Printable View
Michele Bachmann Salutes the Upside to SlaveryQuote:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.
"nuff said"
There is more to come from her mouth in the coming months. She is going to eventually say something that will get her in a lot of trouble with the public. She brags about having a titanium spine, but fails to mention that she has shit for brains. Remember, God speaks to her...if God told her to invade Iran...she would. If God told her to jump off a bridge...she would. The scary thing is that there are millions of people in this country who think exactly like she does.
http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/g...ey-picture.jpg
"Slavery not bad, mmkay?"
She was also quoted earlier this week as saying that she hoped unemployment would remain high because theoretically it helps her chances in the presidential election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie5275
And the tea party is saying Obama is against America??!
I'm sure we can look forward to more of her open mouth, insert foot comments in the months to come.
I'm not a supporter of Bachman, but what you wrote above is simply not true. Below is a link to the interview, and you really have to twist her words to say that she "Hopes unemployment would remain high".Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie5275
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...employment.php
As for her comments on slavery, the author of the article in the first post is again misrepresenting what Bachman said. Putting political agendas aside it's difficult for me to see how the author can honestly title this piece "Bachman Salutes the Upside of Slavery". It seems she intended to highlight the horrific state of the family unit in the present day African American community, not to imply that the 2 parent families were "an upside" to being enslaved.
Quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President."
I don't see where the above statement 'salutes the upside of slavery'. "Disasterous' isn't a term used to describe the upside of anything although I will remember the term to describe the Obama economy if everyone thinks it is a salute to Obama.
Second, 'families' is a different word with a different meaning than 'marriages' that the author writes about. If black 'families' then and now were compared, perhaps there would be more than 34% of black children with both a father and mother in the house. As it stands, Bachman was attempting to compare the percentages of black children being raised by both a mother and father then with the percentage of black children being raised within a marriage now. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
I have already seen this written about on Jezebel. The caption there was "Bachmann Signs Anti-Porn Pledge Saying Blacks Were Better Off During Slavery". Off course the paragraph above didn't say that either but it can be very broadly and imaginatively interpreted that way.
Bachman goes about with a foot in her mouth. She is a diversion. She will not become the Republican nominee. I am more worried about big money bringing in Rick Perry. With Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama, big money can't go wrong as the result would be disastrous. [[my salute to big money)
Maybe Michele Bachmann should be worrying more about things that can be legislated, instead of putting everyone down for not living their lives in accordance with her personal tastes. You know, that whole "keep the government out of my business" bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Bachmann isn't a leader--just a self-righteous busybody.
Michelle Bachmann says she is subservient to her husband. What if her totally nutbag husband starts to tell her what to do in the White House?
I don't know man, Americans are still tired of Texan politicos after almost a decade of W.Quote:
Bachman goes about with a foot in her mouth. She is a diversion. She will not
become the Republican nominee. I am more worried about big money bringing in
Rick Perry. With Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama, big money can't go wrong as the
result would be disastrous. [[my salute to big
money)
Maybe she meant to make her point in another way. I tend to give people a pass when they misspeak. Everybody makes mistakes or stumbles over their words from time to time and things come out in a way other than they intended. There are a lot of times I've been accused of saying things I didn't really say. But this isn't the first time. She's got quite a track record of it in just a few short weeks.
No doubt her statement is based on her exhaustive study of the slave family in the antebellum U.S..
She's a Republican tool used to further entrench the right wing base into their silly, oblivious mindset. It's not like much more is needed after Fox gives its' daily washings, but let's call her a safety net [[pun intended). Likewise, she can put the left wing base off kilter with her baiting quips and political posturing. Added value to the Republicans.
Whomever comes out of the right as the nominee, count on them upholding the same destructive, stubborn values as their couterparts. They just come in different shapes and sizes.
Bachman's just another lifelong-politician wannabe. What's new?
Isn't she married to a gay man?
One tea party leader says that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [[D-AZ) has herself to blame for getting shot in the head Saturday.
The Arizona congresswoman shouldn't have attended an event "in full view of the public" if she had security concerns, according to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/1...ds-blame-shot/
That's scary.
regardless of what she said or didn't say about slavery, I do not support her on her various policy platforms and ideals. Not interested. Though I suspect that there will be a demographic of African-Americans who will be on-board with her based on the pretext of her religious fundamentalism.. Someone's always talking about "bringing government back to God" and what-have-you...
