PDA

View Full Version : Rep Paul Brown Gets Boobie Prize 4 Dumbest



Gayle in MD
07-27-2011, 09:10 PM
The dumbest Representavive on The Hill, says he wants to LOWER the debt ceiling!

OMG, where do they find these people!

G.

Qtec
07-28-2011, 01:36 AM
The guy is obviously a moron but still he can be elected by Republicans.

<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rep-paul-broun-wants-lower-not-raise-de" target="_blank">Wingnut extraordinaire Rep. Paul Broun wants to lower -- not raise -- the debt ceiling
</a>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mitchell: Congressman, when you talk about lowering the debt ceiling, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the debt ceiling is being raised to pay for money that has been appropriated by this Congress and previous Congresses, but in particular by this Congress. You're paying for what has already been charged not for future expenses.</span>

Broun: Well, Andrea, the thing is when someone is overextended and broke they don't continue paying for expensive automobiles. They sell the expensive automobiles and buy a cheaper one. They don't continue paying for <span style='font-size: 14pt'>country club dues.</span> They drop out of the country club. We need to pay down the debt. We need to create a strong economy, create jobs, and raising the debt ceiling is just going to make it worse long-term in my opinion. That's the reason that I think we need to go back to the drawing board. We need to do everything we can to cut expenses across the board to the federal government, so that we can put this financial house back in order. we cannot continue this fiscal fiasco here in Washington.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Andrea tries to explain to him what the debt ceiling is, but he either lacks the intelligence or is <u>too stuck in ideology to be open, or even able, to hear what she has to say.</u> </span> </div></div>


Q

LWW
07-28-2011, 04:51 AM
The 2 of you will still get your <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"CAREER ACHIEVEMENT AWARD"</span> as planned.

Gayle in MD
07-28-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy is obviously a moron but still he can be elected by Republicans.

<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rep-paul-broun-wants-lower-not-raise-de" target="_blank">Wingnut extraordinaire Rep. Paul Broun wants to lower -- not raise -- the debt ceiling
</a>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mitchell: Congressman, when you talk about lowering the debt ceiling, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the debt ceiling is being raised to pay for money that has been appropriated by this Congress and previous Congresses, but in particular by this Congress. You're paying for what has already been charged not for future expenses.</span>

Broun: Well, Andrea, the thing is when someone is overextended and broke they don't continue paying for expensive automobiles. They sell the expensive automobiles and buy a cheaper one. They don't continue paying for <span style='font-size: 14pt'>country club dues.</span> They drop out of the country club. We need to pay down the debt. We need to create a strong economy, create jobs, and raising the debt ceiling is just going to make it worse long-term in my opinion. That's the reason that I think we need to go back to the drawing board. We need to do everything we can to cut expenses across the board to the federal government, so that we can put this financial house back in order. we cannot continue this fiscal fiasco here in Washington.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Andrea tries to explain to him what the debt ceiling is, but he either lacks the intelligence or is <u>too stuck in ideology to be open, or even able, to hear what she has to say.</u> </span> </div></div>


Q </div></div>


We see this stunning ignorance on the right, over and over. The analogies they use, never fit with the reality of the situation!

But then, they have that alternate universe they live in, so what can we expect.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
07-28-2011, 05:15 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>BRAVO!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 17pt'>ENCORE!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>ENCORE!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 23pt'>ENCORE!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!</span>

llotter
07-28-2011, 08:05 AM
Rep. Brown is exactly right. When hard times hit, it is time to tighten the ol' belt, not go on a spending binge. First, the record is crystal clear, attempting to spend your way out of a recession is counter-productive as we can see yet again with our current policies. Second, the record is equally clear that cutting the government share of the economy is the best (maybe the only) way to stimulate growth and restore our freedoms.

What is dumb to the 10th power is closing your eyes to the disaster staring us in the face. As someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Michael Savage is exactly right when he said the liberalism is a mental disorder.

Gayle in MD
07-28-2011, 09:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rep. Brown is exactly right. When hard times hit, it is time to tighten the ol' belt, not go on a spending binge. First, the record is crystal clear, attempting to spend your way out of a recession is counter-productive as we can see yet again with our current policies. Second, the record is equally clear that cutting the government share of the economy is the best (maybe the only) way to stimulate growth and restore our freedoms.

