhile, if the sea rises a mere 3 feet, as it is projected to do in roughly 2050, then most of your claims are utterly irrelevant.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Meanwhile, if the rises a mere 3 feet, as it is projected to do in roughly 2050, then most of your claims are utterly irrelevant.

I can only guess you are talking about the sea levels, but this post is cryptic in the extreme...

Have you been having a rough week? This is at least the 2nd post this week I have had to guess at what you mean in, which is unusual. Usually I just disagree.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Meanwhile, if the rises a mere 3 feet, as it is projected to do in roughly 2050, then most of your claims are utterly irrelevant.

always the environment, no matter what I am talking about

The funny thing is that Players and I have more in common than she would think. I am not pro large corporations, which is something she could agree with, and which is why I don't march in lock step with the Republicans on everything. I am pro-environment, but I happen to think things like mercury in the air and water are more important than CO2.

rockfist wrote:The funny thing is that Players and I have more in common than she would think. I am not pro large corporations, which is something she could agree with, and which is why I don't march in lock step with the Republicans on everything. I am pro-environment, but I happen to think things like mercury in the air and water are more important than CO2.

I would say they are all important... not to mention cadmium, etc.

Since I am in PA, fracking has me worried most right now (because it is something I can perhaps do the most about).

An irony I find is that most intelligent people actually do agree on fundamental issues. Its the details where we disagree. But that's also why discussion is good.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

rockfist wrote:The funny thing is that Players and I have more in common than she would think. I am not pro large corporations, which is something she could agree with, and which is why I don't march in lock step with the Republicans on everything. I am pro-environment, but I happen to think things like mercury in the air and water are more important than CO2.

I would say they are all important... not to mention cadmium, etc.

Since I am in PA, fracking has me worried most right now (because it is something I can perhaps do the most about).

An irony I find is that most intelligent people actually do agree on fundamental issues. Its the details where we disagree. But that's also why discussion is good.

Player, how about creating your very own Environmental thread? What do you say hun

I'm not sure if you are aware (i wasn't until today) of one of the most evil things done thus far by GS

Read this..

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html

For once Player and ol' Sax may agree on something.

Gang, the environment is something of which we all need to be conscious.

The root of all environmental problems is human population growth.

Anyone who has more than 1 child is a completely selfish, self-obsessed, eco-hater. The environmental devastation that the lifetime of one additional human being on this planet will wreak is impossible to even begin to equalize by recycling, taking the bus or using energy efficient light bulbs. If you claim to want to protect the environment but have more than one child it's like having a dinner party, squatting over your guest's bowl of soup, taking a dump in it and then proclaiming, "don't worry - I'll add some extra salt!"

If you want a pet, get a cat.

I have 1 child. That's it. That's all it's going to be. I'm doing my bit.

Pedronicus wrote:I have 1 child. That's it. That's all it's going to be. I'm doing my bit.

I knew I liked you, Pedronicus.

By your actions you have established yourself as a human-being, as opposed to a bipedal rabbit.

Phatscotty wrote:Obama says "We are emerging from the recession, but we are still in a huge hole". Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan.

I think we are going to double dip, and the next time around, the rest of the decent jobs are going with it.

I will be adding statistics. Feel free to introduce your perspectives and we can get the economy into perspective.

Where are these statistics???

"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Titanic wrote:"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Anything other than the gigantic hole left by the trillions spent on an illegal war and lost during a regime of irresponsible 'crony capitalist' tax-cutting for rich political-donors.

King Doctor wrote:

Titanic wrote:"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Anything other than the gigantic hole left by the trillions spent on an illegal war and lost during a regime of irresponsible 'crony capitalist' tax-cutting for rich political-donors.

nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

Phatscotty wrote:

King Doctor wrote:

Titanic wrote:"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Anything other than the gigantic hole left by the trillions spent on an illegal war and lost during a regime of irresponsible 'crony capitalist' tax-cutting for rich political-donors.

nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

"The hole is about exactly the same size as the stimulus" (to paraphrase). This is what I am laughing at. Explain that please.

Oh, and the largest contributor to the federal deficit is the Bush tax cuts. Horrendous decision with horrible consequences and a huge reason for all the trouble that we are now in.

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

King Doctor wrote:

Titanic wrote:"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Anything other than the gigantic hole left by the trillions spent on an illegal war and lost during a regime of irresponsible 'crony capitalist' tax-cutting for rich political-donors.

nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

"The hole is about exactly the same size as the stimulus" (to paraphrase). This is what I am laughing at. Explain that please.

Oh, and the largest contributor to the federal deficit is the Bush tax cuts. Horrendous decision with horrible consequences and a huge reason for all the trouble that we are now in.

How much was the contribution from Bushs's tax cuts? First prove you are a rational human being, and then I will spend time on it. I mean, really, even the dumbest person can realize that the deficit is too big by about 850 billion...I dont think anyone can disagree with that. Who's fault it was is a valid argument. however, it means nothing when talking about the reality that the stimulus plan was supposed to turn things around, and actually came up short, exactly the same amount of the stimulus bills costs (850 Bil)

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

King Doctor wrote:

Titanic wrote:"Interesting that the hole is about exactly as deep and wide and radial as the cost of the stimulus plan." - Hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

Anything other than the gigantic hole left by the trillions spent on an illegal war and lost during a regime of irresponsible 'crony capitalist' tax-cutting for rich political-donors.

nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

"The hole is about exactly the same size as the stimulus" (to paraphrase). This is what I am laughing at. Explain that please.

