unemployment up to 9.6%

#201
#201
CSpindizzy said:
AHHHH. So you're saying you can look a little deeper into ANY chart and find other factors at play and not make broad generalizations. Glad you finally come to that conclusion.

How am I pimping the Clinton years?
Click to expand...

Well, it was easy on your graph to know what the real growth factor was.

The graph I posted was more normalized looking at all hourly incomes vice household.

I thought you were calling out the 1990s as high growth years?
 
#202
#202
utgibbs said:
I wasn't wrong. I said Curry and Copeland weren't there.

It was a team that had won something like 24 straight games. We were the first hiccup. They lost to Florida in the SECCG, and started the year ranked #2.

Game, Set, and Match.
Click to expand...

and they weren't any good and they were beaten, left with no offensive options and a defense that sorely missed its stars. Pretending that our gift to Palmer was anything but ineptitude is just painful to hear, but I guess years of apologizing and feeling sorry for the "downtrodden" has made the academic tower to inhabit a sweet feeling place.

I think you might be confused as to tennis as well. Do actually know anything about any sports?
 
#203
#203
61570_427465187284_591777284_5111786_5643895_n.jpg
 
#206
#206
BigPapaVol said:
and they weren't any good and they were beaten, left with no offensive options and a defense that sorely missed its stars. Pretending that our gift to Palmer was anything but ineptitude is just painful to hear, but I guess years of apologizing and feeling sorry for the "downtrodden" has made the academic tower to inhabit a sweet feeling place.

I think you might be confused as to tennis as well. Do actually know anything about any sports?
Click to expand...

Look, I knew they would score a touchdown. I didn't think they would convert the 2. Meanwhile, Vols had lost how many straight against them? If you want to talk bad Bama losses, I refer you to 1990. Student body right hurt, but it was a pivotal turning moment in the series.

They were #2 when we played. They had not lost a game in over a year. They would have finished Top Ten (finished #12) except they lost to Florida in SECCG.
 
#208
#208
utgibbs said:
Look, I knew they would score a touchdown. I didn't think they would convert the 2. Meanwhile, Vols had lost how many straight against them? If you want to talk bad Bama losses, I refer you to 1990. Student body right hurt, but it was a pivotal turning moment in the series.

They were #2 when we played. They had not lost a game in over a year. They would have finished Top Ten (finished #12) except they lost to Florida in SECCG.
Click to expand...

What the hell does the previous 8 seasons matter. That game was about the quality of the two teams on the field. Ours was superior in nearly every regard. The final drive, touchdown and two point conversion were all the start of our overconservative late game philosophy killing us. Maybe you'll recall that we finished 12th in 07. Remind me who we beat that could play football.

I don't care about beauty contest rankings. Where was their quality win? Who did they beat that could play football. At that time, the SEC was us, them and UF. They were well on their way into the toilet bowl.
 
#209
#209
utgibbs said:
SJT, we just pumped a trillion + 800bn into the system to keep it afloat.

The notion of a "Keynesian Nightmare" looks pretty funny right now when you look at two simple graphs which say, wages went up / home ownership went up (and sharply) during those years. I don't doubt there are problems that need to be solved with ANY system.

Now, fast forward to the 1970s to today. Real wages, stagnant. Home ownership, stagnant up until ca 1998 (and we now know the reason for that, hence the sharp decline). The wealth created has been siphoned to restore elite class power. Which we know it has.

share-of-national-income.png


real_wage_productivity_gap.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought about this again... You know why I teach my kids to check their work to make sure the answer is reasonable? So they won't buy non-sense like you post above.

If the charts you posted mean what you say they mean... then people in the 30's were living in high times. We know that isn't true. It says that the WW2 years were better than the 90's... we know that isn't true. It says the 70's were better than or as good as the 80's and 90's. Anyone who lived through the period knows for a fact that isn't true.

What your chart does accurately show is exactly what I contended... gov't involvement in the economy and gov't debt have a negative effect on private wealth and real income. Your chart covers the period when Progressivism and its children like centrally controlled economies took over. Interestingly enough something occurred in 1913 that has a direct bearing on all of this... the USC was amended to allow the income tax. Your chart directly correlates to increases in both the rates and "progressivism" of the income tax.

Bottom line: gov't cannot control the economy without creating bigger problems than it solves.
 
#210
#210
Government Spending Chart in United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local

Check out this chart then imagine it inverted and overlaid on your graph of real income... pretty remarkable, huh?

This one is kind of interesting too: Government Spending Chart in United States 1800-2010 - Federal State Local

While the US was busy become the greatest economic power in the world, the budget deficit and spending Government Spending Chart in United States 1800-2010 - Federal State Local remained constant and low except for wars.

When the progressives took over, both exploded. Progressivism in all its manifestations is what has brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe.
 
#214
#214
By posting the "No hunting or trespassing" and "Beware Security Dog" signs on my property, I have accomplished as much for the turkeys and deer as they have, and I only spent a few cents at WalMart. :yes:

Edit: Sorry, no elk in the holler.
 
Last edited:
#216
#216
OrangeEmpire said:
Awesome, a billion here or there to save big antlers.......
Click to expand...

Don't know about other states but the conservation program in Missouri is self funding as is the Dept of Nat Resources... state version of the EPA. The few things gov't needs to do and does well are often like that.
 
#219
#219
utgibbs said:
Rebuilding our rail network would be a first priority of any adult thinking government / culture.
Click to expand...

yea, if you got a thing for trains. Unfortunately a train wont get me to the grocery store, church, work and it cant deliver me the local pizza. It is great for hauling freight long distances.


our 1st priorty should be getting off foreign oil and using some of the 200 year supply of NatGas sitting under our butts
 
#221
#221
VolsNSkinsFan said:
yea, if you got a thing for trains. Unfortunately a train wont get me to the grocery store, church, work and it cant deliver me the local pizza. It is great for hauling freight long distances.


our 1st priorty should be getting off foreign oil and using some of the 200 year supply of NatGas sitting under our butts
Click to expand...

Both are reasons why the Las Vegas metaphor rings so true. Livable cities and communities should have been the first priority.

If you want to get off foreign oil, you are going to need that train system and a WHOLE lot more.
 
#223
#223
utgibbs said:
Are you joking? Bulgaria has a better rail network.
Click to expand...

what is this silliness about upgrading our rail network? Hell, we spend a fortune maintaining via government giveaway to Amtrak. I'm just not sure I understand your insistence on railway upgrading. Don't know how much time you've spent using the existing network, but it's actually solid. I've used it a decent bit commercially, as a military movement officer for a deployable brigade and as civilian as my father in law vacations via train every year and we tend to go.
 
#224
#224
utgibbs said:
Both are reasons why the Las Vegas metaphor rings so true. Livable cities and communities should have been the first priority.

If you want to get off foreign oil, you are going to need that train system and a WHOLE lot more.
Click to expand...

what the hell does livable cities and communities mean? Unfortunately for this point, that is up to the municipalities and not the feds.

The rail system argument is cute in theory, but that would essentially force populate the urban centers even further. I can assure you that our country is spending big cash exploring light rail as an alternative in smaller population centers, but you just can't make rail work without a operating base population that's relatively large.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top