# "FISCAL CLIFF". Is US on the brink of fiscal collapse?



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

The media is throwing around this term "fiscal cliff". 
Is this a doomsday scenario of what may come, if the Democrats and Republicans don't come up with some kind of compromise solution to
implement some budgetary and financial policies.?

I suppose that now that Obama is in for a second term, his legacy as a 2 term president has to be meaningful ( in his place in US history), 
that he actually got the feuding political parties to agree to tax increases and spending cuts inorder to try and reduce the ballooning deficit. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficit_or_Surplus_with_Alternative_Fiscal_Scenario.png


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This cliff is a construction. No fiscal collapse.

I expect there will be a compromise. John Boehner has already changed his tune and sounds willing to negotiate.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The FUD around "fiscal cliff" stems from the fact that businesses and equity markets over the years have become so used to govt. spending and stimulus to keep GDP up that they are now nervous what will happen if the automatic spending cuts (and tax increases) were to come into effect on Jan 3rd.

This essentially implies that once you take out increases in govt. spending, GDP growth in the US (and most of Western world) is 0 or even negative (i.e. recession).
Account for inflation, and we have essentially been in a period of stagflation, perhaps since the 2001 recession.

If the two parties cannot agree on which spending to cut, and which taxes to raise, I say bring on the fiscal cliff.
One of the provisions in the fiscal cliff is automatic defense spending cuts.
It is high time the US start doing something about this white elephant.
Perhaps the fiscal cliff is a nice excuse to trim the defense spending.

After all, as Obama said, we need fewer _horses and bayonets_.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> After all, as Obama said, we need fewer _horses and bayonets_.


But do you think President Obama wants his legacy to be 2 US downgrades; one in each term?

I'm sure you all remember what Aug.2011 was like, when its AAA credit rating was downgraded to AA+ for the 1st time since the 1940's, and which had had more to do with their political combats than any numbers per se.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> One of the provisions in the fiscal cliff is automatic defense spending cuts.
> It is high time the US start doing something about this white elephant.


The other automatic spending cuts could hurt America's economy in the long run, though, including the loss of $12 billion in federal funding for R&D.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I know that at the end of 2012 there will be tax heights that are expected to impact markets (in Jan 2013), but are there any other firm "dates and events" in the 2013 calendar related to the fiscal diff debate that are likely to result in some volatility in the market ...(BTW - I know this sounds like someone trying to time the market)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with gradually implementing the fiscal adjustment (tax rises and spending cuts). The problem is when you axe 3% of GDP in one go, when demand is already weak and the Fed Reserve low on ammunition. If the fiscal cliff goes through, the Fed will have to do another round of quantitative easing to soften the blow, but there would likely be another US recession.

It's easy to blame Obama, but Bush contributed just as much during his tenure, through overspending and undertaxing. Bush should have had a balanced budget or surplus, given the strength of the economy at the time.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> But do you think President Obama wants his legacy to be 2 US downgrades; one in each term?


The day after the downgrade, Obama went on national TV and said : _The US still is, and always has been, a AAA country_.
The downgrade did not affect the strength of the USD, mainly because of the problems going on with the EUR.
Of course, Obama wouldn't want another downgrade.

They will eke out some sort of a deal, probably comprising of some tax increases and some fake spending cuts.
Theirs is a "hope and wait" approach, wishing that GDP growth will dig them out of the hole.

Obama won't cut any social spending, and the Republicans will not let him cut defense spending.
Most of the cuts will be superficial.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Obama has been elected to his second term now, you simply cannot blame Bush any longer. Was Reagan blaming Carter in 1984? Or even 1982? 

I just threw up a bit in my mouth mentioning Obama and Bush in a paragraph with Reagan.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Kicking the can down the road is the name of the game and going over the fiscal cliff may set the US on the path to once and for all reset its incredible debt. If the powers that be let everything wash out in 2008 it would have been very painful and done in a year or so and we would have moved on. At some point it all ends very badly for everyone and then we move on it is just a question of when this will happen, my guess is oil goes up until it breaks everyone and then we go down.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Argonaut said:


> I just threw up a bit in my mouth mentioning Obama and Bush in a paragraph with Reagan.


+100%


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have to hand it to the Republicans.

They have a lot of chuzpa, one day from getting trounced in the election, and already talking about what they would accept.

If I was Obama.........I put forward my budget publicly to the American people first, then present it to the Republicans and let them decide if they want to throw the country into a recession or not.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^
Step #1 - Spend like crazy, increase debt and deficit to highest historical levels
Step #2 - QE like crazy, destroy middle class purchasing power, create all sorts of market distortions
Step #3 - Prepare a plan that panders to your favorite lobby groups, and call it a budget
Step #4 - Present to congress and threaten recession, fiscal cliff, and all other sorts of FUD if not approved

Mission Accomplished


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Kicking the can down the road is the name of the game and going over the fiscal cliff may set the US on the path to once and for all reset its incredible debt. *If the powers that be let everything wash out in 2008 it would have been very painful and done in a year or so and we would have moved on.*


So your view is that IF they had not bailed out the big banks and automakers, etc. in 2009, the collapse would have come much sooner, pushing the US into a depression.
So then everyone else that is owed money by the US would just have to forgive the debt and get on with the world economy again? 

If that had happened, Canada would have gone down the tubes as well that year, since we are so dependent on our oil and nat gas exports to the US. 
The US will always take priority measures to protect their own interests over anyone else.

<This is an interesting excerpt from this article>
ww.theaureport.com/pub/na/13989

"
T_his is what happens in the winter season. It's a survival-of-the-fittest struggle for businesses to see who will dominate their industries for decades to come. So it's a huge payoff for the companies that simply survive and it deleverages the whole debt and asset cycle and brings things back to affordability. So it's a difficult season, but it's necessary and actually good in the long term. Lower prices in general will increase the standard of living._

_The government is trying to skip winter. It keeps heating things up, pouring the money into the economy so the banks don't deleverage debt and the banking system doesn't collapse as it did in the 1930s. The truth is, it's only keeping us in high debt and maintaining a bubble that's not sustainable. Sooner or later, this stimulus will result in a crash that takes down the economy._"


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ^
> Step #1 - Spend like crazy, increase debt and deficit to highest historical levels
> Step #2 - QE like crazy, destroy middle class purchasing power, create all sorts of market distortions
> Step #3 - Prepare a plan that panders to your favorite lobby groups, and call it a budget
> ...


