Page 50 of 64 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 636

Thread: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

  1. #491
    Professor
    Dirty Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-01-11 @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    american voters overwhelmingly disagree

    tsunami tuesday---most house seats since 1938, most state reps and assemblies in history, 10 gubs, 6 senators...

    seeya at the polls, pal
    LOL.... really? Overwhelmingly? We have a democratic president and the Senate is controlled by democrats. Every election cycle when things are bad they try to throw the bums out. It's nothing new. How do you think Obama got elected? You people really are fools.

  2. #492
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Couldda, Wouldda, Shouldda! But didn't. So now your plan is to end using oil, with nothing to replace it....Great plan....Screw the poor people while at the same time saying your for the poor....Wonder how long the lies will be bought.
    I've grown tired of hearing this lame argument. Of course there will be continued uses for petrolium in the vast assortment of products we use every day to its continued use as a lubricant and fuel source. Anyone who thinks just because the country shifts its energy policy, i.e., from big oil to hybrib energy sources or hygren fuels cells or even wind or solar, is just basing their objections on fear. Fear that the oil industry will suddenly go away. Fear that countless jobs will be lost. Let's get it straight...

    BIG OIL IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

    They've shown themselves to be big players in our domestic and foreign economy and nothing the Obama Administration does concerning its energy policy will change that. What may likely change, however, is the US becomes a bigger player in domestic oil exports. Right now, what most U.S. oil companies do is setup oil refineries overseas and sell oil abroad directly instead of taking the indirect approach which would be to refine it here and ship it over there. I don't know what the cost analysis is on that, but if we could somehow find a balance between our domestic use of oil (in this case, I'm referring to reduction in domestic use) and increased oil exports, I firmly believe the U.S. could become a major player in the West on oil exports. Kind of like the OPEC of the West. The question becomes how does the U.S. get a larger foothold in that game while also becoming less dependent on foreign oil and also asserting its eneregy independence? If and when an Administration ceases being afraid to find the right balance, then and only then will this country take seeking energy independence seriously.


    So what! What does that do right now? I'll tell ya....NOTHING! We could have moved on nuke tech. 30 years ago but you libs, and tree hugging stopped that didn't it? This is a problem aggravated by liberals from beginning to end. You should own it instead of pointing fingers, and bitching about what could have been.

    j-mac
    Actually, although Liberals lamented environmental safety concerns they weren't the ones who coward from using nuclear technology as a major energy source in America. Most arguments came from the Right with the same banner-cry then as they're decrying now - "Drill, baby! Drill!!!" and "What out for the mushroom cloud"...only in this case they were warning against another 3-Mile Island. Such cries got louder once news of the Chernobyl meltdown went global. But instead of being so fearful, we should have been looking to do what France has done with using nuclear energy as a domestic energy source. I mean, WE split the atom for goodness sakes, yet another country has learned how to better harness its power far better and more efficiently than we do. IMO, that's pathetic.

    But I digress 'cause the topic isn't about energy policy nor energy independence. It's about the economy. So, let's bring the topic back around, okay?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 05-12-11 at 01:36 PM.

  3. #493
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    It's nothing new
    true, it's not completely unprecedented

    it happened in 1938 too

    LOL!

    seeya at the polls, pal

    bring secretary chu---he actually WANTS eight dollar gas
    Last edited by The Prof; 05-12-11 at 01:48 PM.

  4. #494
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I've grown tired of hearing this lame argument. Of course there will be continued uses for petrolium in the vast assortment of products we use every day to its continued use as a lubricant and fuel source. Anyone who thinks just because the country shifts its energy policy, i.e., from big oil to hybrib energy sources or hygren fuels cells or even wind or solar, is just basing their objections on fear. Fear that the oil industry will suddenly go away. Fear that countless jobs will be lost. Let's get it straight...

    BIG OIL IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE!
    I agree here OV, the question is though not whether or not we begin to develop new sources for lubricants, and fuels, hell, even synthetic sources, but in more what they cost the average family in this country.