If she knew her history , she would know that it was common practice for slave owners to sell children of the slaves they owned . Richie Havens sang a song at the original Woodstock called '' Freedom '' which is derived from an old song by slaves called Motherless Child
Thanks for the clarification of true reality, Wing.
Yeah, and being "sold down the river" was punishment for uppity slaves. Many a husband or wife or child who longed for freedom and bucked the lash was taken from his family and sold to a plantation further down south, where slavemasters were harsher.
Fundamentally, she is not a historian. She is a crackpot ideologue, trying to make the world safe for her brand of demagoguery.
She's saying;
Hey look at me, I'm crazier than a shithouse rat!
I didn't twist her words. Watch the video in the link you posted. She pretty much says it herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
It was the author of the article who twisted words as Johnny5 pointed out. Bachman did not express the wish that unemployment would stay high. Bachman instead replied to a question asking her if her poll numbers might improve as the unemployment went up. She replied, "Well, that could be. Again, I hope so." Was she supposed to say that she hoped her poll numbers would go down if unemployment rates went up? She was never asked if she hoped unemployment would go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie5275
Why doesn't Bachman agree with the President that the public shouldn't be worried about the debt and just accept that 'professional politicians' understand the debt crisis better than the public? :)
How many economists work for Michele Bachmann?Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Oh, that's right: NONE.
Why don't you pick up the current issue of "The Economist", Oladub. Easier still, there's a thread here with a link to an editorial that might help a "regular Joe" like you understand the "debt crisis".
I put "debt crisis" in quotes because it's a made-up problem. When unemployment is stable at the high rates of 9,1-9.2%, interest rates are at historic lows, and debt consititutes a manageable 65% of GDP [[It was around 95% of GDP after World War II, just for reference), it's easy to conclude that the GOP is trying to distract us from what the *real* problem is--NO JOB GROWTH. If we can't grow employment in the short-term, there isn't any sense in worrying about long-term debt. But somehow, we're supposed to cut billions of dollars of government spending and hope the Confidence Fairy comes along to fix everything. It hasn't worked in Europe, and it sure as hell isn't going to work here--it's tough to have confidence when consumer demand is low, over 9% of your working population is without a job, and unemployment benefits are being cut left-and-right so we can maintain tax cuts for Paris Hilton.
And why would the GOP do that, you ask? Because they don't have a single fucking idea how to fix unemployment. Maybe we can take a cue from Ms. Bachmann and all raise foster children. That should decrease the unemployment rate overnight, right?
Obvious. To run our economy into the ground while the Dems have the White House. It's a russian roulette game of posturing.Quote:
And why would the GOP do that, you ask?
Now she's saying that wives should be submissive to their husbands.
Perhaps she should lead by example, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
GP, I was addressing the last link http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...employment.php The Economist is a fine and respectable publication dedicated to promoting the interests of international bankers. I'm sure it represents your interests as does Howard Fineman, the respected Keynesian economist, who failed to see the bubble coming but liberals adore anyway.
I agree that the the debt-crises is made up. If a family received an unexpected bill, they would put off vacations or buying a new car. My county government often has to delay road improvements to keep its budget balanced. The federal government can do the same except the president has stated that he would trather be spending his time developing new programs.
I think that the GOP is very aware of the lack of job growth after two years of Obama and Democrats expensive program failures not to mention their own overspending under Bush. Some republicans do understand how to fix unemployment; do nothing like harding did to righten the economy between 1921-1923. Better yet, and this is supported by only a tiny minority of Republicans, don't spend money on anything not allowed by the 10th Amendment.
I take it that you support the President's arrogant position that the public shouldn't worry its little heads over the debt because the 'professional politicians' understand the debt crisis better than the public.
Uh, if anything, "The Economist" is a "free-market-oriented" publication. The editorial says as much. But you'd rather put your partisan politics above logic and reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Except your personal budget cutbacks don't cause people to lose jobs. And the federal government has much better credit than you. It's a terrible metaphor if there ever was one. It's not like the federal government is spending money on birthday cake and parades--money needs to be spent to maintain educational systems, build infrastructure, and help the unemployed get back on their feet--you know, things that are FUNDAMENTAL TO GROWING THE ECONOMY. It's just a shame that 40% of the stimulus came in the form of tax cuts, rather than some sort of productive neo-socialist program like the Civilian Conservation Corps.Quote:
I agree that the the debt-crises is made up. If a family received an unexpected bill, they would put off vacations or buying a new car. My county government often has to delay road improvements to keep its budget balanced. The federal government can do the same except the president has stated that he would trather be spending his time developing new programs.