Oh, and the largest contributor to the federal deficit is the Bush tax cuts. Horrendous decision with horrible consequences and a huge reason for all the trouble that we are now in.

How much was the contribution from Bushs's tax cuts? First prove you are a rational human being, and then I will spend time on it. I mean, really, even the dumbest person can realize that the deficit is too big by about 850 billion...I dont think anyone can disagree with that. Who's fault it was is a valid argument. however, it means nothing when talking about the reality that the stimulus plan was supposed to turn things around, and actually came up short, exactly the same amount of the stimulus bills costs (850 Bil)

Bush tax cuts upto 2010 cost $1.8tr.

Stimulus was $787bn, not $850bn. The stimulus is also spread over 4 years, cant find somewhere which gives exact amounts, buts its roughly $150bn - $200bn per years for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 with 2010 being the single largest year but still nowhere naer the $850bn you are suggesting is from the stimulus in the current federal deficit.

Doubling and tripling down on it was a huge fucking mistake.

The deficit is not too big by $850B. It is too big in its entirety which is like $1.7T.

Look folks, when we calculate the deficit we do it based on what goes in and what comes out this year, we make no additional calculation for the increases in draws on future taxes because of run away entitlement spending. Its running a household budget and saying my income was $50K this year, but I only spent $75K so I am only $25K in the hole...even though I signed promisory notes binding me to spend $20K next year on wasteful shit. We just ignore the future because it hasn't happened yet and kick the can down the road for the next generation.

We can no longer afford to ignore it.

The time has come.

Phatscotty wrote:
nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

You just seem to be happy to blame Obama for anything and everything. Yes he signed the stimulus bill, but all that went before him caused the mess. It was Bernebank and Paulson that called for the stimulus money to make sure that the banks stayed solvent.
I firmly believe that they though that there was a blip caused by the housing bubble and if they could get some huge cash injection to stabilise the banks, the markets would right themselves and it would be business as usual.

But the banks weren't being exactly transparent with the shit they were holding. Blaming Obama for everything just smacks of GOP chest thumping and doesn't make you look like you are adopting a rational view.

Yes it was a bad call, but I can't see how you are happy that America has spent billions funding the Iraq war and then a large wad of cash that goes to Americans is wrong

Pedronicus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
nope, just 827 billion dollar hole. I would be more likely to blame that on the 850 billion stimulus package of 2009 than I would the invasion of Iraq in 2002. It's all spending, the only difference here is there were a bunch of people yelling at Obama "We don't have the money" Now we are all supposed to stand around and wonder why we don't have the money? I won't join you in that line....

I guess, that is wtf I am talking about.

You just seem to be happy to blame Obama for anything and everything. Yes he signed the stimulus bill, but all that went before him caused the mess. It was Bernebank and Paulson that called for the stimulus money to make sure that the banks stayed solvent.
I firmly believe that they though that there was a blip caused by the housing bubble and if they could get some huge cash injection to stabilise the banks, the markets would right themselves and it would be business as usual.

But the banks weren't being exactly transparent with the shit they were holding. Blaming Obama for everything just smacks of GOP chest thumping and doesn't make you look like you are adopting a rational view.

Yes it was a bad call, but I can't see how you are happy that America has spent billions funding the Iraq war and then a large wad of cash that goes to Americans is wrong

Not happy, just too much "Told ya so". I have to say it like that because of all the insults I have weathered about my opinion. Also, I am not happy about that wars, except I'm not focusing on something that I already focused on 9 years ago BEFORE the war, OK? (I was super-opposed to war in 2001, but I was mobbed by republicans and democrats) That was the time to oppose the war.

Note 2, the economy was WORKING when the war plans were made. I know how much we spent on the wars. But to look around, after the wars, and say "we need to spend even more now" is just plain irresponsible.

Phatscotty wrote:Note 2, the economy was WORKING when the war plans were made. I know how much we spent on the wars. But to look around, after the wars, and say "we need to spend even more now" is just plain irresponsible.

Since when has the US government ever been responsible about spending? LOL! Though I laugh at anybody who thinks the government will turn responsible anytime soon.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Meanwhile, if the sea rises a mere 3 feet, as it is projected to do in roughly 2050, then most of your claims are utterly irrelevant.

In 4 billion years the sun will expand to a red giant. The earth, having moved to a larger orbit because of the loss of mass of the sun prior to this event will not be engulfed but we will become like Venus is today.

Neither of these things have any bearing on near term economic policy. One nice nuclear war exhange between two countries and those global seas might drop three feet instead of rising by 2050.

Besides I really don't care what happens when I'm 89 years old. I'll move. In geologic terms three feet is miniscule. Sure it sucks when you live on the shore, but then again, there is always a shore somewhere. More people are impacted by their poor choice of living on major fault lines than they are of rising sea levels.