What is dumb to the 10th power is closing your eyes to the disaster staring us in the face. As someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Michael Savage is exactly right when he said the liberalism is a mental disorder. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is no secret that New Corp employs any and all methods to devastate it's victims and then buy them up when they are wounded and most vulnerable...as highlighted by Rachel Maddow on her show on July 18th. The Murdochs have caused the American elections to be hijacked by Fascist elements for years and indeed caused so much devastation in America through various means of manipulation that it is a welcome thing to have them investigated here in the US.


</div></div>

Poor guy. A victim of brainwashing, and you don't even kmnow it.

So sad.

G.

Soflasnapper
07-28-2011, 10:27 AM
First, the record is crystal clear, attempting to spend your way out of a recession is counter-productive as we can see yet again with our current policies. Second, the record is equally clear that cutting the government share of the economy is the best (maybe the only) way to stimulate growth and restore our freedoms.

Well, no, the record is quite clear the other way (and as a matter of fact, spend our way out of the recession is exactly what happened, with the passage of the stimulus act and its beginning coinciding exactly with the end of the recession in early '09).

The federal government does and should run larger deficits when the economy is in recession. It's called counter-cyclical spending.

Because if it's the unemployment in a slowdown or recession or weak recovery that's causing a larger deficit, via reducing tax revenues (as people aren't working) and causing safety net spending to increase as more people become eligible for unemployment benefits, or food stamps, other kinds of aid like Medicaid etc., if the government then itself chases a mythical balanced budget by trying to reduce other spending to compensate, then demand weakens, further jobs are lost, and it's a vicious cycle that builds on itself to sink lower and lower.

We don't even have to change any policy or law for these counter-cyclical expenditures-- it's built into law, and has been, since we had social welfare safety net programs.

Since the time we've had such measures in place, recessions have been far milder and shorter than before, when such things were called 'panics' (and were really Depressions).

We saw what happened in bad economic times when first President Hoover, and then twice President Roosevelt (1st when he came in, and then, toward the end of his 1st term), tried what you are saying to do, to further reduce federal spending and try to balance the budget during tough times-- Hoover got defeated, and disgraced for the remainder of history, and FDR had about the largest House defeat in history after his later attempt to prematurely balance the budget while the economy was still weak caused a second recession to occur.

Since those two fairly definitive experiments of fiscal policy, no other president since that time made those mistakes. It's understood that deficits grow in hard times, and should be allowed to. It is when times are good that the budget should be closer to balance, not in recessions that reduce revenues and cause increased safety net expenditures.

LWW
07-28-2011, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First, the record is crystal clear, attempting to spend your way out of a recession is counter-productive as we can see yet again with our current policies. Second, the record is equally clear that cutting the government share of the economy is the best (maybe the only) way to stimulate growth and restore our freedoms.

Well, no, the record is quite clear the other way (and as a matter of fact, spend our way out of the recession is exactly what happened, with the passage of the stimulus act and its beginning coinciding exactly with the end of the recession in early '09).</div></div>

Yet another falsehood.

Without cooked books to "HIDE THE DECLINE" the US economy is still in recession.

Soflasnapper
07-28-2011, 10:42 AM
Well, that's a bizarre comment.

The prior last two recessions (1. W's first year, 2. his father's second half of term) used the SAME definitions of inflation (hiding the declines you claim in the same way), and this recovery compared to those two (after each of their respective recessions were said to have ended) has higher real gdp growth, and higher private sector job growth.

And it's great that you quote the 'hide the decline' phrase, which will probably confuse people, having heard that somewhere (ClimateGate, as it turns out), and think they've heard that about this recovery.

Do you think if we were still in a recession that the deficit would have come down $259 billion from last year to this one through the 3rd FY quarter, and that income tax receipts would be up 24% over that same period of time comparison? Are they hiding the recession by phonying up those two numbers as well?

Finally, and btw, recessions are called as to starting and ending, not by the government, but by a private outfit unrelated to the government.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[5] Almost universally, academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses defer to the determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and end.</div></div>

You have a problem with THEIR calls, then you want a different reality than what everyone else accepts. If these guys aren't the arbiters of recessions' starts and ends, who do you suggest we should be using? Yourself, perhaps?

Gayle in MD
07-28-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First, the record is crystal clear, attempting to spend your way out of a recession is counter-productive as we can see yet again with our current policies. Second, the record is equally clear that cutting the government share of the economy is the best (maybe the only) way to stimulate growth and restore our freedoms.

