Sense of something wrong

[patb]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter]some complain about our deficits, but on the other, they complain if asset prices fall. They can’t seem to understand the correlation between the two. Those deficits are a direct result of our propping up the prices of worthless assets.[/quote]

The non-payers are diminishing, at least around here. People have money and things are starting to get better little by little. Did you see the article in the UT about unemployment rates in Sd County last week? While it was in double digits in east county and south county, it was around 5% in NC (both coastal and inland). You really have a very distorted view of reality. Do you really believe that there are only a few remaining responsibile people? please stay responsible. i’m looking forward to dinner;)[/quote]

Beware of u-3 numbers. Remember two million people are losing their unemployment compensation

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SD Realtor]

Well I think we all are actually on the same page and saying it in different ways. Yes Rus the jobs thing is what does seem to be the most intractable problem. sdr agreed with all you said above and patb I agree with those U3 numbers.

[SD Realtor]

Well I think we all are actually on the same page and saying it in different ways. Yes Rus the jobs thing is what does seem to be the most intractable problem. sdr agreed with all you said above and patb I agree with those U3 numbers.

[SD Realtor]

Well I think we all are actually on the same page and saying it in different ways. Yes Rus the jobs thing is what does seem to be the most intractable problem. sdr agreed with all you said above and patb I agree with those U3 numbers.

[SD Realtor]

Well I think we all are actually on the same page and saying it in different ways. Yes Rus the jobs thing is what does seem to be the most intractable problem. sdr agreed with all you said above and patb I agree with those U3 numbers.

[SD Realtor]

Well I think we all are actually on the same page and saying it in different ways. Yes Rus the jobs thing is what does seem to be the most intractable problem. sdr agreed with all you said above and patb I agree with those U3 numbers.

[Arraya]

The empire is in terminal decline. Information moves to fast for a slow collapse like Rome. This baby is getting cued up for a doozy. There is no recovery per se, only collapse and rebirth. I say we hold a collapse party. Really who needs banks anyway – It’s just collective stockholm syndrome

[Arraya]

The empire is in terminal decline. Information moves to fast for a slow collapse like Rome. This baby is getting cued up for a doozy. There is no recovery per se, only collapse and rebirth. I say we hold a collapse party. Really who needs banks anyway – It’s just collective stockholm syndrome

[Arraya]

The empire is in terminal decline. Information moves to fast for a slow collapse like Rome. This baby is getting cued up for a doozy. There is no recovery per se, only collapse and rebirth. I say we hold a collapse party. Really who needs banks anyway – It’s just collective stockholm syndrome

[Arraya]

The empire is in terminal decline. Information moves to fast for a slow collapse like Rome. This baby is getting cued up for a doozy. There is no recovery per se, only collapse and rebirth. I say we hold a collapse party. Really who needs banks anyway – It’s just collective stockholm syndrome

[Author]

Posts