114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 10:36 am
@spendius,
He was rattled and he was a bit of a dick.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 11:03 am


Uncertainty seems to be the theme for this month, as the looming threat of deep federal government budget cuts, QE2 coming to an end, a weak jobs report for May, and a number of other indicators are forming a dark cloud over the U.S. economy.


U.S. Economic Indicators – June 2011

In April, annual inflation was 3.2% year-on-year, well above the Fed’s threshold of 2%.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 12:46 pm


The Democrats sabotaged the US economy with decades
of risky economic, entitlement & financing schemes and
Obamanomics has taken economic sabotage to a new level.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:17 pm
Bloomberg is reporting that Tim Geithner is considering leaving the Obama administration once the debt ceiling issue is resolved.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:22 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Bloomberg is reporting that Tim Geithner is considering leaving the Obama administration once the debt ceiling issue is resolved.
Would you want to be leading the effort to save the economy when Washington is clearly corrupt and too dysfunctional to get the required work done ?? Nothing gets fixed in American until we fix the political system, and so far in spite of all of the new found understanding over the last few years that Washington is broken there is still almost no talk of trying to fix it, much less efforts to do so.


Washington sold out the citizens to save the corporate class during the financial melt down, and even after trillions of dollars of support to the corporate class they still refuse to allow tax collection to meet public sector expenditure requirements....we know where this train goes, the only question is the arrival time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
As long as there are American voters ready to support the Party of No, there's going to be deadlock/gridlock in Washington DC.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

As long as there are American voters ready to support the Party of No, there's going to be deadlock/gridlock in Washington DC.
Team Obama has been up to wall street begging for money for his campaign, and has promised to roll back government oversight even further than it was in order to get what he wants, your side is just as dirty

BTW- Obama has spent much of his first years in office passing out corporate welfare, do you really think we Americans have not noticed?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
"My side?" Since when did that happen?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
Timmy 'the tax cheat' Geithner has earned what's coming to him.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"My side?" Since when did that happen?
the side for which you are currently arguing for...the other party than the one known as "the party of no". In my opinion you will not be on the right side until you come out on the side of the citizen, and against both parties in Washington. There is today a poll out that shows that 67% of republican voters are not particularly liking anyone whom is in the race for pres on the R side, and we know about the tea party movement...I'd say that a great many right leaning Americans dont much like Republican Washington very much. You make a mistake I think when you assume that republicans broadly support selling out the people to the corporate class, if you tried you might find a lot of people on the right who agree with a lot of your views.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You make a mistake I think when you assume that republicans broadly support selling out the people to the corporate class, if you tried you might find a lot of people on the right who agree with a lot of your views.


Perhaps in principle, they agree; but they consistently and repeatedly display that they don't give a **** about those principles, for the keep electing those who are dead-set determined to do exactly what you say.

Who cares if they agree with our views, as long as they keep supporting assholes?

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Who cares if they agree with our views, as long as they keep supporting assholes?
Because the patient can not be saved unless the cancer is starved, and we need every man and woman on the team that we can enlist if we are to get this done. The wise man does not carry grudges in a crisis, he works with anyone who is willing to work toward a successful outcome. Americans however currently suck at letting bygones be bygones.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, Don't be an ass to be an ass; I argue issues and agree or disagree with the topic under discussion. I'm not a foot soldier for anybody.

If you disagree with what I write, say so. Tell me why you disagree. Simple concept.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Who cares if they agree with our views, as long as they keep supporting assholes?
Because the patient can not be saved unless the cancer is starved, and we need every man and woman on the team that we can enlist if we are to get this done. The wise man does not carry grudges in a crisis, he works with anyone who is willing to work toward a successful outcome. Americans however currently suck at letting bygones be bygones.


I guess so. But I'll believe that the Tea Partiers are willing to stand up to the Corporate agenda when I see it. So far, I haven't seen it - at all.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If you disagree with what I write, say so. Tell me why you disagree. Simple concept.
I cant remember you ever saying anything nice about social conservatives, in fact you are normally extremely hostile towards anyone who does not agree with your radically liberal social views, and I think that you are wrong to to this.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
. But I'll believe that the Tea Partiers are willing to stand up to the Corporate agenda when I see it. So far, I haven't seen it - at all.
Right, but were these newly elected individuals corrupted upon arrival? Were they just selling the latest flavor to the people during the election? What matters to me is the collective force that got them elected, and I believe that force genuinely is hostile to the corruption of washington.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
. But I'll believe that the Tea Partiers are willing to stand up to the Corporate agenda when I see it. So far, I haven't seen it - at all.
Right, but were these newly elected individuals corrupted upon arrival? Were they just selling the latest flavor to the people during the election? What matters to me is the collective force that got them elected, and I believe that force genuinely is hostile to the corruption of washington.


I don't know why you would believe that. The 'force that got them elected' was the Republican base, who most certainly isn't hostile to Washington corruption.

There's no objective difference between the 'tea party' and the 'republican party.' They are the same thing, rebranded; an effort to distance themselves from Bush, and nothing more.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's because you have a very bad memory; not my problem, asshole.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
There's no objective difference between the 'tea party' and the 'republican party.' They are the same thing, rebranded; an effort to distance themselves from Bush, and nothing more.
I see, so the couple of years where the republican party was actively and publicly hostile to the Tea Party movement was just an act to you? The GOP has attempted to co-op the the tea partiers, and if they have been successful by this election there will be not much daylight between the GOP and the Tea Party, but it was not always thus.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 04:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There's no objective difference between the 'tea party' and the 'republican party.' They are the same thing, rebranded; an effort to distance themselves from Bush, and nothing more.
I see, so the couple of years where the republican party was actively and publicly hostile to the Tea Party movement was just an act to you?


Inter-party squabbling is hardly interesting to me. The struggle for control of the party is real; the farce is that what they actually represented was a change. And if you think I'm wrong, just take a look-see at the number of earmarks requested by freshman tea party congressmen.

Quote:
The GOP has attempted to co-op the the tea partiers, and if they have been successful by this election there will be not much daylight between the GOP and the Tea Party, but it was not always thus.


It was always thus. The 'tea party' was funded by big-money Republicans to begin with, to stir up hate for Obama and bring out in the fore what the elected people were scared of saying.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 11:36:25