Well, no, the record is quite clear the other way (and as a matter of fact, spend our way out of the recession is exactly what happened, with the passage of the stimulus act and its beginning coinciding exactly with the end of the recession in early '09).

The federal government does and should run larger deficits when the economy is in recession. It's called counter-cyclical spending.

Because if it's the unemployment in a slowdown or recession or weak recovery that's causing a larger deficit, via reducing tax revenues (as people aren't working) and causing safety net spending to increase as more people become eligible for unemployment benefits, or food stamps, other kinds of aid like Medicaid etc., if the government then itself chases a mythical balanced budget by trying to reduce other spending to compensate, then demand weakens, further jobs are lost, and it's a vicious cycle that builds on itself to sink lower and lower.

We don't even have to change any policy or law for these counter-cyclical expenditures-- it's built into law, and has been, since we had social welfare safety net programs.

Since the time we've had such measures in place, recessions have been far milder and shorter than before, when such things were called 'panics' (and were really Depressions).

We saw what happened in bad economic times when first President Hoover, and then twice President Roosevelt (1st when he came in, and then, toward the end of his 1st term), tried what you are saying to do, to further reduce federal spending and try to balance the budget during tough times-- Hoover got defeated, and disgraced for the remainder of history, and FDR had about the largest House defeat in history after his later attempt to prematurely balance the budget while the economy was still weak caused a second recession to occur.

Since those two fairly definitive experiments of fiscal policy, no other president since that time made those mistakes. It's understood that deficits grow in hard times, and should be allowed to. It is when times are good that the budget should be closer to balance, not in recessions that reduce revenues and cause increased safety net expenditures. </div></div>

The right continues to skew the evidence on the recession, as usual.

How can one discuss the economy, with people who think they can compare family finances, to the Government's economy?

OMG! Faggeddaboddit!

Brown's an idiot! No shortage of them on the right!


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
07-28-2011, 04:02 PM
Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions.

LWW
07-28-2011, 04:04 PM
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure ... and idjits believe the lies they want to here.

Next inane statement?

LWW
07-29-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

WOW! Just WOW!

We have leftists pontificating daily about economics ... but none has the testicular/ovarian fortitude to try the questions on?

I wonder why that is?

ugotda7
07-29-2011, 04:36 PM
Dementia.....a terrible thing.

LWW
07-30-2011, 04:33 AM
Bump for our intellectual leftists.

LWW
08-02-2011, 03:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

WOW! Just WOW!

We have leftists pontificating daily about economics ... but none has the testicular/ovarian fortitude to try the questions on?

I wonder why that is? </div></div>

Oddly, these questions have made our resident economists run under the couch and wet the floor like scared poodles.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since the time we've had such measures in place, recessions have been far milder and shorter than before, when such things were called 'panics' (and were really Depressions).</div></div>

Once again ... you are following party line propaganda as opposed to historical reality.

Let's review:

THE DEPRESSION OF 1807 (http://recession.org/history/depression-1807) did in fact last for 7 years, compared to our current mess which is 12 years long other than a brief respite in 2003/4.

What caused such a mess? Gubmint intervention in free markets ... which led to a thriving black market as a counterweight to the heavy hand of the state.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:38 AM
Next we had the PANIC OF 1819 (http://recession.org/history/panic-1819) which lasted for 5 years.

What happened? Massive foreclosures, high unemployment, bank failures ... brought upon us by gubmint expansion following the War of 1812.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:40 AM
Following that we had the PANIC OF 1837 (http://recession.org/history/panic-1837) which lasted for 6 years.

What happened? People lost faith in gubmint fiat currency.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:45 AM
The PANOC OF 1857 (http://recession.org/history/panic-1857) lasted just 18 months, and could largely be blamed on market forces. The Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company failed and the economy tanked.

Left to it's own devices, the markets also quickly came back.

Oh, FWIW, what led to "TRUSTS" becoming so popular? Starts with a "G" ...

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:47 AM
We all know about the "GREAT DEPRESSION" ... and the honest among us realize that it was caused by gubmint intervention in free markets, made worse by more of the same, and only ended in the US because everyone needed us with the rest of the world devastated by war.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:48 AM
Anything else I can help you with?

cushioncrawler
08-02-2011, 06:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

My arithmetik sez that for the 1790 to 1834 period, recession = 18.5yr out of 44yr.
1835 to 1927 = 41.5yr out of 93yr.
1928 to 2009 = 16.5yr out of 82yr.
Totals are 75.5yr of recessions out of 219yr.

