10
   

$13.00 a Week. Is everyone Happy?

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I think you're fear-mongering.
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:14 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
...or should he maybe rethink how he got into this situation and take immediate steps to correct it, even though life will be tougher in the near term.


I agree, we need to buckle down, take the lumps and then move on....give up on this $13 a week propaganda...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:16 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
There's also a time, since we're big on analogies, where a gambler has gambled away all of this life savings, he's borrowed money, mortgaged the house, sold his assets to the Chinese, and he's now hit a brick wall. If only he could just hit the big jackpot, he'd be back on easy street.

At this point should the gambler take out an 1.3 trillion loan from a loan shark and try to hit that jackpot, or should he maybe rethink how he got into this situation and take immediate steps to correct it, even though life will be tougher in the near term.


Right.

So what would the "immediate steps to correct" the situation look like? I think that so far, you've only proposed "doing nothing"....

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:18 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I think you're fear-mongering.


Oh really? You've studied history and come to the conclusion that the natural state of things is Order and Prosperity?

Cycloptichorn
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dude, are you completely incapable of math?

How much money do you think $13 a week * almost every worker in America equals? And it's money which will go to vendors and small businesses, instead of just shoring up some bank's books and then sitting there.

Do you understand the Velocity of money, and why that's important?

Cycloptichorn


Apparantly not, on either score.

In fact, if it hadn't been so early in the day when he started making his "feeling the jolt" comments, I would have bet he was drunk.

Doesn't that sound like someone who's had a few too many and thinks they're being incredibly funny?

"arrr....slemme say this one more time an ev'body bedder laugh....HAVE YOU FELT THE JOLT YET??

Ya shee, tha's som really funny **** there. HAVE YOU FELT THE JOLT YET???

ahman..I mean oh...um...man tha's sum funny **** right there. Hey I just bought shum icsh cream...DID YOU FEEL THE JOLT??

Yes, yes, big tex, we all felt the jolt. Now go lie down and let the grownups talk.
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:21 pm
@chai2,
No more Obama cool-aid for you!
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:21 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

So what would the "immediate steps to correct" the situation look like? I think that so far, you've only proposed "doing nothing"....


That would be step number 1.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:23 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

No more Obama cool-aid for you!


Not going to address the fact that you haven't done the math, eh?

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No, I'm fully aware that people can and do become de-civilized relatively easily.


And you are fear-mongering.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:23 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

old europe wrote:

So what would the "immediate steps to correct" the situation look like? I think that so far, you've only proposed "doing nothing"....


That would be step number 1.


It's a good thing that nobody looks to you for advice, Herbert Hoover.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:24 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

No, I'm fully aware that people can and do become de-civilized relatively easily.


And you are fear-mongering.


Apparently you are not aware of it, haven't thought for a single second what the effects of a major financial collapse would be, and are whistling past the graveyard.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You and I simply disagree on what constitutes a 'major financial collapse'.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:32 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

You and I simply disagree on what constitutes a 'major financial collapse'.


Have you been paying attention? The majority of our national banks are insolvent, our auto companies are on the brink of insolvency, and our investment houses are even worse. Freddie and Fannie are insolvent.

What exactly do you think would happen if these institutions collapsed? Millions unemployed and the credit system could collapse too.

What would YOU call a 'major financial collapse?' I mean, if that's not a collapse I don't know what is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 12:35 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

old europe wrote:

So what would the "immediate steps to correct" the situation look like? I think that so far, you've only proposed "doing nothing"....


That would be step number 1.


And what would be step number 2?
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Not going to address the fact that you haven't done the math, eh?


The math is very simple and so is the principle of dilution...a large concentrated stimulous will have more of an effect on the economy than a widely dispersed, diluted stimulous of $13 a week.

If the money is going to be spent, don't spread it so thin that its ultimate effect is negated...thats what we had with our little $600 "rebate" checks last year.

All that said, I wouldn't advocate spending a dime in a concentrated measure or a diluted measure.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:25 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Not going to address the fact that you haven't done the math, eh?


The math is very simple and so is the principle of dilution...a large concentrated stimulous will have more of an effect on the economy than a widely dispersed, diluted stimulous of $13 a week.


This is an assertion, but do you have any facts or logic to back it up? I don't see why $50 a month, spread over tens of millions who will likely spend it, is any less effective a stimulus than a larger, more concentrated one; which is what, exactly?

Quote:
If the money is going to be spent, don't spread it so thin that its ultimate effect is negated...thats what we had with our little $600 "rebate" checks last year.

All that said, I wouldn't advocate spending a dime in a concentrated measure or a diluted measure.


You are incorrect about the 'rebate' last year and it's effects. Parados has already pointed this out to you, but you didn't respond to his point.

Where are you getting your 'spread thin so it's negated' bullshit? I've never heard anyone argue that before.

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You are incorrect about the 'rebate' last year and it's effects. Parados has already pointed this out to you, but you didn't respond to his point.


Oh, I didn't releaize that those rebate checks had turned the economy around...I guess we don't need any more stimulous packages after all.

The fact is in the reality of where we are today...the effect was minimal and shortlived... if any... and the long term results non-existent.

The government would have accomplished the same effect by putting that rebate money in the shredder.

$13 a week will be even less effective.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:40 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
You are incorrect about the 'rebate' last year and it's effects. Parados has already pointed this out to you, but you didn't respond to his point.


Oh, I didn't releaize that those rebate checks had turned the economy around...I guess we don't need any more stimulous packages after all.

The fact is in the reality of where we are today...the effect was minimal and shortlived... if any... and the long term results non-existent.

The government would have accomplished the same effect by putting that rebate money in the shredder.

$13 a week will be even less effective.


Like I said; you don't have any real understanding of the problem or the solutions being put forth, but you certainly like to complain. Parados explained this to you in detail, and you didn't respond to his explanation.

The point of the rebate checks was not to 'turn the economy around.' It's similar to your bitching about spending money and watching the Dow drop; situations sure look weird when you don't put in any effort to understand them at all, don't they? I understand that this isn't as fun as complaining, but sometimes it makes you look a hell of a lot smarter.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:42 pm
spread so thin?

Than why is it when prices go up by a few cents, everyone is up and arms about it, and it's all over the media?

The price of a 5 pound bag of rice in the U.S. goes up a dollar and there's blood in the streets because no one will be able to eat.

Why is it a crisis when a commodity goes up, even though it's spread so thin, but has a completely nil effect when that extra amount if provided?

but, no one will bother to address that question I'm sure.



BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:50 pm
@chai2,
Look at your argument carefully and you will see that you answered your own argument...rice moving up in price would be a single, concentrated event...a single commodity moving up dramatically would be a single, concentrated event...

I'm glad to see that you are finally starting to grasp what I've been saying!

$13 a week per person being used to purchase only rice would have a huge effect on the rice economy...

But just handing out $13 a week to be used for millions/billions of miniscule expenditures will have no concentrated effect.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 08:52:28