I'm disappointed. I thought you'd at least start with GDP, subtract deficit spending, supplementary funding for Afghanistan/Iraq and SS trust contributions diverted to the general fund to determine negative GDP percentage. We'd then tie in projected trade deficit for a beginning look at USD future as a Petrodollar and not. Oh well, since you follow published government numbers I'll forget about that discussion.

 

Actually georged,

You already know the positives that are shown by GDP growth. You know the economy is strong and that there is less inflation than some would have you believe. I am not going to be able to educate you on the economy no matter where I get information.

That is why I posted what I did. Keep hammering the Doom and GLoom drum. History is full of examples of the power of positive thinking.

I will give you this though, remember the ancient Greek figure named Cassandra? She was granted a gift by the god Apollo that allowed her to see the future. He also cursed her with the burden of never being believed by her contemporaries. She could see the future but no one would ever believe her or listen to her.

Sometimes people with your outlook are necessary because it gets peoples attention to the impending problems and they fix them. There are your props for the day.

If you want to talk about advanced economic forecasting, I will have to rely on the people I put my trust in to be experts on the subject like most. I can cut and paste and we can talk about things that are of very little interest to most. Instead, I am going to continue to counter pessimism with optimism and with perspectives that will recognize the good things in our economy and its future. People need to know those things to. Regardless of your fears, our economy keeps growing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer. If you were to be honest with yourself what were you saying back in 2004 about the forecast for 2005? Did you expect things to go as well as they did?

I leave the answer to that question up to your intellectual honesty.

Ron

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: DSNUT

Actually, those who understand numbers without a requirement for pacifying the public or selling products thought the abnormal deficit, trade imbalance, energy/food inflation and continued migration of wages/benefits from an industrial to service economy, when combined with the polished GDP, would be a hardship for most Americans without adequate wealth to live solely from investment income with now attractive capital gain tax formulas.

But, to each his own source of information. If one is familiar with the political and financial communities, a basic lesson is to not depend on opinions published by banks, brokerage houses, those entities dependent on government and/or political funding or government. They're all selling products.

Want to know why the Fed interest rate goes up? Hint: It isn't to control inflation or intentionally destroy the residential housing industry. Ok, it goes up because our inflation including energy and food (production requiring a major portion of crude oil, right below fuel) imposes a tax on the rest of the world. Know why? Almost all oil is sold in USD. And US debt is bought in USD. If Iran is able to go forward with their oil bourse, more demand for Euros, less demand for USD. Giving up my civil liberties to support lies is not what I consider a good trade. Or my government telling me they have to listen to my personal communications to protect me.

 

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-frown.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] Its interesting to read this discussion from start to finish and observe how the thoughts and points of view meander and weave themselves together. I sense the majority of the posters share one common thread of thought and that is an intense distrust of government and its policies and also share a tremendous dislike of its blatant disreguard of personal freedoms and rights. The discussions about Bush making public statements about his tactics probably make the message quite clearly that Clinton and his folks hid most things under desks, in the dark, or laying in a park somewhere. In truth, if the government, the pentagon (which is not a government) or anyone or anything else wants to spy on me they can just have right at it. I say nothing on the phone I would not say in public, I say nothing in e-mails I would not express in person. The years of life I have had in Oregon, the instruction and lessons learned from Grandfathers, uncles, mother, father, friends and so on put me in the mindset that if you want to know something just ask me..................Do you have the right to spy...............no............Do you have the right to smear............no............Our government and its officers are only proving what many of us have known all our lives................We are better than they are and they lead a false and shallow life. One thing they have been given by our votes or lack of them though is power...................Tass

 

At least more and more conservatives are coming out and speaking the truth. Its not just liberals who dislike his actions and policies.

At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02



If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.

Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. "They're reticent to address the issues that I've raised for fear that they might have to agree with them," he told the group. "And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive."

Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence.

"It's gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I'm sure," said Cato's legal expert, Roger Pilon.

"Typical Bruce," replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

Admitted Pilon: "He's got a lot of material to work with."

Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase "to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for." He also said many fellow conservatives don't know about the "quite dreadful" traits of the administration, such as the absence of "anybody who does any serious analysis" on policy issues.

Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that "if there's a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it."

Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. "This is a big-government agenda," he said. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government." The notion, he said, that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy."

The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults.

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with."

Boaz renewed his plea. "Any Bush economists hiding in the audience?"

There was, in fact, one Bush Treasury official on the attendance roster, but he did not surface. The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations. Even Richard Walker, representing the think tank that fired Bartlett, declined to argue. "I agree with most of it," he said later.

Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."

Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic."

Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers."

"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."

"Gosh," Boaz interjected. "I wish we had a senior White House aide up here."

 

Here's an informative article that provides an easily understood explanation as to why our government feels the need to spy on us as part of the plan to keep us fearful of Bin Laden. For obvious reasons having nothing to do with liberal/conservative labels, this is a prime subject on many political forums. It's always the money, nothing else.

Iran’s Oil Exchange threatens the Greenback
by Mike Whitney

http://www.opednews.com

The Bush administration will never allow the Iranian government to open an oil exchange (bourse) that trades petroleum in euros. If that were to happen, hundreds of billions of dollars would come flooding back to the United States crushing the greenback and destroying the economy. This is why Bush and Co. are planning to lead the nation to war against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global system and the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar.

The claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a mere pretext for war. The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) predicts that Iran will not be able to produce nukes for perhaps a decade. So too, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has said repeatedly that his watchdog agency has found “no evidence” of a nuclear weapons program.

There are no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs, but Iran’s economic plans do pose an existential threat to America, and not one that can be simply brushed aside as the unavoidable workings of the free market.

America monopolizes the oil trade. Oil is denominated in dollars and sold on either the NYMEX or London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both owned by Americans. This forces the central banks around the world to maintain huge stockpiles of dollars even though the greenback is currently underwritten by $8 trillion of debt and even though the Bush administration has said that it will perpetuate the deficit-producing tax cuts.

America’s currency monopoly is the perfect pyramid-scheme. As long as nations are forced to buy oil in dollars, the United States can continue its profligate spending with impunity. (The dollar now accounts for 68% of global currency reserves up from 51% just a decade ago) The only threat to this strategy is the prospect of competition from an independent oil exchange; forcing the faltering dollar to go nose-to-nose with a more stable (debt-free) currency such as the euro. That would compel central banks to diversify their holdings, sending billions of dollars back to America and ensuring a devastating cycle of hyper-inflation.

The effort to keep information about Iran’s oil exchange out of the headlines has been extremely successful. A simple Google search shows that NONE of the major newspapers or networks has referred to the upcoming bourse. The media’s aversion to controversial stories which serve the public interest has been evident in many other cases, too, like the fraudulent 2004 presidential elections, the Downing Street Memo, and the flattening of Falluja. Rather than inform, the media serves as a bullhorn for government policy; manipulating public opinion by reiterating the specious demagoguery of the Bush administration. As a result, few people have any idea of the gravity of the present threat facing the American economy.

This is not a “liberal vs. conservative” issue. Those who’ve analyzed the problem draw the very same conclusions; if the Iran exchange flourishes the dollar will plummet and the American economy will shatter.

This is what author Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D in economics, says in a recent article The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse:

“From a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between …between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its "classical medicine" by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression…, will choose inflation. …The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. …To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses…and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency …”

So, raise interest rates and bring on “total financial collapse” or take the “Weimar way out” and cause the “hyperinflationary destruction of the American economy.”

These are not good choices, and yet, we’re hearing the same pronouncements from right-wing analysts. Alan Peter’s article, “Mullah’s Threat not Sinking In”, which appeared in FrontPage Magazine.com, offers these equally sobering thoughts about the dangers of an Iran oil-exchange:

“A glut of dollar holdings by Central Banks and among Asian lenders, plus the current low interest rate offered to investor/lenders by the USA has been putting the dollar in jeopardy for some time… A twitching finger on currency's hair-trigger can shoot down the dollar without any purposeful ill intent. Most estimates place the likely drop to "floor levels" at a rapid 50% loss in value for a presently 40% overvalued Dollar.”

The erosion of the greenback’s value was predicted by former Fed-chief Paul Volcker who said that there is a “75% chance of a dollar crash in the next 5 years”.

Such a crash would result in soaring interest rates, hyperinflation, skyrocketing energy costs, massive unemployment and, perhaps, depression. This is the troubling scenario if an Iran bourse gets established and knocks the dollar from its lofty perch. And this is what makes the prospect of war, even nuclear war, so very likely.

Peter’s continues:
“With economies so interdependent and interwoven, a global, not just American Depression would occur with a domino effect throwing the rest of world economies into poverty. Markets for acutely less expensive US exports would never materialize.

The result, some SME's estimate, might be as many as 200 million Americans out of work and starving on the streets with nobody and nothing able to rescue or aid them, contrary to the 1920/30 Great Depression through soup kitchens and charitable support efforts.”