What a joke.
And the 16.5/82 iz komplete krapp. Kan u beleev it, the 4yr 2mth period from 1933 to 1937 iz shown az not in recession. This shows that the rest iz krapp. But, if u fix that it kums to 20.7/82.
But another problem. The WW2 iz shown az having an 8month recession and 6yr 8months since good times. Bullshit. But i will leev that alone.

So, we hav 79.7yrs of recession out of 219yrs. Over 36%. Wellkum to the usofa.

But i am thinking that the korrekt figure shood be praps over 100yrs out of 219yrs. Allmost 50%. And judging by my own hi standards it iz 100% -- thanx to krappynomix the usofa haz never been out of recession.
mac.

LWW
08-03-2011, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

Daily bump.

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 06:35 PM
Wikileaks
Limitations of GDP to judge the health of an economyGDP is widely used by economists to gauge the health of an economy, as its variations are relatively quickly identified. However, its value as an indicator for the standard of living is considered to be limited. Not only that, but if the aim of economic activity is to produce ecologically sustainable increases in the overall human standard of living, GDP is a perverse measurement; it treats loss of ecosystem services as a benefit instead of a cost.[22] Other criticisms of how the GDP is used include:

Wealth distribution–GDP does not take disparity in incomes between the rich and poor into account. See income inequality metrics for discussion of a variety of inequality-based economic measures.
Non-market transactions–GDP excludes activities that are not provided through the market, such as household production and volunteer or unpaid services. As a result, GDP is understated. Unpaid work conducted on Free and Open Source Software (such as Linux) contribute nothing to GDP, but it was estimated that it would have cost more than a billion US dollars for a commercial company to develop. Also, if Free and Open Source Software became identical to its proprietary software counterparts, and the nation producing the propriety software stops buying proprietary software and switches to Free and Open Source Software, then the GDP of this nation would reduce, however there would be no reduction in economic production or standard of living. The work of New Zealand economist Marilyn Waring has highlighted that if a concerted attempt to factor in unpaid work were made, then it would in part undo the injustices of unpaid (and in some cases, slave) labour, and also provide the political transparency and accountability necessary for democracy. Shedding some doubt on this claim, however, is the theory that won economist Douglass North the Nobel Prize in 1993.[citation needed] North argued that the creation and strengthening of the patent system, by encouraging private invention and enterprise, became the fundamental catalyst behind the Industrial Revolution in England.
Underground economy–Official GDP estimates may not take into account the underground economy, in which transactions contributing to production, such as illegal trade and tax-avoiding activities, are unreported, causing GDP to be underestimated.
Asset Value–GDP does not take into account the value of all assets in an economy. This is akin to ignoring a company's balance sheet, and judging it solely on the basis of its income statement.
Non-monetary economy–GDP omits economies where no money comes into play at all, resulting in inaccurate or abnormally low GDP figures. For example, in countries with major business transactions occurring informally, portions of local economy are not easily registered. Bartering may be more prominent than the use of money, even extending to services (I helped you build your house ten years ago, so now you help me).
GDP also ignores subsistence production.
Quality improvements and inclusion of new products–By not adjusting for quality improvements and new products, GDP understates true economic growth. For instance, although computers today are less expensive and more powerful than computers from the past, GDP treats them as the same products by only accounting for the monetary value. The introduction of new products is also difficult to measure accurately and is not reflected in GDP despite the fact that it may increase the standard of living. For example, even the richest person from 1900 could not purchase standard products, such as antibiotics and cell phones, that an average consumer can buy today, since such modern conveniences did not exist back then.
What is being produced–GDP counts work that produces no net change or that results from repairing harm. For example, rebuilding after a natural disaster or war may produce a considerable amount of economic activity and thus boost GDP. The economic value of health care is another classic example—it may raise GDP if many people are sick and they are receiving expensive treatment, but it is not a desirable situation. Alternative economic estimates, such as the standard of living or discretionary income per capita try to measure the human utility of economic activity. See uneconomic growth.
Externalities–GDP ignores externalities or economic bads such as damage to the environment. By counting goods which increase utility but not deducting bads or accounting for the negative effects of higher production, such as more pollution, GDP is overstating economic welfare. The Genuine Progress Indicator is thus proposed by ecological economists and green economists as a substitute for GDP, supposing a consensus on relevant data to measure "progress". In countries highly dependent on resource extraction or with high ecological footprints the disparities between GDP and GPI can be very large, indicating ecological overshoot. Some environmental costs, such as cleaning up oil spills are included in GDP.
Sustainability of growth–GDP is not a tool of economic projections, which would make it subjective, it is just a measurement of economic activity. That is why it does not measure what is considered the sustainability of growth. A country may achieve a temporarily high GDP by over-exploiting natural resources or by misallocating investment. For example, the large deposits of phosphates gave the people of Nauru one of the highest per capita incomes on earth, but since 1989 their standard of living has declined sharply as the supply has run out. Oil-rich states can sustain high GDPs without industrializing, but this high level would no longer be sustainable if the oil runs out. Economies experiencing an economic bubble, such as a housing bubble or stock bubble, or a low private-saving rate tend to appear to grow faster owing to higher consumption, mortgaging their futures for present growth. Economic growth at the expense of environmental degradation can end up costing dearly to clean up. A government can inflate GDP by repeatedly increasing public debt and heavy monetization. This can ultimately end in collapse of that country's currency.
One main problem in estimating GDP growth over time is that the purchasing power of money varies in different proportion for different goods, so when the GDP figure is deflated over time, GDP growth can vary greatly depending on the basket of goods used and the relative proportions used to deflate the GDP figure. For example, in the past 80 years the GDP per capita of the United States if measured by purchasing power of potatoes, did not grow significantly. But if it is measured by the purchasing power of eggs, it grew several times. For this reason, economists comparing multiple countries usually use a varied basket of goods.
Cross-border comparisons of GDP can be inaccurate as they do not take into account local differences in the quality of goods, even when adjusted for purchasing power parity. This type of adjustment to an exchange rate is controversial because of the difficulties of finding comparable baskets of goods to compare purchasing power across countries. For instance, people in country A may consume the same number of locally produced apples as in country B, but apples in country A are of a more tasty variety. This difference in material well being will not show up in GDP statistics. This is especially true for goods that are not traded globally, such as housing.
Transfer pricing on cross-border trades between associated companies may distort import and export measures[citation needed].
As a measure of actual sale prices, GDP does not capture the economic surplus between the price paid and subjective value received, and can therefore underestimate aggregate utility.
Simon Kuznets in his very first report to the US Congress in 1934 said:[3]

...the welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income...

In 1962, Kuznets stated:[23]

Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP? Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:
1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?
2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?
These are not trick questions.</div></div>Wiki tells me that GDP based on wages iznt direktly affekted by sales etc. Zero sales of ipads and camaros wouldnt affekt GDP.

And GDP based on sales iznt direktly affekted by wages etc.

Its all too confuzing.
mac.

LWW
08-04-2011, 05:24 AM
Incorrect ... but it is intentionally confusing.

I at least commend you for making an attempt Mac.

Now ... sofla, gee, woofie, stench?

Anyone?

The answers are simple ... but y'all you seem to fear them?

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

Daily bump. </div></div>

Bumped again.

For all the pontifications about the economy from the left ... why am I not surprised that not one of them can answer such simple questions.

ugotda7
08-05-2011, 06:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The dumbest Representavive on The Hill, says he wants to LOWER the debt ceiling!

OMG, where do they find these people!

G. </div></div>

http://www.hamovhotov.com/fun/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/i-see-dumb-people-everywhere.jpg

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

Daily bump. </div></div>

Bumped again.

For all the pontifications about the economy from the left ... why am I not surprised that not one of them can answer such simple questions. </div></div>

AM bump.

LWW
08-07-2011, 06:13 AM
With all these fans of statism who claim they want only the truth ... none of them has the testicular/ovarian fortitude to anser such simple questions.

LWW
08-08-2011, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same?

These are not trick questions. </div></div>

Daily bump. </div></div>

Bumped again.

For all the pontifications about the economy from the left ... why am I not surprised that not one of them can answer such simple questions. </div></div>

AM bump. </div></div>

DAY #11 ... and our intellectual giants on the left still can't come to an answer?

OK ... I'll allow you to use google.