You mean 'missionS' accomplished. Indeed a very accomplished President, and in just 4 short years!

And if he continues, prepare for a 'REVOLUTION', LOL. :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it's more a problem of _how_ the banks and automakers were bailed out. Especially with the banks. The shareholders should have been diluted to nothing, and bondholders should have taken a haircut. That would dull the moral hazard of behaving as though the government will bail them out painlessly next time.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> You mean 'missionS' accomplished. Indeed a very accomplished President, and in just 4 short years!


Naw..George "Dubya"Bush said that after he first invaded Iraq. Back then the US had only a 5 Trillion dollar debt...now it's triple that...good work George
and Barack. :encouragement:



> And if he continues, prepare for a 'REVOLUTION', LOL. :biggrin:


More like a tax revolt..isn't that how the 13 colonies broke away in 1776? Tax the tea..No way!..of course now they do have the splinter "Tea party"..
what is that all about? :rolleyes2:


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Obama will preside over another recession in his second term even if there is a last min compromise on the Fiscal Cliff, imo.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I think it's more a problem of _how_ the banks and automakers were bailed out. Especially with the banks. The shareholders should have been diluted to nothing, and bondholders should have taken a haircut. That would dull the moral hazard of behaving as though the government will bail them out painlessly next time.


Carverman I am more in line with andrewf here as a possible solution other then letting it go to hell all at once. It is probably now necessary to let it collapse completely in the end as the winter season runs its course and we in Canada will probably go down with the ship as well and of course big wars will erupt as they always do and hopefully we survive it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Argonaut said:


> Obama has been elected to his second term now, you simply cannot blame Bush any longer. Was Reagan blaming Carter in 1984? Or even 1982?
> 
> I just threw up a bit in my mouth mentioning Obama and Bush in a paragraph with Reagan.


The problem isn't so much the deficits now, but the lack of surpluses earlier. Keynesian economic theory suggests governments should run countercyclical fiscal policy, ie, deficits during periods of weak demand and surpluses during periods of strong demand. Ie, don't cut taxes and engage in two wars during a boom, then cut spending and raise taxes during the bust that follows. Clinton had put the US government on a fairly sustainable path--it was Bush that blew a hole in the budget. Obama added some items that were temporary in terms of the auto bailout and the fiscal stimulus, as well as permanent items such as Obamacare. Fiscal policy is something that takes place over decades, so yes, even four years later Bush has some blame to accept. Just like Trudeau was also responsible for the fiscal situation Canada found itself in in 1993, not just Mulroney (though Mulroney could be faulted for doing too little to reverse the problem).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fiscal cliff...........they call it.

Can't have that...........they say.

Well, how is the US going to address it's debt problems........because regardless of when they do it............it will impact GDP if they are serious about a solution.

There will always be a "fiscal cliff" to face...........whenever they get around to addressing the problem.

The Democrats are actually in a good position right now.

They don't have to do anything............and the tax cuts will expire, military spending will be cut, and although there would be cuts to Medicare.............there will be increased revenues to offset the damage for that.

No wonder the Republicans are livid down south. They are boxed into a corner.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Indeed a very accomplished President, and in just 4 short years!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7miRCLeFSJo :rolleyes2:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7miRCLeFSJo :rolleyes2:


LOL.

I think the President would prefer a song by 'Hip-Hop’s royal couple' Beyonce & Jay-Z instead.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ente...e-raise-money-and-awareness-presidential-race


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

With the Democrats having a majority in the senate and the Republicans dominating the House of Representatives..its like North vs the South again..

Abraham Lincoln once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and we certainly are divided.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Fiscal cliff...........they call it.
> 
> 
> No wonder the Republicans are livid down south. They are boxed into a corner.


Looking at the demographics, the US (except for the swing states) appears to be split in two between the Blue (Democrats) and the Red (Republicans)..
although over a hundred years ago,
it was the Blue (Union) vs the Grey (Succession states)...and we all know what that led to, until the matter was settled militarily. 

Abraham Lincolns famous speech around 1858.. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" .


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The south will rise again.
You heard it here first, boys and girls.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Only if the president fails the rest of the country. :chuncky:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Republican supporters are mostly white, male, rural, and aging.

Pretty much everyone else voted Democratic.

If the Republicans continue to hold to the same ideals...as Republican strategist Ari Fleisher said..........they will be a minority party forever.

They have to stop trying to fight old battles........it isn't 1960 anymore and the country has moved on.

The Republican Party needs to move on as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> The south will rise again.
> You heard it here first, boys and girls.


Does this need a smilie or something?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Does this need a smilie or something?


Of course, but then where is the fun.
Surely I was kidding, but then was I?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

One thing for sure, Congress and the President better get their act together. With the European states in crisis right now..if the US economy goes under..
...the rest of the world will follow.

Greece,Spain, Portugal, etc and other European "poster child" countries are facing serious economic crisis and will continue to do so for a few more years. 

The US can't sustain much more debt , and if drastic economic changes are not implemented in the next 4 years, the 2008-2009 banking collapse will seem like 
a mild spring breeze in the financial maelstorm bloodbath that will probably take place within the next 4 years. 

I don't see this strictly as a US issue alone anymore..it can turn out to be a serious worldwide financial meltdown.
How much longer can you continue to bail out/lend money to countries and corporations that should be allowed to sink on their own and die.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> The south will rise again.


May 16, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/yes-there-s-a-case-for-staying-in-california.html Will it start speeding up now?




> Californians do leave. In the last two decades, nearly 4 million more people have left than have come in from other states.





> ...... in its annual survey of the best states to do business, ranked Texas as No. 1 and California as No. 50. That’s the eighth year in a row California took last place.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Boehner has laid out his position..........the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue.

Obama has laid out his position........the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must be eliminated.

As Yogi Berra quipped.................This is like deja vu all over again.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

This argument sounds like an easy win for Obama. First you take it to the wall or cliff then you be the bigger guy and give into the tax cuts for the rich. After this it will be easy for Americans to point to the enemy and for Obama to point them there.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

When you rob Peter to pay Paul....you can always count on Paul's vote.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Boehner has laid out his position..........the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue.
> 
> Obama has laid out his position........the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must be eliminated.


