Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Economic Outlook - Who to Believe?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Believe this:

Capitalism is based on corporations privatizing profits and socializing losses. Nice arrangement...for them.




posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
i see it this way:

There's a republican president - bush
democratic congress

they get nothing solved because they're both too immature to do waht they get paid to do - lead our country together.

now, "change" comes into the equation


you have a DEMOCRATIC president willing to work with democratic controlled congress, you may get results you're looking for?

you may not.

But the way things currently set - nothing is happening.

Its time for change.

You can expect better results delivered from Obama, than McCain.

Bet on it.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I think I can address your post best this way...


i see it this way:

There's a republican president - bush (Presiding over the greatest economy in history until Dems took control of the house and senate and ruined it)

democratic congress (Single worse rating in the history of congress)

they get nothing solved because they're both too immature to do waht they get paid to do - lead our country together. (Again, until Dems took control, economy was fantastic, gas was reasonable, job rate was historic high)

now, "change" comes into the equation.. (Socialism is a change)


you have a DEMOCRATIC president willing to work with democratic controlled congress, you may get results you're looking for? (Work? They have done nothing so far, what is their sudden impetuous?)

you may not. (CORRECT)

But the way things currently set - nothing is happening. (Talk to your Democrat Controlled House and Senate, remember, the lowest rate in history?)

Its time for change. (Again, Socialism is change)

You can expect better results delivered from Obama, than McCain. (If better means Marxist/Socialist)

Bet on it. (Agreed)


Semper



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Single worst rating in history - congress.

Agreed.

Not to mention the singel worst rating for a president in history.

The inability of either entity to work together for OUR better good is what people are sick of.

So.

Change?

Republican President to Democratic President?

one who makes ambitious goals and promises.

I say give him a shot. McCain is open about wanting things to remain the same.

Obama is open about making things different



And McCain even admits he's not savvy on the economy.

The issues of economics is nothing something i understand as well as i should


pretty open and shut.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

pretty open and shut.


On this we agree...


Gas prices. Health care. Education. Social Security. Illegal immigration. Instead of doing something about these important issues, the new Democrat Senate has resorted to politics-as-usual in Washington, DC.

Democrats voted to provide for the largest tax hike in American history, slashed $3 billion in border security funding from a bill, and even made children's health care dependent on finding 22 million new smokers.

And that's not even the half of it. Time and again, the do-nothing Democrat Congress has failed us in 2007. Americans deserve better.

We cannot allow 2008 to be yet another year of Democrats failing the American people. We must take action now.

Tell the Democrats: it's time to stop the political games and start getting to work for the American people.




So I agree...

Semper



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

So you're saying that Bush is in no way responsible for the sharp increase in gas prices BEFORE democrats took over congress?.....

I believe that was the platform the democrats were running on

"lowering gas prices"

gas prices were already on the rise when they cam into power

i'll agree with you on this:

They've done nothing to stop it

but they're not the ones responsible for its inception.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Here's the question.

How many former President's and Congresses have promise to fix rising health care cost, social security, Medicare, make other countries love us, reform the tax system, take care of the National debt, balance the budget, reform Washington and lobbyist problems, give us a long term energy plan, take care of our veterans, change politics as it is today, get the Democrats and Republicans to work together, protect the environment, etc etc.?

Notice the pattern. These seem to be the same problems that people have been promising to fix for a long time. Sitting there and criticizing Bush is like trying to blame one person for all of the world's problem. Reality of the matter is that there is enough blame to go around for everybody, no matter party affiliation.

Problems aren't be taking care of and when they are addressed they are quick or temporary fixes. Fixes that are like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
It's best to believe what you see with your own eyes and NOT what you read, hear or see in the media.
Trust your own observations but you should never listen to other people because many times they may already have an extreme bias.

A restaurant I would frequent just recently closed because they were tied to Bennigans.
Yes it's sad but it's not yet a concern nor is it a reflection of the current economic state because there are still plenty of other places to eat.
I know the media would use fear tactics and blow this way out proportion but other businesses are doing well. Bad business decisions did them in.