Part of any long-term debt solution is growing the economy. If we not only maintain a 9.2% unemployment rate, but send it skyrocketing higher due to spending cuts, we're blowing our own feet off. In other words--cutting spending in the short-term directly threatens any hope of reconciling long-term debt. There is no evidence whatsover--NONE-- that cutting spending will spur economic growth. And if Europe is any example, GDP may actually DECREASE, sending us into a double-dip recession.
But I suppose there's an easy fix for that, right? Just cut taxes for billionaires again!
Or, sit on your lazy ass and "do nothing" and HOPE that someone comes and fixes all your problems for you. For your sake, I just hope that "someone" doesn't speak Mandarin.
Step 1: Stop Spending
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit
Piece of cake, right?
She was asked if her numbers might improve as unemployment went up. She said "I hope so". Essentially she's saying that she hopes unemployment stays high or goes up even higher because she thinks it will help her in the polls. Of course every opponent of Obama hopes this as well because it's ammo they can use in their campaign. She should be saying that she hopes her poll numbers increase regardless of the unemployment rate, & that voters should choose her based on her record.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
GP, I will hold to my opinion that the Economist does a good job of promoting the corporatist interests of international bankers. I don't think it is even a US publication.
You ignored my citing of Harding's success or maybe good luck. Coolidge followed with seven years of GNP growth averaging 7% during which industrial workers' earnings grew 20%, unemployment averaged just over 3%, and the average work day was reduced by 4%; not to mention that Coolidge removed 98% of Americans from paying income taxes while reducing the national debt by a third. It can be done. Lots of job growth under harding and Coolidge; not so much under Roosevelt and Obama. To me the choice is obvious; replicate success instead of failure.
Getting a bit back on track here, Michelle Bachman is too preoccupied with a social agenda, too much of a neo-con agenda, and all the while tending to have a foot in her mouth. She will not succeed. Better worry about Rick Perry instead. The Economist will be ok with him too.
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves." -Lao Tsu
The recession of 1920-21 was due to inflation occurring in the wake of World War I. Debts were written down, and an expansion of the money supply curbed inflation, allowing growth to occur "by magic" beginning in 1923 [[well before Coolidge's tax cuts).Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Our current recession is not caused by inflation [[nor is it caused by long-term government debt).
You might be interested, however, that the Harding policies you promote here--increasing money supply--are the same exact same types of moves you complained about ad nauseum when the Fed introduced "quantitative easing".
Maybe you can reconcile your own thoughts with yourself before preaching the Gospel to us unlearned peons.
Please cite your source of information regarding Harding, as opposed to the Federal Reserve, increasing the money supply. I regularly criticize the Federal Reserve for doing so but Harding did the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
I'm not calling you an unlearned peon; Obama is.
This is a direct quote of Harding. Harding did not expand the money supply. He contracted it.
"We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend Republican capacity. We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens, but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life."
And so, shockingly Harding practiced what he preached. Regarding deflation, the Federal Reserve jacked up interest rates from 4.75% in January 1920 to 7% in June 1920, and held this rate through the aforementioned major drop in prices through May of 1921. Harding slashed the federal budget from $18.5bn in 1919 to $6.4bn in 1920 all the way down to $5.1bn in 1921. Meanwhile, the government actually ran surpluses during these years, allowing them to pay down the debt by $300mm from 1920-21.
http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blo...ing-revisited/
I did not explain myself well in my previous post. Harding did in fact tighten the money supply--again, recall that the recession was due to inflation--to bring prices back into check. Afterwards, however, the money supply was increased, leading to economic growth in 1923 onward.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Our current recession, however, was caused by an entirely different set of factors. It's worth noting that our recession is characterized by a lack of consumer demand--quite the opposite of the Harding recession. I don't see how tightening money supply and spending is going to increase consumer demand--not when people are hurting for jobs, state and local governments are slashing budgets, and banks aren't lending. Even with 40% of the stimulus dedicated to tax cuts, there just isn't enough money circulating in the economy. Further restricting the flow of money through the economy [[remember: Government spending is part of the GDP) isn't going to help this.