    See, I think it is way too easy today to throw up there that we will make the switch over to alternative sources, however the cost of that on the working middle class, (people like myself) and the poor will have. I'll tell ya, when gas to get to work starts costing me $200.00 per month, and my electric bill jumps from $100.00, to $220.00 per month, that is just the start of taking my expendable income out of the economy. And all I seem to hear from liberal elites out there is how current fuel costs, and they say hopefully higher, pushing double what they are now to "nudge" me to change is a good thing, and they seem to be happy with the current unemployment numbers touting a paltry 200K jobs like that will signal success. It's real BS! Trying to control my spending, my habits, my leisure time with my family, and my income.

    If you ask me this is planned.

    They've shown themselves to be big players in our domestic and foreign economy and nothing the Obama Administration does concerning its energy policy will change that.
    I disagree. Obama could announce a national crisis call for moving to more domestic energy's and proceed to open up, instead of put off limits, and drag their feet, on American oil that at this moment are not being tapped.

    What may likely change, however, is the US becomes a bigger player in domestic oil exports. Right now, what most U.S. oil companies do is setup oil refineries overseas and sell oil abroad directly instead of taking the indirect approach which would be to refine it here and ship it over there. I don't know what the cost analysis is on that, but if we could somehow find a balance between our domestic use of oil (in this case, I'm referring to reduction in domestic use) and increased oil exports, I firmly believe the U.S. could become a major player in the West on oil exports. Kind of like the OPEC of the West. The question becomes how does the U.S. get a larger foothold in that game while also becoming less dependent on foreign oil and also asserting its eneregy independence? If and when an Administration ceases being afraid to find the right balance, then and only then will this country take seeking energy independence seriously.
    Agree, and disagree at the same time. First reduction in oil use in this country is NOT going to happen, our population is growing, that means more drivers, more people, and more use of energy.

    Second, Energy independence is the last thing on Obama's mind, if it were important to him he wouldn't have continued to keep the Gulf off limits while he gives Soros' Brazilian oil concern $2 BILLION, and tells them that we want to become their best customer.

    Third, How do we get to that balance you seem to think Obama is for? Drill.


    Actually, although Liberals lamented environmental safety concerns they weren't the ones who coward from using nuclear technology as a major energy source in America. Most arguments came from the Right with the same banner-cry then as they're decrying now - "Drill, baby! Drill!!!" and "What out for the mushroom cloud"...only in this case they were warning against another 3-Mile Island.
    Liberals didn't only lament, they took to the gates, and streets. Remember Martin Sheen chaining himself to the gates? I do. We needed to do BOTH! That hasn't changed.


    But instead of being so fearful, we should have been looking to do what France has done with using nuclear energy as a domestic energy source. I mean, WE split the atom for goodness sakes, yet another country has learned how to better harness its power far better and more efficiently than we do. IMO, that's pathetic.
    I agree. Using Chernobyl (sp) and 3 Mile Isl. as fear tactic to stifle production of more nuclear energy was a venue of the liberal left. That history is clear.

    But I digress 'cause the topic isn't about energy policy nor energy independence. It's about the economy. So, let's bring the topic back around, okay?

    Oh, but it is exactly about energy, and what this administration is doing purposely right now to them. As I outlined earlier, High energy = Less expendable income = Fewer Jobs = Higher tax, and cost to the middle class and poor who can least afford it. Why is Obama intentionally killing the Middle class?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #495
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Hmmmm...

    I think I'll leave it to the constituents in Indiana to tell the Mitch Daniels story.
    as a side note - those constituents? split their ticket to reelect him overwhelmingly even as they voted for Obama on the national tickey. Daniels won 20% of the black vote and a majority of the young vote - two traditional Democrat strongholds.

  6. #496
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Harry View Post
    The soaring deficits were mostly caused by the drop in revenue created by Bush's recession.
    this is partially correct, but not correct when it says "mostly" revenues dropped as a % of GDP, which is what everyone focuses on when attempting to make that claim - what they don't reference is that government spending spiked as a % of GDP at the same time, and the government does not typically tax itself. note for example, that the revenues collected in 2010 roughly match what we collected in 2005, and we are projected to come in above 2005 in 2011. (constant dollars); yet our deficit in 2005 was $318.62 Bn. This year our deficit is projected to be about $1.5-1.6 Trillion. What's the $1.2 Trillion difference? Increased (drastically increased) spending.