So it's a stalemate again, and in their position to protect their own financial interests, the Republicans are willing to plunge the whole country (and maybe the rest of world with them),
into another recession.
Obama has already stated publicly that the debt and the trillion dollar deficit is not going to be placed on the backs of the seniors and the students. 
It's their country so I guess they can ruin it financially any way they like.:rolleyes2:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

A funny way of thanking campaign workers for all their hard work ... 
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/1...-tears-romney-cuts-off-campaign-credit-cards/ :neglected:


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Obama won 02.47-tranquillity: ). He's in the drivers seat now. 

The spending cuts that will automatically take effect will include significant reductions in military spending. Republicans will work hard to avoid that. Compromise is likely. 

The Bush era tax cuts are set to expire. Republicans will work hard to avoid that too. If the Bush era cuts do expire, Obama just needs to propose an entirely separate tax cut for those earning under 250K. It would be difficult for Republicans to vote against a tax cut. Grover Norquist has seen to that. 

---

As Ezra Klein said; the reason it is called a fiscal cliff is because too much deficit reduction will kick in on Jan 1. It is an austerity measure that would probably lead to a recession in 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1/09/the-fiscal-cliff-is-an-austerity-crisis/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> Obama won 02.47-tranquillity: ).
> The Bush era tax cuts are set to expire. Republicans will work hard to avoid that too. If the Bush era cuts do expire, Obama just needs to propose an entirely separate tax cut for those earning under 250K. It would be difficult for Republicans to vote against a tax cut.


But how will that tax cut for those earning under 250K address the spiralling deficit and national debt? Sure, a tax cut would put more money into the economy, 
but what do you propose should they do with the deficit monster of over 1.2 trillion now? 

---


> As Ezra Klein said; the reason it is called a fiscal cliff is because too much deficit reduction will kick in on Jan 1. It is an austerity measure that would probably lead to a recession in 2013.


Austerity measures don't always work. We are seeing what austerity measures are doing in Greece...citizen revolt and demonstrations...
but a global realignment of the debt could work, if you got everyone to agree, that is. 


<quote from link below>
_The numbers are just too large for normal austerity programs to work without harming nations and peoples - globally. There is a better way. The world economy must be rebooted. To reboot the global economy we have to accomplish Global Debt Realignment._ <endquote>
http://www.thedebtrealignmentinitiative.com/


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

From Mark Steyn:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333116/edge-abyss-mark-steyn


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Florida managed to finally get their votes counted..........Obama won.

His electoral count is boosted to 336 to Romney's 206.

Obama won all of the so called "battleground" states except New Hampshire.

The mandate is clear...............the Republicans should step back and let the Democrats govern.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49772221


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Obama won all of the so called "battleground" states except New Hampshire.


You must mean North Carolina? Obama won New Hampshire

I found this entertaining, and ironically data from Fox News


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> From Mark Steyn:


A very informative article on the true state of the US gov't. They are broke and are going from bad to worse. Kicking the can (the huge debt and deficit) is not going to help them again.
They have painted themselves into the proverbial corner..no escape now. Although they went through hard times in the stock market crash of '29, the debt ceiling (even with WWII)
that followed for them in '41..about 12 years later did not do as much damage to their economy. 

No amount of tax cutting now for the middle class can address the debt monster they are facing...and to expect the 1 million (or so) very rich Americans out of
the 230 million citizens (poor don't pay taxes and neither do children), to be saddled with the huge debt, by raising their taxes will cause a negative effect on the
economy as well. 
The rich become rich, because they have some game plan or enterprise to make money..which is their incentive in the first place. 
Take that away by installing excessive taxesm, without other government incentives to balance that, all of a sudden you are plunging into a serious recession,
as more and more cutbacks take place in the private sector. America can't afford more job losses or unemployed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> You must mean North Carolina? Obama won New Hampshire
> 
> I found this entertaining, and ironically data from Fox News


I wonder why the Republican states are red...is it because they are also known as ******* states?

http://members.tripod.com/~midi_music/redneck_dictionary.htm

From ******* dictionary:
_Mouse: Fuzzy, soft thing you stuff in your beer bottle in order to get a free case._ :biggrin:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was searching around looking at pictures of customized golf cars.......I can still afford to dream..........and came across this little story.

Small wonder the US is going broke.

A golf cart for free (energy vehicle rebates) or $2,000 in cash for signing a couple of papers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473724099542430.html


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

mode3sour said:


> I found this entertaining


I guess the chart presumes that there's an absolute correlation between 'being educated' and 'spending time in school being inculcated with Equine Egesta'. :wink-new:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Fiscal Cliff.com registered April 25, 2012..........directs to Yahoo Finance.
> Fiscal Cliff.ca..................not registered..........Canadians don't seem to care as much.


It is ironical that the term _fiscal cliff _was coined by Helicopter Ben - an out-and-out monetarist, just like his predecessor Irrationally Exuberant Greenspan.

So here we have the perfect marriage between neo-classical lunatics like Krugman and misguided monetarists like Helicopter.

Seems this is the year of perfect storms - of several kinds.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Florida managed to finally get their votes counted..........Obama won.
> 
> His electoral count is boosted to 336 to Romney's 206.
> 
> ...


The mandate is clear? Obama won a slim majority of the popular vote, both houses of congress are split pretty close, with one going Democrat and one Republican.
The only thing that's clear is the voting public isn't all that thrilled with either party.

In the end they decided that the Democrats should run the country, and the Republicans should control spending.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

carverman said:


> The rich become rich, because they have some game plan or enterprise to make money..which is their incentive in the first place.
> Take that away by installing excessive taxesm, without other government incentives to balance that, all of a sudden you are plunging into a serious recession,
> as more and more cutbacks take place in the private sector. America can't afford more job losses or unemployed.


This argument was probably true when marginal tax rates were above 70% but the current top marginal rate in the US is 35%. There is still plenty of incentive left. 

There is little evidence to suggest that the Bush tax cut, which reduced the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 35% had a positive economic impact. 



> The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?_r=2&hp&
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business...omic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/


I believe that the solution to America's deficit problem will need to be a combination of revenue and cost reduction. The argument will now be about how much of each. Obama proposed something like $1 of revenue for every $10 of cut. He may increase his revenue demand now that he has the negotiating advantage but he probably won't try to increase taxes on people earning less than 250K.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The only thing that's clear is the voting public isn't all that thrilled with either party. In the end they decided that the Democrats should run the country, and the Republicans should control spending.