I don't see a direct correlation between Harding's cutting of government spending and the economic growth that began two years later. Bear in mind, the United States had war debt to pay off, much as it did in the late 1940s. How much of Harding's spending cuts can be attributed to paying off war bonds? I'm not sure one can make a definitive case that Harding's slash-and-burn technique inspired a magical wave of confidence that caused the economic boom of the 1920s.
oladub and ghettopalmetto.
Thanks for the intellegent debate. Every so often I feel like giving this site a rest due to personal bickering and shallow conversation. But then I read threads like this, where there are well thought out responses, with citations, without the personal attacks.
I'd like to join in, in a similar fashion, more often but the job, wife and kids make finding the time fairly tough. Not to mention being able to research and respond in kind. Still I appreciate your efforts and extend a sincere 'thank you'.
Those sentences about the black family under slavery was part of the pledge some whacko christian group in Iowa was asking people to sign. Bachman was one of the few who signed it. The pledge now does not include the aforementioned sentences.
http://newsone.com/nation/newsonesta...lavery-pledge/
Did all zero of Bachmann's Jewish friends shrewdly neglect to advise her against making a pronunciation malfunction? ;) May they all enjoy a well-deserved snickerfest. :D
Chutzpah
I knew she was nuts when she said Iowa people are beautiful and smart. Ever been there, don't waste your time.
WTF!!!
How could you make such a blunder??!!
Quote:
Michele Bachmann in Spartanburg, South Carolina this morning giving the King birthday wishes. The only problem, as every Elvis fan knows who mourns his loss, is that Elvis Presley died on August 16, 1977.
"Let's all say Happy Birthday to Elvis Presley!" Said Bachmann. "We thought we'd celebrate his birthday as we get started celebrating Take Our Country Back Tour!"
Oops.
Another silly gaffe from a campaign prone to them.
What does it matter if Michelle Bachmann said or didn't say the things she is reported to have said in this thread? if she is the candidate they won't lose her any votes because the people complaining wouldn't vote for her if she didn't say them - in fact their mewing will give other voters resolve..
As far as I can tell, there is little evidence, if any, that Harding's tax & corp policies [[he expanded the tax base), his did anything to promote job growth. I've only seen analysis like that from the CATO institute, who are well known to play fast and loose with facts to promote their ideology. Hardings Conference on unemployment set up shop in numerous states and spent money like a drunken sailor. The Obama policies were so watered down they COULDN'T do anything. they got prescious little into the hands of consumers, and too much into the hands of the dem/rep corporate masters.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
What proposal has ANY republican put forth to promote job growth? I've heard a few dems and reps give lip service to the crappy bush/clinton trade pacts, but i've heard the same ones calling for even worse pacts with S Korea and Columbia
The corporations[[which are people, you know!) want to extend free trade to pretty much all of Asia and South America. I think we can all look back and say confidently that NAFTA and the like have pretty much been a failure to the American worker.
I use unemployment and spending as indices to determine cause and effect. Unemployment went down after Harding and Coolidge cut spending and debt. Unemployment went up after Bush/Obama and Hoover/Roosevelt raised spending and debt. Porkulus was sold to us on the basis that if it was not passed, unemployment would exceed 7.5%. Obama's Rx was snake oil. As Hayek noted, when planners fail, they tend to claim that they just didn't do enough of whatever failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Harding/Coolidge also kept the US out of expensive wars. What's Obama's unconstitutional executive order war on Libya doing for our economy by contrast? You know, the war that was supposed to be over "in days, not weeks".
Obama pushed through the S Korea trade pact as well as overturned a vote of Congress with his recent executive order to allow Mexican truckers to displace Teamsters.
Like I've said many times, Obama is to the right of Eisenhauer - nearly to goldwater - and hasn't a progressive bone in his body.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
What is "Oops" in celebrating a famous guy's birth on any day you're in his area; even and particularliy on the day he died. I suppose a leftie would have celebrated his death day or something equally as stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitehouse
Of course maybe the lefties are trying to infer something as stupid as MB announcing it from the 58th State or while addressing The Marine "Corpse".
Bachman is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
However....
Someone please link a thread from this forum where Democrats discuss a comment Obama has made where he's stuck his foot completely down his throat.
Oh wait. There isn't one, because he gets a pass every time.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Ug-HkMY6M_tkeV
why don't you link the quote, papa?
Yeah, right, the media never says anything negative about Obama. What planet have you been living on the past two years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papasito
Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitej72
Wrong........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_929672.html?