Or, as I suspect, have you already used google and don't want to admit that you already know the answers as that would be a de facto confession that you are a bunch of spoon fed bots who will accept whatever the state tells you to accept?

Y'all remind me of a section in "1984" where the people were told by the "MINISTRY OF PLENTY" that their weekly ration of chocolate had been expanded to 15 grams due to record production ... willingly forgetting that it had always been 20 grams per week prior to the announcement.

LWW
08-09-2011, 03:18 AM
Day #12 bump.

LWW
08-11-2011, 05:56 AM
It's the two week bump.

Am I forced to assume that our resident leftist economic experts are actually cowering in fear of the answers due to their cluelessness?

Or ... because they know the answer but don't want others to realize that the state cooks the books and they slavishly help to cover for them?

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 07:24 AM
Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP? Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:
1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

$599M GDP IN 2010 -- AND $1,599,000 LESS GDP IN 2011 (BASED ON SALES).

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same? These are not trick questions.

GDP STAYS THE SAME (BASED ON SALES).

LWW
08-11-2011, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you know how the books are cooked on GDP? Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:
1 - If the total US GDP consisted of iPad sales and Apple sold 1,000,000 in 2010 at US$599.00 each, and then this year sold 999,000 at US$598.00 each, did GDP rise or fall according to the way the gubmint calculates it?

$599M GDP IN 2010 -- AND $1,599,000 LESS GDP IN 2011 (BASED ON SALES).

2 - If the total US GDP consisted of Camaro sales and in 2010 they sold 100,000 for exactly US$25,000.00 each, then in 2011 they sold 100,000 again for exactly US$25,000.00 again ... did US GDP rise, fall, or stay the same? These are not trick questions.

GDP STAYS THE SAME (BASED ON SALES). </div></div>

Congrats for making a logical attempt Mac ... and all reasonable people, unaware that the gubmint was cooking the books, would come to the same conclusion.

The way the US gubmint <s>lies</s> <s>fabricates</s> calculates on GDP ... US GDP went up in both cases, even though no additional wealth had been created.

The US is in the midst of a roughly 10 year old actual GDP contraction.

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 05:27 PM
I think that few suggest that GDP shows much about wealth or happyness or the future or the prezent or the past or anything important. But it iz an interesting statistik.

Human wealth iz interesting. There iz of course no such thing az wealth. Me myself, i would look at human wealth az being firstly.....
..... The nature of the LAND SEA WATER AIR FLORA FAUNA KLIMATE & RESOURCES around u, ie theusofa.
..... Then i would add OBJEKTS. Things that hav lasting use.
..... Then i would add PRODUKTION, ie the ability to produce objekts that dont last (FOOD) and that last a bit (HOUSE) etc.
..... Not sure where how pipple are counted.

But the real wealth of the real earth would go up if humans were somehow all eliminated.
mac.

LWW
08-12-2011, 12:44 AM
The way the US gubmint cooks the books ... GDP went up in the case of the Camaro because the engineers squeezed a couple extra HP out of the engine and in the APPLE analogy because the iPad2 replaced the iPad.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy is obviously a moron but still he can be elected by Republicans.

<a href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rep-paul-broun-wants-lower-not-raise-de" target="_blank">Wingnut extraordinaire Rep. Paul Broun wants to lower -- not raise -- the debt ceiling
</a>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mitchell: Congressman, when you talk about lowering the debt ceiling, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the debt ceiling is being raised to pay for money that has been appropriated by this Congress and previous Congresses, but in particular by this Congress. You're paying for what has already been charged not for future expenses.</span>

Broun: Well, Andrea, the thing is when someone is overextended and broke they don't continue paying for expensive automobiles. They sell the expensive automobiles and buy a cheaper one. They don't continue paying for <span style='font-size: 14pt'>country club dues.</span> They drop out of the country club. We need to pay down the debt. We need to create a strong economy, create jobs, and raising the debt ceiling is just going to make it worse long-term in my opinion. That's the reason that I think we need to go back to the drawing board. We need to do everything we can to cut expenses across the board to the federal government, so that we can put this financial house back in order. we cannot continue this fiscal fiasco here in Washington.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Andrea tries to explain to him what the debt ceiling is, but he either lacks the intelligence or is <u>too stuck in ideology to be open, or even able, to hear what she has to say.</u> </span> </div></div>


Q </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'> We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late! </span>