That's certainly closer to the truth.

*Presidential mandates - A matter of perception*
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/presidential-mandates


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> It is ironical that the term _fiscal cliff _was coined by Helicopter Ben - an out-and-out monetarist, just like his predecessor Irrationally Exuberant Greenspan.
> 
> So here we have the perfect marriage between neo-classical lunatics like Krugman and misguided monetarists like Helicopter.
> 
> Seems this is the year of perfect storms - of several kinds.


According to financially conservative blogger, Mike Shedlock, the calculation of GDP includes spending by the government. If stimulus spending had been taken out of the calculations, the US GDP would have been -6%.

Without Krugman and Bernanke style spending, who knows the damage that would have been done without government spending intervention.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

> Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.


The (unrealistic, over-hyped, destined to collapse) Dot Com Boom/Bubble, (which gave the illusion of unstoppable expansion/growth) ran from ~1997-2000, (peaking in March 2000 and continuing its demise into 2001)........G.W. Bush was inaugurated January 20,2001.........one might well say that Dubya inherited a disaster.

Odd, I never heard him whine about it.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

The US needs to get its tax laws straightened out. The "tax cuts for the wealthy" that so many Canadians use an example of Republican evilness is something that Canadians actually enjoy right now in the form of the dividend tax credit. The difference is that in Canada, companies are not advantaged to use either salary, dividends or capital gains to reward shareholders - each way is roughly taxed the most. The US "tax cuts for the wealthy" were introduced to encourage companies to return money to the economy via dividends, instead of focusing on other means such as capital gains. They need an evenly balanced tax policy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nemo.........you are assuming George W even knew there was a dot com bubble.

I had the impression he was happy just to sit in the big chair........while Cheney, Rumsfeld, and daddy ran things.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ah.........Dick Cheney...........it brings back such memories.

Remember when he shot someone while hunting?

WARNING.......Adult Language............some may find this funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94w2Aon7vE4


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lewis Black on how to stimulate the economy...........and other things.

Adult content.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk1SoprPRsM&feature=related


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

sags said:


> Nemo.........you are assuming George W even knew there was a dot com bubble.
> 
> I had the impression he was happy just to sit in the big chair........while Cheney, Rumsfeld, and daddy ran things.


As Obama does with Jarrett, Axelrod & Soros?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Keb' Mo' in honor of the US economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F40QpNn2zk8


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Pliz be careful folks. :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Ah.........Dick Cheney...........it brings back such memories.
> 
> Remember when he shot someone while hunting?
> 
> WARNING.......Adult Language............some may find this funny.


Funny?..I found it hilarious. Lewis Black with his warped political views and his rants makes me laugh each time I see him.
I nominate him for the next president. America needs a good laugh right now...before they jump off the fiscal cliff like a bunch of lemmings!:highly_amused:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Lewis Black on how to stimulate the economy...........and other things.


And his political humour on Keynesian economics and corporate greed...:monkey:
Warning: Language and sexist humour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgXCw2eYUaU&feature=related


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe out governments could partner with Disney to build a Disneyland up here.

It could be our "big thing"..............


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Maybe out governments could partner with Disney to build a Disneyland up here.
> 
> It could be our "big thing"..............


It's too cold up here 6 months of the year. They already did that in the Edmonton Mall.

However, with wild Arabic coffee going into extinction in the next 50 years or so...what the Canadian and US gov'ts need to is come up with a joint gov't funded venture that
could be called StarbucksLand.:biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

This guy gets it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4Bu39hN5SEc


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nonsense. The US can restructure its fiscal affairs. It will be painful, but it is possible.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Nonsense. The US can restructure its fiscal affairs. It will be painful, but it is possible.


The operative word being 'possible'..........'possible', perhaps, but 'probable' or even 'likely'?

The U.S. was just offered the chance to restructure...but it was turned down....the next four years will be worse.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't buy the claim that the Republicans would have done differently. They have shown themselves to be just as spendthrift as Democrats.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Without Krugman and Bernanke style spending, who knows the damage that would have been done without government spending intervention.


But "fake" GDP created by borrowed govt. spending does not help in any way.
It's been tried several times before, and failed.
Several countries have gone through this pattern before - low interest rate fueled consumer and govt. spending, followed by various types of bubbles, followed by crashes and recession.
Take a look at the Swedish currency crisis of the 1990s - it is a smaller, but very similar, version of the cheap money and govt. spending crisis that the US is now facing on a much larger scale.

There just aren't enough 1% rich people in the US that they can tax to death and pay off the deficit.

Billions have been poured into the economy as "stimulus" and have essentially disappeared without any accounting.
Trillions have been created as leveraged liquidity by the Fed and has not stimulated job creation and growth.

This idea of infinite stimulus assumes that money is somehow magic, like it can create something out of nothing.
All it is doing is creating various kinds of asset bubbles - first the Internet bubble, then the RE bubble - each bigger than the previous one.

And it is quantitatively easing its way into other countries and creating asset bubbles there (i.e. exporting of inflation).
It has created commodity bubbles, which in turn, has created inflation in growing economies like China, India, and Brazil - the very same countries that are both consumers of goods and services produced by the West, as well as suppliers of cheap products to the West, and the primary creditors to the US.

This reckless QE is hurting, not helping, America's partners - the very folks they need to help them recover.
Not to mention the social unrest and the various imbalances it is causing all around the world.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

may i interrupt this topic to say that mainstream america is hovering on the verge but still can't quite bring itself to speak the obvious. Which is that Jezebel Jill in tampa is only the first out in what looks like a well-established network of "social volunteers" who are serving multi-starred generals & other ranking military commanders right at their bases. 

meanwhile, so many investigations are being launched that the deadline to avert the fiscal cliff could be missed.

paula is an aberration. Not a call girl. A smart over-achiever with an actual interest in counter-insurgency. She did get paid, but only with material for her book.

it's clear from the book promotion videos that paula fell hopelessly & helplessly in love. Probably for the first time in her life.

that husband of hers is a dolt, sucking up to the ménage à trois & even being grateful to the 4-star general for schtupping his wife.

holly ? she had to know.

now back to regular programming ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As an economic strategy, government spending during times of economic duress is dependent on building surpluses during economic booms.

George W Bush inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton but spent it and much more, and left Obama will a dysfunctional economy on the brink of a depression, a financial system that had to be bailed out due to the removal of banking regulations, a failing education system, a health care system that millions of Americans couldn't access, and a couple of expensive foreign wars with ongoing costs.