Liberal or conservative, the analysis is the same. If America does not address the catastrophic potential of the Iran bourse, Americans can expect to face dire circumstances.

Now we can understand why the corporate-friendly media has omitted any mention of new oil exchange in their coverage. This is one secret that the boardroom kingpins would rather keep to themselves. It’s easier to convince the public of nuclear hobgoblins and Islamic fanatics than to justify fighting a war for the anemic greenback. Never the less, it is the dollar we are defending in Iraq and, presumably, in Iran as well in the very near future. (Saddam converted to the euro in 2000. The bombing began in 2001)

There are peaceful solutions to this dilemma, but not if the Bush administration insists on hiding behind the moronic deception of terrorism or imaginary nuclear weapons programs. Bush needs to come clean with the American people about the real nature of the global energy crisis and stop invoking Bin Laden and WMD to defend American aggression. We need a comprehensive energy strategy, (including government funding for conservation projects, alternative energy-sources, and the development of a new line of “American-made” hybrid vehicles) candid negotiations with Iran to regulate the amount of oil they will sell in euros per year (easing away from the dollar in an orderly way) and a collective “international” approach to energy consumption and distribution (under the auspices of the UN General Assembly)

Greater parity among currencies should be encouraged as a way of strengthening democracies and invigorating markets. It promises to breathe new life into free trade by allowing other political models to flourish without fear of being subsumed into the capitalist prototype. The current dominance of the greenback has created a global empire that is largely dependent on debt, torture, and war to maintain its supremacy.

Iran’s oil bourse poses the greatest challenge yet to the dollar-monopoly and its proponents at the Federal Reserve. If the Bush administration goes ahead with a preemptive “nuclear” strike on alleged weapons sites, allies will be further alienated and others will be forced to respond. As Dr. Petrov says, “Major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions.”

There is increasing likelihood that the foremost champions of the present system will be the one’s who bring about its downfall.

 

BINGO, You hit it right on the head, georged.



This is why im pushing so hard to make every american see the world for the way it is. These people in power, are just a hair away from attacking iran, and its all over oil and power and greed. This is why the rest of the world dislikes us. This is reality.




Sometimes you have to deal with the government you have....and not the government youd like to have.

 

This was in todays editorials.

The Progress Myth in Iraq
by Molly Ivins


It was such a relief to me to learn we are making “very, very good progress” in Iraq. As the third anniversary of our invasion approaches, I could not have been more thrilled by the news reported by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a Sunday chat show. Vice President Dick Cheney’s take was equally reassuring: Things are “improving steadily” in Iraq.

I was thrilled—very, very good progress and steady improvement, isn’t that grand? Wake me if anything starts to go wrong. Like someone bombing the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra and touching off a lot of sectarian violence.

I was also relieved to learn—via Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, so noted for his consistently accurate assessment of this war—that the whole picture is hunky-dory to tickety-boo. Since the bombing of the mosque, lots of alarmists have reported that Iraq is devolving or might be collapsing into civil war. They’re sort of jumping over the civil war line and back again—yep, it’s started; nope, it hasn’t—like a bunch of false starts at the beginning of a football play.

I’m sure glad to get the straight skinny from Ol’ Rumsfeld, who has been in Iraq many times himself for the typical in-country experience. Like many foreign correspondents, Rumsfeld roams the streets alone, talking to any chance-met Iraqi in his fluent Arabic, so of course he knows best.

“From what I’ve seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation,” Rumsfeld said. “We do know, of course, that al-Qaida has media committees. We do know they teach people exactly how to try to manipulate the media. They do this regularly. We see the intelligence that reports on their meetings. Now I can’t take a string and tie it to a news report and then trace it back to an al-Qaida media committee meeting. I am not able to do that at all.”

No horsepoop? Then can I ask a question: If you’re able to monitor these media committee meetings, how come you can’t find Osama bin Ladin?

But, Brother Rumsfeld warns us, “We do know that their goal is to try to break the will; that they consider the center of gravity of this—not to be in Iraq, because they know they can’t win a battle out there; they consider it to be in Washington, D.C., and in London and in the capitals of the Western world.”

I’m sorry, I know we are not allowed to use the V-word in relation to Iraq, because so many brilliant neo-cons have assured us this war is nothing like Vietnam (Vietnam, lotsa jungle; Iraq lotsa sand—big differences). But you must admit that press conferences with Donny Rum are wonderfully reminiscent of the Five O’Clock Follies, those wacky but endearing daily press briefings on Southeast Asia by military officers who made Baghdad Bob sound like a pessimist.