Okay, so today she's in the Carolina's telling people that if she becomes president, gas will cost less than $2.00 a gallon. She's guaranteeing it. The way I see it, is the only way she could bring the price of gas down by being president is if she brought the economy to its knees, I mean really bad. Then the price of gas might drop to below $2.00 a gallon. Does she have advisors or is she just winging it?
I hope she get's the nomination.
She's completely out of her mind--and completely oblivious to things like "facts" and "reality". Which is exactly why I'm voting for her in the SC GOP primary. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by old guy
gp, I didn't vote for Reagan when he ran as President. However, I voted for him in the primary because I thought everyone would see what a dim bulb he was and vote for Anderson or Carter instead in the general election.
Reagan may have had his senior moments, and he may have had an ideological bent, but he never held the disdain for facts that Rep. Bachmann does.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
She's a demagogue, plain and simple.
My problems with Bachman are concerns that she doesn't have her facts straight and supports too many wars. My post was in response to your post #54 in which you said you might vote for her in the primary so Republicans would be stuck with the most unelectable candidate. I was just trying to point out that that same tactic backfired on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
There is a great book called "Idiot America" by Charles Pierce where he puts forrth Three Great Premises:Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up rating or otherwise
Anything can be true if someone says it loud enough
Fact is that which enough people believe; truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.
There's a lot of truth in that. It's been pointed out that promising gas under $2.00 a gallon will probably garner a large number of votes for her.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
On another note, I'm already tired of the Perry swagger. I tell you what.
In order to effectively reduce the price of oil President Bachmann would have to drill, drill, drill from the Arctic to the Gulf and from the Pacific to the Atlantic, filling millions of new direct and indirect jobs, reduce the taxes on energy and cut out the expensive supply from the Middle East. It could be done and it would benefit everybody not just selected groups in payback for their votes. At the same time she might consider building a hundred or so Nuclear Power Stations - if we still have enough people out of work to build and run them. Maybe she could give it a catchy slogan like Hope and Change.
So now you're conflating Hoover and Roosevelt.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020801757.html
"...The unemployment rate was 24.9% and rising when Roosevelt took office in 1933. After eight years of his administration, the unemployment rate was 14.6 percent and falling..."
FDR's spending lowered the unemployment rate. It put money into consumers' pockets which is the only way a consumer economy works. He made the mistake of listening to conservatives and cut back on spending in his second term which slowed down the recovery.
Roosevelt's spending swapped temporary jobs for long range debt. He stretched out the depression. Eight years later? The US was selling weapons to England by then. Maybe you should thank Hitler for only 14.6% unemployment. Roosevelt kicked the can down the road. I can get a bank loan to park a new Cadillac in my driveway. The problem is that it cripples me economically next year when I have to pay back the bank. That's what Roosevelt did to attain 14.6% unemployment. He devalued the dollar and borrowed money. Maxx, the US dollar has dived in value over one percent this week. That means, in practical terms, that the price of gasoline will go up 3-4 cents a gallon all other things being equal. Welcome to Obamanomics. No doubt, you would rather have 9% unemployment under Obama with a collapsing dollar then 7% unemployment under a Republican. I can't even think of another president who left office after 8 years with 14.6% unemployment. Even Obama probably won't be such a disaster. There, I said something nice about President Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx
What you and the whole drill baby, drill crowd fail to grasp is that oil is a commodity, and as such is sold on the world market. There is a good chance any oil we drill from our shores will be sold to China, thus we will see no decrease in price. Anyway, market speculation is what determines the price. Did you happen to notice last week when the market dropped, so did the price of oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by coracle
And as we all know, borrowing money and devaluing the dollar are capital crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
The value of the Dollar dove 1% in comparison to WHAT? The renminbi, which is pegged to the USD? The Euro? Pounds Sterling? I don't think you understand how currency exchange works.Quote:
Maxx, the US dollar has dived in value over one percent this week.
Changes in currency valuation happen on a daily basis, depending on what happens during the course of the day in currency markets, and are no reason to go pissing yourself.
Oh, the horrors! Looks like your trip to Walmart might cost you an extra $0.25.Quote:
That means, in practical terms, that the price of gasoline will go up 3-4 cents a gallon all other things being equal.
I think there are medications for high blood pressure. You should get some.Quote:
Welcome to Obamanomics. No doubt, you would rather have 9% unemployment under Obama with a collapsing dollar then 7% unemployment under a Republican. I can't even think of another president who left office after 8 years with 14.6% unemployment. Even Obama probably won't be such a disaster. There, I said something nice about President Obama.
Whether a burglar takes the money under your mattress or the Fed and Treasury conspire to devalue your money, the result is the same. You can't buy as much. When government puts you on the hook to repay bankers the money they printed, the bankers win and you eventually lose.Quote:
ghettopalmetto: "And as we all know, borrowing money and devaluing the dollar are capital crimes."
I don't think you do but I was referring to the USDX. Here is a short article briefly describing it's history, which currencies are involved, and how they are weighted.Quote:
The value of the Dollar dove 1% in comparison to WHAT? The renminbi, which is pegged to the USD? The Euro? Pounds Sterling? I don't think you understand how currency exchange works.
I think I am more concerned about the causes of why I can't buy as much with my dollar than you but then why should you be concerned when you believe the government can give you something for free to make up for something it's policies made expensive while billing your freebies to our kids.Quote:
Changes in currency valuation happen on a daily basis, depending on what happens during the course of the day in currency markets, and are no reason to go pissing yourself.
And everything imported in Wal-Mart, once I get there, will eventually have to be 1% more expensive to just make up for how much the dollar collapsed just in this week. Cans of tuna have doubled in price, per ounce, in just the last few years for instance. My income hasn't doubled. Price increases add up. Happy days aren't here again.Quote:
Oh, the horrors! Looks like your trip to Walmart might cost you an extra $0.25.
I think should lay off your blue pills.Quote:
I think there are medications for high blood pressure. You should get some.
So you're trying to claim that there's inflation...except inflation is well below the annualized 2% target rate established by the Fed?Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Please please find a scholarly book on monetary policy.
Where I live, prices keep going up at the grocery store, the hardware store, at the doctor's office, and other places Last week, I went to buy some cross braces for cattle fences. The last time I bought some three years ago they cost about $13. They now cost $24. The Agri-center blamed it on the cost of steel. Steel prices reflect to commodity prices of iron ore and energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
You believe the Federal Reserve propaganda? :D Funny!!!
This is what Andrew Jackson [[D) had to say to the representatives of the Fed equivalent in his day whom he gathered in from of him:
"I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the Eternal, [[bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."
-From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson, February 1834, according to Stan V. Henkels, Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States, 1928
The price of steel has been skyrocketing for at least the past 10 years, thanks to industrialization in China, among other nations. Steel, like oil, is sold on a global market. To blame price increases in steel strictly on devaluation of the Dollar alone is overly simplistic and hopelessly naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
You're attributing Causation to things that are merely Correlated. Learn the difference. Not everything fits neatly into your pre-ordained political agenda.
Just like global warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Devaluation of the dollar = higher prices in dollarsQuote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
I thought you were claiming that that "inflation is well below the annualized 2% target rate established by the Fed". Now you are saying there is inflation but it's China's fault which is partly true. The more dollars the Federal Reserve prints, the greater the supply of dollars relative to the quantity of goods. More dollars chasing a static amount of goods results in higher prices. More demand [[China) results in even higher prices. Both result in higher prices. Both are causes rather than simple correlations.
causation is determined in GW/CC because all other factors have been ruled out. try reading REAL literature for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm
In the case of inflation, however, multi-year trends show little direct correlation between the dollar value vis a vis a basket of other currencies and inflation. There are periods where a weak dollar is accompanied by low inflation, and periods where a strong dollar is accompanied by high inflation as well as the opposites. You can't predict, by looking at the relative strength of the dollar, whether a given period had high or low inflation. aggregate demand remains the primary cause.
Please read more carefully. I stated that the price of steel has increased over at least the past ten years. That price increase is due, in part, to increased demand from rapidly industrializing nations. That is NOT--repeat NOT--the same as "inflation", which applies in a broad-based fashion to the price of ALL goods, not just the one-or-two that you cherry pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Unless, of course, you're in an economy where consumer demand is virtually nonexistent, such as the current scenario in the United States. There are goods traded on global markets [[such as oil) whose prices have NOTHING to do with inflation rates in a single particular nation. Further, there are items--especially produce--whose prices are dependent upon weather phenomena. But as usual, you take a naive approach and label any price increase on a single product as "inflation".Quote:
The more dollars the Federal Reserve prints, the greater the supply of dollars relative to the quantity of goods. More dollars chasing a static amount of goods results in higher prices.