Obama had a choice between bad and worse.

He chose government stimulus, which by most accounts did save the US from an economic meltdown. He chose bad over worse.

And now he wants to repair the damage with a combination of elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy and program cuts.

But the Republicans don't agree. They want to return to what they left Obama four years ago.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> may i interrupt this topic to say that mainstream america is hovering on the verge but still can't quite bring itself to speak the obvious. Which is that Jezebel Jill in tampa is only the first out in what looks like a well-established network of "social volunteers" who are serving multi-starred generals & other ranking military commanders right at their bases.
> 
> meanwhile, so many investigations are being launched that the deadline to avert the fiscal cliff could be missed.
> 
> ...


I am shocked..............shocked I tell you.........that people in the military have hormones. I would have thought those would have been removed, stored and then replaced when government service ended...........no?

Flirtageous emails? Hahahaha........the media should have investigated where I worked.

600 people..........half of them female.......between the ages of 18 and 30. We had uniforms though........the women wore skin tight white short shorts and tube tops.........and the guys wore shorts and spaghetti tops.

It was way beyond flirtation.

If state secrets were involved.............then it is a serious matter. If not, it is active hormones.........that's all.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags ! you had 600 hookers where you worked ?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> But the Republicans don't agree. They want to return to what they left Obama four years ago.


It is not so much the philosophy of the political party, as it is that of the President.
There have been many, many fiscally responsible Republican presidents and there have been an equal or greater number of fiscally profligate Democrat presidents.
Reagan is an example of the former and L.B. Johnson is an example of the latter.

Reagan presided over a really bad economic crisis (thanks to his two predecessors - Nixon and Carter - one Republican and another Democrat).
Yet, along with Volcker, he turned things around.

The two US parties vary so much from decade to decade and generation to generation that it is hard to standardize their ideology across multiple decades.
Lincoln was a Republican, Kennedy a democrat; FDR a democrat, while Eisenhower a Republican; and the ruthless butcher Andrew Jackson a democrat - how far back do you want to go?

Trust me, you will find no common ideology no common principles whether you go back 20 years or 200 years.

Back to the present, the de-regulation began under Clinton, so it is not entirely GWB.
Also, the stimulus started under GWB, not exclusively under Obama.
It was GWB that did the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts, not Obama.

If anything, Obama has simply carried on the policies (and politics) of GWB.
There would not have been any difference had GWB continued as president (other than perhaps the continuation of the wars).

Obama's claims that he stands for "hope" and "change" and "a new Washington" are entirely false.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> may i interrupt this topic to say that mainstream america is hovering on the verge but still can't quite bring itself to speak the obvious.
> Which is that Jezebel Jill in tampa is only the first out in what looks like a well-established network of "social volunteers" who are serving multi-starred generals & other ranking military commanders
> right at their bases.
> 
> ...


Nothing like a good ole 4 way "twister" to deflect the media off the trail of America's economic woes. Who knows what went on there with Petreaus, Broadwell, "Jill what's her name"
and now another general is included with all these emails. It's starting to become a soup opera.


Fly on the Wall (CIA headquarters..Washington DC):

Gen Pet. Damn! Another email from Paula asking me when I can take time off my busy schedule to "help her finish the last chapter" in her book.

Paula B. Dave! What is going on with you and Jill? I thought you were just friends with her and her husband. Why is she emailing me to "back off?"

Gen Pet. Paula, these emails have got to stop..I think the FBI is onto us! I'm not supposed to send emails to ordinary citizens on gov't email channels!

I think a "cat fight" must have started it all.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> sags ! you had 600 hookers where you worked ?


No he said "half of them were female"..wearing white shorts and tube tops...


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/reid-wrong-on-bushs-economic-record/



> Sen. Harry Reid falsely claimed that 8 million jobs were lost during the Bush administration. To the contrary, there was a net gain of 1 million jobs under President George W. Bush. It's true that more than 8 million jobs were lost as a result of the recent recession — from the job peak to trough — but only about half of those were lost under Bush.
> 
> The Nevada Democrat also falsely claimed that Bush turned a projected surplus of $7 trillion over 10 years into a $14 trillion debt. The fact is Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillon debt.





> Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
> 
> Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
> 
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> I am shocked..............shocked I tell you.........that people in the military have hormones. I would have thought those would have been removed, stored and then replaced when government service ended...........no?


This scandal is getting quite the run on the media. Apparently "Jezebel Jill", (they call her a "socialite"..what is that?) exchanged thousands upon thousands? of emails between Petraeus and the other general (Allen). Now investigators are sifting through the paperwork recovered from the biographer's house and they believe there is a definite security breach. 

The question here is..what does a high ranking general(s) have to do with a socialite..to exchange thousands of emails?
Don't they have more important things to do to fill their waking hours, like commanding the troops?


Sad to see a couple of accomplished generals being taken down by a "socialite" and a "biographer"....I guess we will have to wait for someone to write a book on this...oh wait..there is a book on Petraeus by the biographer already, but it won't be as juicy as the new one that still has to be written.
Watergate will seem very tame like a grade school reader when the real story
gets out on this high ranking scandal.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. Sad to see a couple of accomplished generals being taken down by a "socialite" and a "biographer"....
> 2. when the real story gets out on this high ranking scandal.


1. The men are totally blameless. :rolleyes2: 
2. Much more 2 come; this is just the beginning imho.

*HP:* please interrupt more often. :encouragement:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carver of course he had 600 hookers in the workplace. Half of em w tube tops & half of em w spaghetti straps.

t.gal i don't believe the generals are blameless. I think the story might turn out that there is now & long has been a huge operating network which delivers ladies - peu importe whether in tube tops or spaghetti straps - directly to the high ranking officers in the field.

paula was outside the network so there would be a lot of friction between her & jezebel ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Not much of a story here.

Jumping hormones is all.

It happens in most places with large numbers of male and female employees working together.

Last I heard........no criminal charges or activity. No classified secrets exchanged.

The only thing the generals may face is conduct unbecoming an officer charges.........which would be pretty lame.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> carver of course he had 600 hookers in the workplace. Half of em w tube tops & half of em w spaghetti straps.


Thanks for setting that straight, H_P.