    So, yeah, the loss of revenue hurt - but as we recover we are increasing our revenues and approaching our former high-water mark. But not as bad as spending - which also grows every year, and typically grows faster than revenues. That's what Obama's "federal spending freeze" meant - he wanted to solidify the much larger base from which spending would grow in line with inflation - figuring that by offering a potemkin solution he could drain support from the Republicans calls for cuts.

    Without stimulus, Bernanke would have been right. The country would have fallen into another great depression
    History begs to disagree. The US has cut spending twice in the last century in response to economic turmoil - and both times it was rewarded with booms. The experience of other industrialzied nations confirms this. You want to "stimulate"? Cut taxes. you want to really stimulate? Cut taxes and spending.

    Lengthy but worth it: Data from the OECD indicates that if you separate the "stimulus" plans that were - in fact - followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics, you find that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments.

    the "oh the government can stimulate the economy through spending" models always forget that government got that money from somewhere. Yes, if Government had a magic money tree that could produce endless wealth somehow through breaking the laws of economics without causing inflation, then that might be possible. In the real world, unfortunately, every dollar the government spends it either, taxes (taking from producers), borrows (taking from investors), or prints (taking from everyone who owns dollars). Now, if you take wealth from the people who would otherwise use it to produce, you reduce production. If you take it from the people who would otherwise invest, you reduct investment. If you take it from everyone... well, our gas and food prices rise.

    And Golly Gee Willickers, wouldn't you know it, the government took it from investors and everyone, and we saw a dramatic fall in investment and gas and food prices are rising....

    There was a reason stimulus was needed. Bush had destroyed the economy
    BS: Bush hadn't stopped the economy from wrecking. A whole host of factors (fed policy, deficit spending, the CRA, Freddie and Fannie, the failure of the ratings agencies, a compliant congress) caused the crash of 2008.

    BUSH was actually the FIRST one to try to "stimulate" the economy, you may recall - in early 2008, he wanted to "jumpstart" the economy "so that we could avoid a recession". It failed for him, too. Then Obama came around and promised us that if we didn't just triple, but sextupled down, it would be sure to work, and we could "stay below 8% unemployment".... and it didnt' for him, either.

    Because the Government is not all-knowing, all-wise, able to predict the future, nor possessing of a magic money tree. If any of these things were true, THEN keynesian stimulus theory would work... and so would state socialism (popularly known as "communism").

    Instead, virtually every Keynesian prediction has failed. They told us in 1932 that if we just ramped up spending we could be recovered by 1935 (we didnt' fully recover until the 1950's). They told us in 1946 that if we reduced federal spending we would go back into the Great Depression (instead our economy boomed). They told us in the 1970's that we needed inflation to reduce unemployment (instead we got stagflation). They told us in the 80's that cutting taxes would reduce revenues and potentially harm growth (it didn't). They told us in 2001 that a large tax rebate would fix the Tech Bubble (Bush listened to them, tried it, and it didn't), they told us in 2008 that if we spent 2% of the economy in a "stimulus" package we could "jumpstart the economy" and avoid a recession (Bush listened to them again, and we didnt'). Then they told us in 2009 that if we only spent 9% of our GDP "stimulating" the economy we would be able to break the fall of the recession and keep unemployment under 8%. So we tried that and what was the result?

    Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.

    History has not been kind to the "we can spend our way to prosperity" crowd.
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-12-11 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #497
    Professor
    Dirty Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-01-11 @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    this is partially correct, but not correct when it says "mostly" revenues dropped as a % of GDP, which is what everyone focuses on when attempting to make that claim - what they don't reference is that government spending spiked as a % of GDP at the same time, and the government does not typically tax itself. note for example, that the revenues collected in 2010 roughly match what we collected in 2005, and we are projected to come in above 2005 in 2011. (constant dollars); yet our deficit in 2005 was $318.62 Bn. This year our deficit is projected to be about $1.5-1.6 Trillion. What's the $1.2 Trillion difference? Increased (drastically increased) spending.