It's quite clear you haven't even the most rudimentary academic training in economics. See if you can find an Econ 102 course at your local community college.
The correct usage of "inflation" refers to the inflating of the money supply. The popularized meaning of "inflation" has the do with in price increases; inflated prices. There is a cause/effect relationship. I already mentioned that there both a supply [[the Fed) problem and a demand [[China) problem causing inflated prices. You deny the former. You also seem oblivious to government meddling with the variables defining the cost of living to obscure higher prices. According to the government statistics you believe, the CPI has increased so little that for the last two years Social Security recipients have not needed a cost of living increase. Why don't you just tell that to Social Security recipients who are dealing with higher costs?Quote:
ghettopalmetto: "Please read more carefully. I stated that the price of steel has increased over at least the past ten years. That price increase is due, in part, to increased demand from rapidly industrializing nations. That is NOT--repeat NOT--the same as "inflation", which applies in a broad-based fashion to the price of ALL goods, not just the one-or-two that you cherry pick."
This was your funniest line, "There are goods traded on global markets [[such as oil) whose prices have NOTHING to do with inflation rates in a single particular nation." Nothing to do with inflation rates? Tell that to a retiree who doesn't care why prices have gone up. Which brings us back to the collapsing dollar as a reason all imports will have to cost a little more.Quote:
Unless, of course, you're in an economy where consumer demand is virtually nonexistent, such as the current scenario in the United States. There are goods traded on global markets [[such as oil) whose prices have NOTHING to do with inflation rates in a single particular nation. Further, there are items--especially produce--whose prices are dependent upon weather phenomena. But as usual, you take a naive approach and label any price increase on a single product as "inflation".
It's quite clear you haven't even the most rudimentary academic training in economics. See if you can find an Econ 102 course at your local community college.
One very easy measure is to compare one's average grocery bills to what they were one or five years ago. That evens out produce prices, the temporary effects of weather, etc.. Mine are higher. You can tell everyone here that yours are about the same as they were x number of years ago if you want to lose the remainder of your credibility. We can only imagine how much higher prices would be if demand were higher. Price increases are just as real if they are nation specific or worldwide.
Well, that depends on the origins of the imports, doesn't it? Maybe you can be a REAL 'MERICAN and start buying products made in your own country, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Please explain, however, how the price of Chinese-made goods would increase with a devaluation of the US Dollar, when the value of the Renminbi is directly pegged to the value of the Dollar. As my math teachers used to say, Show your work.
Or maybe, just maybe--you can do with less SHIT, as most of the world does. Materialism is a bitch. Don't go blaming the Gubmint for your problems with personal finance, Mr. Personal Responsibility.
"The price of steel has been skyrocketing for at least the past 10 years, thanks to industrialization in China" [[your post #70) Now you are suggesting that China doesn't have to pass along it's costs? You are contradicting yourself. I guess it would be inappropriate to address you as "Mr. Personal Responsibility" but thank you for the compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
What in the hell are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingnatic
Nice, Wingnatic.
Thank you!
MY EARS ARE BLEEDING!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gser...layer_embedded
How the hell does she get away with it??Quote:
Bachmann: Who likes white people?
Crowd: [[Cheers)Bachmann: Yeah! That's right! I'm Michelle Bachmann and I'm a member of congress and I'm running for the presidency of the United States....
No need to listen further. The rest is just religious fanatic junk.
Edit:
Seems this was the reason why she uttered that phrase.
That still is a group with a questionable group name.....Quote:
From Towleroad: A poster at Political Hotwire writes: "Apparently, the warm-up band for Bachmann was called the 'White People Soul Band'"
Whitehouse - that seems a questionable name to use to me....... Particularly when criticizing a group for using "White People" in their name and to infer Bachmann used them in a racial context - which she didn't if you've got eyes to see and ears to hear.
Then I guess you don't like the Average White Band.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitehouse
Hmm ! White People Soul Band. If they are anywhere close to the Average White Band I might take a listen.
I see all the race-a-phobes posting on this thread.
I don't understand why you're all up in a tiffy.
She's not going to be the next President.
Focus your rage on someone with a chance!
Who would that be? Less yer figurin' on that fella from down Texas way. I tell you what, he'd give this recession a real ass whoopin. He's the front runner?
Yep ! that Perry guy would put a whoopin on that recession. He would turn that recession into a depression quicker than you can say "don"t mess with Texas"