On this mornings news, the CBC interviewed a ex-CIA "expert" asking him, how serious the current scandal is in regards to national security and day to day operations of the CIA. Among some of the off the cuff remarks he made to the CBC news, he mentioned..
*that IF infidelity was so important to national security, the offices at CIA in Langley would be empty by now.*:rolleyes2:
So there is obviously more to this than just the barrage of emails exchanged between the two generals and the ladies in question. 

However, maybe every soldier in the military there applies to this unofficial creed..
"this is my rifle,
*this is my "gun"*
this one's for fighting..referring to the rifle
*and this ones for fun!" *:biggrin:

Ok, I can see perhaps the sequence of events that led up to Paula and the general getting involved.
But this other thing about "jezebel"...blowing the whistle on them and calling the FBI....what is
that all about? ..jealousy?...or was the good general doing both at the same time and they eventually
found out?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Ok..back to the regular programming folks...

From the media circus surrounding the US fiscal precipice ..it could happen as early January...another possible recession.

The European zone economies are either shrinking or well under water with some countries going down for the "third time".

Flaherty in his recent press conference mentioned that because of slow economic growth for Canada projected for next year,
the repayment of the deficit that the PCs had planned, now has to be extended to 2017...(or "infinity and beyond"..as Buzz Lightyear would exclaim). 2017 would push the deficit issue into the next election cycle.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I find it intriguing (to say the least) that all key economic indicators leading into the election days (such as jobless claims, unemployment rate, etc.) were starting to show marked improvements - a "fact" that was touted and thumped by the incumbent President Obama in all his speeches and debates in the last few weeks.

However, no sooner are the elections done, all key economic indicators have changed their colors like Tinker Bell's pixie hollow.
Retail sales, manufacturing data, consumer confidence, etc.

I am not saying anything is manipulated, of course...

As Timothy Geithner once said : _the treasury department needs to follow the direction from the White House in order to preserve its independence_ :rolleyes2:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I am not saying anything is manipulated, of course...


Of course not; who would dare think of such a thing.
The only thing that had not been manipulated was the hurricane. :rolleyes2:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> The only thing that had not been manipulated was the hurricane.


Actually I am not so sure.
Have you read this?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Actually I am not so sure.
> Have you read this?


Pulp fiction of course.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Pulp fiction of course.


Of course - _just_ like the US unemployment numbers, and the CPI numbers.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Also, 9/11 was an inside job, there were two people on the grassy knoll, and the moon landing was staged.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Of course there is no "manipulation" but there are creative ways of juicing up the nos eg increased govt spending and hiring of more part timers etc, nearer to the election. Similarly China has been reporting some improving econ data lately as the official leadership handover takes place this week.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Also, 9/11 was an inside job, there were two people on the grassy knoll, and the moon landing was staged.


Three "can of worms" topics. I've seen the TV programs on all three...no comments here, because I wasn't there to verify circumstances to these events, and today with so much media ,(and maybe gov'ts too?) manipulating what they want us to hear....
it's hard to believe anything as being the "real truth".

Of course, if the Mayan calendar predicts the end of days as being December 21th 2012, we won't even get to enjoy the Christmas/New Years holidays this year either.:biggrin:..so the fiscal cliff or whatever happens after that is probably the least of our concerns. 

My prediction is that the earth will still be here, long after we are all gone.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I briefly heard on CNN something about Boehner throwing Obamacare into the mix...................

That just isn't going to happen. Obama is proud of his achievement in that area.

It makes me wonder how serious the Republicans are.

Worse case scenario...............the long awaited austerity measures begin in January. 

They will hurt the economy...........but they will hurt the economy no matter when they are implemented.

So........best pull the tooth and get on with it.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I heard that Olivia Newton-John is going back to the studio to record a follow-up to one of her hit singles from the 1980s; this time it's "Let's Get Fiscal."


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

brad said:


> I heard that Olivia Newton-John is going back to the studio to record a follow-up to one of her hit singles from the 1980s; this time it's "Let's Get Fiscal."


:encouragement: Let's hear it for Fig-Newton!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> I briefly heard on CNN something about Boehner throwing Obamacare into the mix...................
> That just isn't going to happen.


Why shouldn't it be on the table?
Everything should be on the table, including defense spending, agricultural subsidies, foreign aid, etc.
They could go down the income statement of the govt. and pick at least the top #10 and put them on the table for discussion.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Obama is proud of his achievement in that area.


Of course, because Obamacares. :rolleyes2:

There are 7 or more provisions that will automatically go into effect on Jan.1st without repealing or passing new legislation, and as either of the two would take time to pass [days?], these clowns [and they deserve such a name], really need to figure it out before Christmas.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Obama will just be lame duck for another 4 years as everything ding dongs between Senate & the House!


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

With Republicans controlling House, Obama has a tough battle on his hands to get anything done. Poor Americans over next 4 years.... 

Say what you want about Harper here at home, but at least with a majority government, stuff is happening...


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

My Own Advisor said:


> With Republicans controlling House, Obama has a tough battle on his hands to get anything done. Poor Americans over next 4 years....


Personally, I'd suggest that the less Obama is able to 'accomplish' the _better_ it'll be for the U.S.


----------



## Dutch1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Anyone got the figure on how much the americans blow a month on trying to control the rest of the worlds with war? For some reason 60 million rings a bell.... Thats like me buying a new car every month and then complaining about my debt and trying to figure out a mysterious solution to get out lol.. its pretty clear IMO


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Dutch1 said:


> Anyone got the figure on how much the americans blow a month on trying to control the rest of the worlds with war?


After WWII the U.S. took over/got stuck with the role of "World's Policeman" since the position's previous occupant, (The British Empire), no longer had the resources to fulfill the requirements of the 'job'..........as the saying goes, "It's a thankless task, but someone has to do it".


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> the U.S. took over/got stuck with the role of "World's Policeman"


The UN was supposed to do that..but in pretty much most cases, the UN is ineffective, or intervenes too late to be of any use at the times when immediate action is required.

The US on the other hand does have the military resources and the latest technology, but that comes at a cost. 
In the first gulf (1991) war, the cost was about 61 billion..and that was offset by the Arab states and other countries pitching in.
In the end, the real cost was about 7 billion to the US to establish the "new world order', and kick Saddam
out of Kuwait. Oil rules, and Kuwait has lots of oil to sell to the US. 



> *Total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2 to 4 trillion.*
> The Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.