Rumsfeld’s performance was so reminiscent of all the times the military in Vietnam blamed the media for reporting “bad news’” when there was nothing else to report. A briefing officer once memorably asked the press, “Who’s side are you on?” The answer is what it’s always been: We root for America, but our job is to report as accurately as we can what the situation is.

You could rely on other sources. For example, the Pentagon is still investigating itself to find out why it is paying American soldiers to make up good news about the war, which it then passes on to a Republican public relations firm, which in turn pays people in the Iraqi media to print the stuff—thus fooling the Iraqis or somebody. When last heard from, the general in charge of investigating this federally funded Baghdad Bobism said he hadn’t found anything about it to be illegal yet, so it apparently continues.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times Iraq is “really vulnerable” to civil war if there is another attack like the al-Askari bombing. By invading, said Khalilzad, the United States has “opened the Pandora’s box” of sectarian strife in Iraq.

Could I suggest something kind of grown-up? Despite Rumsfeld’s rationalizing, we are in a deep pile of poop here, and we’re best likely to come out of it OK by pulling together. So could we stop this cheap old McCarthyite trick of pretending that correspondents who are in fact risking their lives and doing their best to bring the rest of us accurate information are somehow disloyal or connected to al-Qaida?

Wrong, yes, of course they could be wrong. But there is now a three-year record of who has been right about what is happening in Iraq, Rumsfeld or the media. And the score is: Press—1,095, Rumsfeld—zero.

 

This was in todays news...but not on faux or msnbc.

Justice Department e-mail on wiretapping
program released through FOIA

Former official describes legal defenses as "weak" and "slightly after-the-fact,"
Guesses they reflected "VP's philosophy… best defense is a good offense."

Washington, D.C., March 9, 2006 - The Justice Department official who oversaw national security matters from 2000 to 2003 e-mailed his former colleagues after revelation of the controversial warrantless wiretapping program in December 2005 that the Department's justifications for the program were "weak" and had a "slightly after-the-fact quality" to them, and surmised that this reflected "the VP's philosophy that the best defense is a good offense," according to documents released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and joined by the ACLU and the National Security Archive.

David Kris, the former associate deputy attorney general who now serves as chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner, e-mailed Justice Department official Courtney Elwood on 20 December 2005 his own analysis of the controversy, writing that "claims that FISA [the wiretapping statute] simply requires too much paperwork or the bothersome marshaling of arguments seem relatively weak justifications for resorting to Article II power in violation of the statute." The subject line of the e-mail was "If you can't show me yours."

On 22 December, after reading the Department's talking points as forwarded by Elwood, Kris commented that the Department's approach "maybe… reflects the VP's [Vice President Cheney] philosophy that the best defense is a good offense (I don't expect you to comment on that :-))."

On 19 January 2006, Kris wrote Elwood that the Department's white paper was "professional and thorough and well written" but that "I kind of doubt it's going to bring me around on the statutory arguments."

The Kris e-mails were the only substantive new documents released by the Justice Department yesterday in response to the March 8 deadline ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy in the FOIA lawsuit brought by EPIC together with the ACLU and the Archive, seeking the internal legal justifications used by the government to carry out the wiretapping program. In three separate letters to the plaintiffs, Justice claimed it had fully searched the records of the Office of the Attorney General and had made a "full grant" of the FOIA requests, yet most of the released material consisted of the previously released white paper and transcripts of public appearances by the Attorney General. Justice produced not a single record relating to any of the 30-odd reauthorizations of the wiretapping program that President Bush has publicly stated took place in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) admitted in its response that in the two-and-a-half months since the FOIA requests were filed, OLC had only completed its search of its unclassified files. "The unclassified files are exactly the place where the wiretapping memos are least likely to exist," commented Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. "This is a case of looking for your car keys under the street lamp even if that's a block away from where you lost them."

 

Think there is a chance you both have solid points that dont need to be different in order to be correct?

I mean if you look at the financial conditions of most americans, and our country as a whole it seems everything georged has posted is pretty much in line, and even though there are certain points that could be considered positive that are missing do we then consider his thinking to be inaccurate, or is it that on a financial basis things really are not positive at all?

I agree with DS that there is a large benefit to all when keeping a positive attitude or outlook, and I know how little good comes from a negative, but that is also why I am seriously concerned with the all the negative indicators or conditions I am seeing (both here and in real life etc).

Maybe if georgd would consider posting what he feels to be positive financial indications, and DS post what financial issues he feels are not positive (negative lol) and then we all could discuss the info posted. Just an idea, but I think I am anticipating the outcome already.

Hey give it a shot!!