Question: If a lousy student failed to advance to the next level, do you blame his instructor?
Certainly not, but if the entire class failed then yes the instructor would most likely be to blame.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
TOPIC: The Economic Outlook - Who to Believe?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
First, there's the Bush Economy Speech on Tuesday in which Bush spoke of how there's an "upside" to this recession.

As you might guess, Bush and Bernanke don't exactly see things the same way.




i believe both sides...

but in the short term & long term prospects will both diverge from the intended prognosis.


Bush is actually referring to the stability & 'trust' of the market system, in that the crap-shoot is dutifully administrated by a slew of safeguards so the buying & selling of stocks, bonds, futures is a faithful and trustworthy mechanism of Trade.


Bernanke, is solid certain that the capitalist system will endure, where the central bank system and the processes of funding debt and creating credit will remain viable... he does not mention that the Federal Reserve has already parceled out over 3/4 of a Trillion $$ to the banksters and numberous financial institutions which will eventually have to be bought back from the Fed.
and that there is more than $5 Trillion of that same garbage paper the banksters created during the Housing Bubble, sitting in overseas funds/financial houses/soverign-wealth-funds, etc.


I would add to one ATS Anomyous poster who cited a couple financial sites for commentary, these two links:

www.321gold.com...
(The Four Tires of the Apocalypse)
http:www.johngaltfla.com/
(a lot of graphs showing consumer spending contracting. graphs showing a lot of banks ready to go under...etc etc.
which is not merely subjective speculation from a talking head on a bubblevision show [?cnbc/msnbc?])

both articles from 5 Aug '08


thanks



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
i wouldnt believe any of them.
at least till they stop manipulating economic data.
its kind of hard to know for certain what the heck is going on without the M3...which is precisely why they got rid of it!
crooks all of them!



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by semperfortis
 

So you're saying that Bush is in no way responsible for the sharp increase in gas prices BEFORE democrats took over congress?.....

I believe that was the platform the democrats were running on

"lowering gas prices"

gas prices were already on the rise when they cam into power

i'll agree with you on this:

They've done nothing to stop it

but they're not the ones responsible for its inception.



And you're saying that Bush and a Republican are solely responsible for the rise in gas prices?

Didn't the rise in gas prices happen at a time when offshoring of U.S. jobs was at an all time high and the economies of China and India had already begun to form a middle class? That means increased demand for oil worldwide which meant that prices went up.

Then you had Hurricane Katrina in 2005 which single-handedly knocked out many of the oil platforms in the Gulf, putting a damper on our own supplies, which increased local prices.

I don't think you can blame either of those things on the POTUS or Congress.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Again.. This apparently must be posted as FACTS seem to elude...



Gas Price History

As one can CLEARLY see, the spike in gas prices has occurred immediately upon the Democrats taking control...

Ignore it, rationalize it away, spin it to your hearts content; you can not evade the facts.

Semper



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


yeah - well, we wont go over that again. its been covered verbatim.

Gas prices were already on the rise before 2007...or does my version of reality differ from yours?

I remember it all too well......i guess i must just be one of those pot-smoking delusional hippies?

That..or your political loyalty to Bush is beside you at the moment....kind of sad, really



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Your correct again it has been covered...

Your spin and deflection of the facts does not speak well compared to your loyalty to the Liberal Mindset.

I applaud loyalty, even Liberal loyalty, but to ignore facts in order to prove a point is truly without merit.

President Bush or what you did during those times has nothing to do with the factual material posted.

Remember, you can be a Liberal and still accept the facts.

Semper



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


This is a really common logical error: "Event B follows Event A in time, therefore Event A caused Event B".

Also called the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

It is undeniable that the spike in fuel price (among other signs of economic distress) (Event B) largely followed the election of a Democratic majority in both houses (Event A), but no credible evidence has been supplied that would indicate that election being a cause of such signs.

And to claim that an economy of the size and (purported) strength of the US' could be driven to ruin in two years by a Congress that has basically done nothing and has a hostile Executive that vetoes much legislation since the '06 elections is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

Until that evidence is forthcoming, this claim, since it is accompanied by a logical fallacy, may be safely viewed with extraordinary skepticism.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join