Being a world policeman requires a robust economy to fund the foreign military expenses,
something that the US now can't do because they have to "pinch pennies" due to the high debt load..unless,
of course, it's another direct attack on US soil..which includes US embassies on foreign soil.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> unless of course, it's another direct attack on US soil..which includes US embassies on foreign soil.


I gather that, for the latter, a policy of _laissez faire_ has been established by the current administration. :rolleyes2:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> I gather that, for the latter, a policy of _laissez faire_ has been established by the current administration. :rolleyes2:


Not sure if it's laissez-faire or the new US foreign policy under President Obama's administration. Too complex to go into in this forum.
Here's a online 83 page document on the subject.
http://csis.org/files/publication/twq12springwaxman.pdf


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> (The British Empire), no longer had the resources to fulfill the requirements of the 'job'


And neither did the Clinton Empire. Do you remember all the terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton's watch? The one that immediately comes to mind, given 9/11, is the 1st WTC attack in Feb.1993.

Then there were the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia/the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya/the 2000 USS Cole Bombing in Yemen, etc., etc. What was his response to these? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

And yes, also the 1995 Oklahoma bombing.

There had been reports that Clinton had been more than capable of having captured Osama bin Laden, but chose not to. 

Hillary Clinton in 2016?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> There had been reports that Clinton had been more than capable of having captured Osama bin Laden, but chose not to.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?_r=0



> Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."***





> "The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."


***To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he would, (say that), wouldn't he?"



Toronto.gal said:


> Hillary Clinton in 2016?


 I'm still thinking that Michelle will pull a Lurleen Wallace.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> Not sure if it's laissez-faire or the new US foreign policy under President Obama's administration.


By laissez-faire, in the instance of Benghazi, the intimation is that, à la Seinfeld, "No help (soup) for you".


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> I'm still thinking that Michelle will pull a Lurleen Wallace.


Perhaps, however, I would not support either of them, but for different reasons; one was too corrupt [can't forget all the scandals related to HER]; the other, not for 2016 IMO. Not to say I don't support strong/smart women, just had to make that clear!

Given that bin Laden had founded Al Qaeda in the late 80's following the defeat of the Soviets [and yes, a war that had been backed by the US], I often wonder what the last 17 years or so would have been like had Clinton followed different policies.

It was in 1996, following the attack in Saudi Arabia, when bin Laden had become obsessed with the US; in fact, it was in 1996 when he declared war between Muslims and the US, and the violence escalated from there, *yet Clinton did next to nothing.* :rolleyes2:

Bin Laden's assassination 15 years after his declaration of war with the US, and after he had become pretty much a nonentity, came too little too late to make a difference IMHO [not his still very active terror group Al Qaeda, which might have collapsed had he been erased years sooner].


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Perhaps, however, I would not support either of them, but for different reasons; one was too corrupt [can't forget all the scandals related to HER]


Lurleen ran, and was elected, with the full knowledge of the electorate that she would be a figurehead and that George would be the _de facto_ Governor. _If_ Michelle runs it'll be on the same understanding.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I don't know much about Lurleen, however, yes, similar situation would be if Hillary or Michelle were elected. 

Bill Clinton/Barack Obama for 'Secretary of State' in 2016? :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> I don't know much about Lurleen, however, yes, similar situation would be if Hillary or Michelle were elected.
> 
> Bill Clinton/Barack Obama for 'Secretary of State' in 2016? :biggrin:


I'm still thinking they'll attempt to abrogate the 22nd Amendment in the latter part of the coming term......perhaps if enough give away stuff pays off in the midterms, and SCOTUS can be overwhelmed.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Might as well kill 2 birds with one stone and also abolish Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution:
'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...'

*Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2016;* oh, the endless possibilities! :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Might as well kill 2 birds with one stone and also abolish Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution:
> 'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...'
> 
> *Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2016;* oh, the endless possibilities! :biggrin:


But, but....Arnold's a Republican, (albeit a RINO), so the media wouldn't get behind that, (for the likes of _him_)..........besides which, it's probably been/being bypassed even as we write. :encouragement:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

But there will be hopeful RINOs in 2016 as well.

Anyhow, it's Sunday and had a productive morning catching up with global news & emails, some of which [the latter] were rather humorous, so I thought I would be funny in my responses here, too. :wink:

Cheers!


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Anyhow, it's Sunday and had a productive morning catching up with global news & emails, some of which [the latter] were rather humorous, so I thought I would be funny in my responses here, too. :wink:
> 
> Cheers!


Well here's a (funny) response, from Pravda no less:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> By laissez-faire, in the instance of Benghazi, the intimation is that, à la Seinfeld, "No help (soup) for you".


Ah yes..I saw that Seinfield episode.."the Soup Nazi"..."no soup for you!"..was quoted for quite a while after that.:biggrin:

But...back to reality.
Not having all the details, and only told what we "really need to know" by the media and the US gov't, the real truth
is somewhere between what actually took place in Bengazi and what information was gatheredat the CIA/US gov't agencies.

http://www.zimbio.com/Leon+E.+Panet...+reliable+intelligence+during+Benghazi+attack

So if you can perhaps extract the main point behind all this...the US had the resources to move in and protect the embassy,
but didn't due to lack of credible intelligence on the situation. Somebody was asleep at the switch at the CIA. 

This incident was "covered up" by the convenient resignation of Petraeus, by way of a "3 way scandal" with a couple
of women who had no connection to the incident.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada's debt rolled past the 600 Billion mark early Saturday morning.

A large debt load for a small country and economy.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Well here's a (funny) response, from Pravda no less:
> 
> http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/


A Russian news agency? "Pravda" in Russian translates to "the truth"...a misnomer in this case.
This communist newspaper for many, many years, has been distorting the truth for political reasons.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman, I have to disagree about Pravda.
I used to be a regular reader of Pravda (the English edition) and it was an excellent magazine.

The quality of the articles and the writing was very good, esp. given the fact that it was all translated from the Russian edition.
The photographs in the magazine were top notch, even though this was well before the age of digital cameras, esp. the nature photography within the Soviet Union.

At the same time, I was a regular reader of Reader's Digest and Parade magainizes too, and the quality of Pravda was far superior.

I haven't read Pravda is nearly 15 years now, so a lot might have changed by now.

But it was certainly no communist propaganda machine by any means.
If it is, well then, we can call the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times a capitalist propaganda machinery.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> .the US had the resources to move in and protect the embassy,
> but didn't........


What is very interesting is the apparent meeting between Ambassador Stevens and the Turkish Consul General at a CIA safe house prior to the attack, and the possibility (probability?) that the topic in question was the supply of Stinger missiles and other armaments to the Syrian 'rebels'.


As the title of an old (1965) Donovan (Leitch) album asks "What's Bin Did and What's Bin Hid?"


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I used to be a regular reader of Pravda (the English edition) and it was an excellent magazine.


Oh, you don't chitat [read] in Russian? 

Not a Pravda reader, but if you say the magazine was excellent, then I believe it was!

*Carverman:* I called the Benghazi tragedy & the General's resignation, a cover-up from day one! Had been so obvious IMO.

The political realities are often distorted by all, but some lies [and governments] are more sickening than others.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> But it was certainly no communist propaganda machine by any means.
> If it is, well then, we can call the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times a capitalist propaganda machinery.


We live in a capitalist society, so we should subscribe to capitalist "propaganda".



> The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which was gaining new ground in Russia after 1996 Duma Elections finally purchased the Pravda.* Pravda has become an Official Organ of the CPRF*.


Not wanting to deviate from the main topic here.."fiscal cliff ", so this is my last submission on this. :rolleyes2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> We live in a capitalist society, so we should subscribe to capitalist "propaganda".


We shouldn't subscribe to _any_ propaganda.
It is better to analyze, deduce, and think on our own and reach our own conclusions.

I used to read Pravda a long time ago and I was but a teenager then, so perhaps my recollections are foggy.
But I learnt a lot about the culture and history of Russia (and the entire Soviet confederation) from that source.
They used to have articles about the native cultures there, the natural beauty of the country, and many other non political topics.
My interest was mostly non political (at that time).

Our western capitalist governments (or should I say _bourgeois_ governments) manipulate media just as much and create just as much propaganda as the Soviet Union ever did.

Just to be clear, I am not defending the USSR even remotely - all I am saying is that the Pravda magazine was more than a communist propaganda machine, for those that cared to see beyond it.

Now, back to regular programming...(which BTW, isn't going too well, seems like the talks might break off again).


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

Haven't read through the whole thread, but is anyone else hoping the US goes over the fiscal cliff? The US is estimated to have a $1.1 trillion deficit in 2012, against GDP of just over $15 trillion, in other words the deficit is 7% of GDP. Most people agree that the US needs to raise taxes and reduce spending to solve their financial woes. The fiscal cliff would immediately slash $600 billion from the deficit, or ~50%. I understand it would slow down the economy, but if your economy is dependant on deficit spending to the tune of 7% of GDP, perhaps it needs a correction. Isn't going over the fiscal cliff a good thing?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ethan said:


> Isn't going over the fiscal cliff a good thing?


Especially if it has a greater impact, (as it likely would), on Obama voters........decisions have their consequences.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree with you Ethan............

If they are really serious about reducing their debt, they will face a "fiscal cliff" sometime, so why not now?

There is no way to avoid some pain...........now or some day down the road.

A balance of tax increases and spending cuts are the only realistic way the numbers work, so it really doesn't matter what the pet projects are, what pledge was signed, or who owes who a favor.

Like the Larry the Cable Guy says.............Git her done..............


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Im fine with it too. 

But many people will be without a job including those we know and Obama will be presiding over 2 recessions - can he live with it!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There doesn't necessarily have to be job losses or a recession.

Raising revenue and cutting wasteful spending, should be able to accomplish the twin goals of reducing the deficit and providing jobs by upgrading badly needed infrastructure and retraining people for jobs in the future.


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Sags, you could be right & Buffett agrees with you.

I humbly disagree there wont be any major unpleasant consequences in the economy.


----------



## thenegotiator (May 23, 2012)

Ethan said:


> Haven't read through the whole thread, but is anyone else hoping the US goes over the fiscal cliff? The US is estimated to have a $1.1 trillion deficit in 2012, against GDP of just over $15 trillion, in other words the deficit is 7% of GDP. Most people agree that the US needs to raise taxes and reduce spending to solve their financial woes. The fiscal cliff would immediately slash $600 billion from the deficit, or ~50%. I understand it would slow down the economy, but if your economy is dependant on deficit spending to the tune of 7% of GDP, perhaps it needs a correction. Isn't going over the fiscal cliff a good thing?


Ethan .
i am starting to follow ur posts and i enjoy reading them.
u seem to be very methodical .
aside from the rhetoric we see in the media i do see them having a kick the can down the road solution.
as usual politicians are useless.
what people are not talking about is how much the debt ceiling has to be raised to.
i am not an economist but last time this debate took place it turned into a fiasco.
and what exactly do i mean by that.
the rating agencies are waiting for those idiots to make a decision as to how will they overcome the FISCAL BLUFF.
If the expectations do not match what the rating agencies want to see , the U.S will loose another notch in their credit rating.
i believe that this is a matter of when and not IF.
yet again , just like last time it will generate another buying opportunity in a mkt sellof.
i am keeping some gunpowder dry for next year for this outcome.
whether they go over the fiscal bluff or not that is the scenario i see playing.
they have to keep printing money.
the economy is addicted to free money.
it is as hard as to take an individual addicted to heroin of that drug.
i really see a doom and gloom Marc faber brand.
we are all bound to go bankrupt no matter what.
u cannot pay debt with debt.
in the meantime i enjoy the ups and downs.
would i luv to see oil at 40 bux? below production value in some plays like in canada which hovers around 50 bux to produce it?
it would be a dream come true.
GL in ur endeavours


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Hi Neg, more gold would be good in your scenario.:encouragement:


----------



## thenegotiator (May 23, 2012)

not too sure about that anymore bayview.
gold has to breach the 1750 area solid resistance area and take out the 1800 area.
for that the dollar has to weaken substantially.
so far the Euro is rallying .
that is why i posted in another thread that shorting the euro at the 1.27 area like Miser mentioned was a very risky trade.
if it tries to take out the 1.3 area it will retest the 1.32 area.
in case of a meltdown everything goes..
the rally u are seeing is end of month window dressing .
December will probably be the same.
i am cautiously bullish everything because i believe that a lot is already priced in.
tit for tat what i mean is that we are trading close to the high range.
copper is on a tear and i am actually considering a short position sooner than later .


----------

