Where is the US economy headed?

Try wikipedia for the term Feces, Cyco. You are full of it.

Okay, here it is as follows. I will concede that you have a small point, but the following description of usage still supports the larger point of my debate position, that it is about the power and authority of the collective entity, as stated in the very first sentence of the link, where it talks about the modern Italian word, fascio, which was used for peasant cooperatives and workers unions. And after reading more about this, I suspect that the symbol has been used sometimes inappropriately, relative to the meaning of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Usage
"The term is related to the modern Italian word fascio, used in the twentieth century to designate peasant cooperatives and industrial workers' unions.
Numerous governments and other authorities have used the image of the fasces for a symbol of power since the end of the Roman Empire. It has also been used to hearken back to the Roman republic, particularly by those who see themselves as modern-day successors to the old republic and/or its ideals. Italian Fascism, which derives its name from the fasces, arguably used this symbolism the most in the 20th century. The British Union of Fascists also used it in the 1930s. However, unlike (for example) the swastika, the fasces, as a widespread and long-established symbol in the West, has avoided the stigma associated with much of fascist symbolism, and many authorities continue to display them, including the federal government of the United States.
The fasces was a prominent symbol of Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party and the movement was named for the axe and rods. Fasces are included in the national emblem of the French Republic."

Done and thank you.



Once again, you seem to believe that YOU are right - and historians and everyone else must be wrong. But let's look and see what you pasted here:



It's a symbol of power and authority - not one of collectivism or socialism or anything that forwards your argument in the slightest. Everything just sort of falls into place when you start with historical FACTS and use them to FIND an answer, to discover the truth of a situation. When you try and go backward - try to find evidence that your OPINION is in fact true - it is extremely difficult to avoid falling into the trap of self-confirmation, of finding nuggets of information and declaring that they prove you right. This is one of the first things that historians are taught, Okie - but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Cycloptichorn

Awesome! Can we put that discussion to bed...unless one of yall wants to get in a "final" word.

It is a symbol of power and authority, but it denotes power and authority, collectively, through unity of a "bundle" into one. In fact, I think the Latin word "fascis" means "bundle." So if you can put your thinking cap on, cyclops, visualize the image of a bundle of sticks with an axe blade protruding from them, which denotes power of the axe depending collectively upon the bundle of sticks together into one. Here is another link for you to try to understand this. Conclusion of this whole matter however is that I am correct about this. You can take the original word, or you can analyze the nature and structure of the political system of Fascism, and there is no escaping what I am trying to tell you. I am growing tired of trying to explain something like this to the dense and stubborn, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
"Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) are a bundle of wooden sticks with an axe blade emerging from the center, which is an image that traditionally symbolizes summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"."

Lol! You already admitted you were wrong. Now you claim you are right. You're so full of **** and absolutely nobody here is buying what you write.

RJB, you were right long ago. I'm done with this clown for a while.

Cycloptichorn

My apologies to you and others for this discussion with cyclops. I guess I persist for at least 2 reasons, however. No. 1, this is in fact important to know the nature of Fascism when we analyze our own economic problems, and secondly because I find this very interesting and stimulating to analyze and think about. One of the personal benefits that I have found in participating on this forum is that I learn more about some of the subjects being discussed here. One example is Hitler and Fascism, which I have now done much reading about, not only reading Mein Kampf, but the numerous other references available. Part of the reason I started down this road was when I read all the Time Life series of volumes on World War II during this past year. I finished them a few months ago, and so I have found it tough to let go of the arguments here in regard to all of that.

Incidentally, I just had a distant relative die that participated in the invasion of Normandy. Unfortunately for me or the rest of us, hardly anyone could get him to talk about it much at all, not any more than in passing reference, but we all learned that he saw way more than he could ever tell us, or wanted to tell us.

Anyway, seldom does anyone of us convince another of our political persuasions, or at least we never read any admittance of it, but at least we all might learn a little something during all of the discussions. At the very least, perhaps it gives us an idea of what the other side thinks and why, even if we do not agree at all and never will.

One of the things I firmly believe in is for all of us to think for ourselves and not to swallow what the intellectual world would try to spoon feed us with.

One last "last word," cyclops. When we debate, I would appreciate it if you would not mis-represent or twist what has happened. I did not admit I was wrong. I may have admitted you had a point, but not a point good enough that you proved your entire argument. One of the things I try to do is argue honestly, and if you have a point, I will say so, but in no way does that mean that your argument is 100% right. For instance, you might be 5% or 20% right, but on balance you are still wrong. That may seem like quibbling over a minor detail again to you, but I think it is an important distinction. I can point out where certain details of your argument might be correct, or partially correct, but overall you are still wrong. I hope you can figure out what I am trying to tell you, cyclops?

I will second that motion now. Perhaps its already been hashed out on this thread, but the unemployment numbers are not looking good, are they? After all of that stimulus money was spent, and we are further in debt, it has gained us essentially nothing.

Incidentally, most of the stimulus money being spent out there, at least the projects I've seen, they don't seem all that necessary, and some of them seem even illogical. And now with winter here, are most of the recovery act construction repairs almost over with and workers probably are being laid off again?

One of the most incredible things has been Pelosi's claim that unemployment compensation creates jobs faster than any other program! Where did this woman learn that? Does she reside in reality? Common sense would tell us that if that were true, the unemployment numbers would be plummeting now as the unemployment checks are proliferating.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/
"Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i69P9-BZjNo&nofeather=True

Relative to the national discussion on our economy, I nominate Nancy Pelosi for an award for "Author of Dumbest Quote of 2010" If anyone else has any submittals, I think it would be interesting to compare.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/
""Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.""

Jobs are created by spending which causes producers to make items that people are buying.
Unemployment benefits allow unemployed people to spend money.
No unemployment benefits means they don't spend since they have no money.

While one can debate whether it is creating jobs faster than any other program to call it the dumbest quote certainly leaves out a lot of others that are far dumber.

The numbers for U-3 (the media reported unemployment rate) and U-6 (the under-employment rate which many folks follow) were not good for November.
I would claim, though, that if you plow through the BLS's data there are a couple of positives. I can go into that if asked.
But I want tonight to focus on the subject of Unemployment Benefits. Congress is debating the length of time for which they should be offered.
I accept that there are some people who are quite content with getting their check and spending their day watching tv and eating Cheetos.
But there are thousands upon thousands of other folks who are desperate for jobs.
For how long a time should the government assist them?
Should, perhaps, the government require them to "do something" in exchange for their check? Pick up trash? Go to a trade school to learn a skill?
I don't have the answer.

Unfortunately it only takes one Oprah-watching, Cheeto-munching slouch to give cause for eliminating support to the thousands of folks who are desperate. I don't have a real problem with WPA type programs in principle. I think everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning and almost everyone would rather feel useful than not. U-3 rates are back up to 9.8 in November. That's not good news by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have the answer either, but I sure wish our elected representatives would stop playing games.

Heck, parados, maybe you have discovered the answer to our entire economic problem, and perhaps Obama is already implementing your answer. Simply have the government pay people to do nothing, and that will give them the money to buy stuff, which will stimulate the economy to the point that it will roar back to health. The only question I have for you, parados, is what school of economics and what class did you learn that brilliant revelation? Maybe it was the same one that Pelosi might have attended?

Another of okie's imaginary friends.

This is nothing like the nonsense that okie espouses:

From the same wiki definition:

Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.They oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based elite of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence. Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization. Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.[2

I just want the US economy to improve. I want it's dollar to rise, and Australia's dollar to fall relative to the US dollar. I want the Aussie to be worth about 80c US.

Your inability to understand simple things is pretty amazing okie.

Jobs are created by people spending.
People that have jobs have more money than people on unemployment.
It is best when people have jobs but it is better to have unemployment for those without jobs when the economy is bad.

Perhaps you can find an economist that will argue that we shouldn't have unemployment. Friedman, Krugman and just about every economist I know of argues for the benefits.

Perhaps he'd prefer to see in excess of 20 million people homeless, broke and starving. Arming themselves with some of America's billions of ******* easily available guns, and killing and stealing to feed their children. Cunts like this are great at criticising. Maybe this lowlife asshole needs to explain exactly what he'd do differently. But he won't. Because scum sucking deadshit slime like this lowlife prick always make it someone else's problem.