    So, yeah, the loss of revenue hurt - but as we recover we are increasing our revenues and approaching our former high-water mark. But not as bad as spending - which also grows every year, and typically grows faster than revenues. That's what Obama's "federal spending freeze" meant - he wanted to solidify the much larger base from which spending would grow in line with inflation - figuring that by offering a potemkin solution he could drain support from the Republicans calls for cuts.



    History begs to disagree. The US has cut spending twice in the last century in response to economic turmoil - and both times it was rewarded with booms. The experience of other industrialzied nations confirms this. You want to "stimulate"? Cut taxes. you want to really stimulate? Cut taxes and spending.

    Lengthy but worth it: Data from the OECD indicates that if you separate the "stimulus" plans that were - in fact - followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics, you find that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments.

    the "oh the government can stimulate the economy through spending" models always forget that government got that money from somewhere. Yes, if Government had a magic money tree that could produce endless wealth somehow through breaking the laws of economics without causing inflation, then that might be possible. In the real world, unfortunately, every dollar the government spends it either, taxes (taking from producers), borrows (taking from investors), or prints (taking from everyone who owns dollars). Now, if you take wealth from the people who would otherwise use it to produce, you reduce production. If you take it from the people who would otherwise invest, you reduct investment. If you take it from everyone... well, our gas and food prices rise.

    And Golly Gee Willickers, wouldn't you know it, the government took it from investors and everyone, and we saw a dramatic fall in investment and gas and food prices are rising....



    BS: Bush hadn't stopped the economy from wrecking. A whole host of factors (fed policy, deficit spending, the CRA, Freddie and Fannie, the failure of the ratings agencies, a compliant congress) caused the crash of 2008.

    BUSH was actually the FIRST one to try to "stimulate" the economy, you may recall - in early 2008, he wanted to "jumpstart" the economy "so that we could avoid a recession". It failed for him, too. Then Obama came around and promised us that if we didn't just triple, but sextupled down, it would be sure to work, and we could "stay below 8% unemployment".... and it didnt' for him, either.

    Because the Government is not all-knowing, all-wise, able to predict the future, nor possessing of a magic money tree. If any of these things were true, THEN keynesian stimulus theory would work... and so would state socialism (popularly known as "communism").

    Instead, virtually every Keynesian prediction has failed. They told us in 1932 that if we just ramped up spending we could be recovered by 1935 (we didnt' fully recover until the 1950's). They told us in 1946 that if we reduced federal spending we would go back into the Great Depression (instead our economy boomed). They told us in the 1970's that we needed inflation to reduce unemployment (instead we got stagflation). They told us in the 80's that cutting taxes would reduce revenues and potentially harm growth (it didn't). They told us in 2001 that a large tax rebate would fix the Tech Bubble (Bush listened to them, tried it, and it didn't), they told us in 2008 that if we spent 2% of the economy in a "stimulus" package we could "jumpstart the economy" and avoid a recession (Bush listened to them again, and we didnt'). Then they told us in 2009 that if we only spent 9% of our GDP "stimulating" the economy we would be able to break the fall of the recession and keep unemployment under 8%. So we tried that and what was the result?

    Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.

    History has not been kind to the "we can spend our way to prosperity" crowd.
    Massive government spending pulled us out of the Great depression. Reagan pulled us out of his recession by massive deficit spending and deregulation. That led to the Savings and Loan crisis and 180 billion bailout. Historical record.
    Bush's meltdown was closer to a depression. The entire banking and housing sectors were on the verge of total ruin. Had the government done nothing the entire country would have collapsed.

  8. #498
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You mean the guy that said lower your thermostats and put on a sweater?
    So that is the sum total of your knowledge of the the Carter Energy plan?

    If you are interested in educating yourself, you can read a fact sheet on the President's Energy Plan here:
    Jimmy Carter: National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #499
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    it only "shafts" those who choose to borrow to consume. which I am fine with, as that is dangeorus and stupid behavior that should be discouraged.
    Borrowed money or not, if our economy is based only on essentials, consumption will be at its minimum, so tax income will be less.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #500
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You mean the guy that said lower your thermostats and put on a sweater?
    If that is all you kknow about it, you must have slept thru the Carter administration....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 50 of 64 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •