Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/9/2010 8:26:39 PM
From: Carolyn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Guess what? Our GDP is going lower because your idol doesn't understand job creation. Then revisit the percentages.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/10/2010 9:06:25 AM
From: chartseer	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

oh bummer! Still drinking the kool-aid and twisting the facts to try and make those inept chicago politicians in the white house who are running and ruining the nation and it's economy look better than they really are. Well don't look now but even the dumasrats diehards are abandoning the sinking ship. Try spinning this: Even some in Obama's base have turned, with 17 percent of Democrats disapproving of his job performance. Even more telling is the excitement gap. Only 44 percent of those who voted for him express high interest in this year's elections. That's a 38-point drop from 2008. By contrast, 71 percent of those who voted Republican last time express high interest in the midterm elections, above the level at this stage in 2008. And these are the people who vote politics.usnews.com Don't worry! Be happy! the stupid hopeless comrade chartseer in the new era of those chicago politicians in the white house who are running and ruining the nation and it's economy losing even their base

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/10/2010 10:10:50 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	6 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224729

Care to post something to back that up, Kenny? It does not pass the smell test considering the new skyrocketing debt in less than robust economic times.......plus, there is no dip in this debt/gdp chart....I call b.s. or obamanomic speak at a minimum. usgovernmentspending.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/10/2010 10:51:17 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

"Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries. If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures, something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate. Most scientific papers have dealt with this problem by ending their charts in 1960 or by grafting modern thermometer measurements onto the historical reconstructions." From the NYT via American Thinker. americanthinker.com What "hide the decline" was all about. Does anyone really believe that in 1960 trees "stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries"? That's rubbish and it shows the whole business of determining past temperatures by tree rings as Mann, Briffa, etc did is wrong. Dale G Jul 09, 11:38 AM Exactly three possibilities: 1) The proxy calculations are wrong and the temperature readings are right—then the picture of the past painted by the proxy data is wrong (but the picture of the present is right). 2) The proxy calculations are right and the temperature readings are wrong—then the picture of the present is wrong (but the picture of the past is right). 3) Both are wrong. Take your pick, but for a scientist with any integrity at all to splice the proxy-past to the thermometer-present and claim it is consistent is anathema, and to self-proclaim otherwise is fraud. ......... Bubba's BBQ Jul 09, 01:00 PM Any Arborist will tell you that a tree's ring growth is only partially tied to temperature. you also have to add in rainfall, nutrients and even competition (other trees growing in close proximity). That is why global warming data is all crap. .......... Randy Fardal Jul 09, 04:15 PM Other commenters mentioned that rainfall, soil nutrients, and plant density also affect tree growth, and those variables are not highly correlated to ambient temperature. Sunlight and carbon dioxide levels affect plant growth as well. Surprisingly, sun-blocking cloud formation is affected somewhat by solar activity. Carbon dioxide levels appear to lag global temperatures by about a millennium, so the Medieval Warm Period probably caused today’s gradual CO2 rise -- if there really is one. In other words, there are lots of independent variables not included in any leftist climate model. Furthermore, the con artists are vainly attempting to prove that temperature is dependent on CO2 levels, when it almost certainly is the other way around. Finally, as the author and others have shown, the modern temperature records almost certainly are fraudulent, since at least 90 percent of the measuring stations were rigged and 100 percent of the sophisticated modeling “fudge factors” were rigged. In light of such widespread corruption, even the CO2 measurements should be treated as suspect, since they are taken from highly inaccessible leftist “religious shrines” on mountaintops in remote places like Hawaii. ......... TonyM Jul 09, 09:46 PM What I want to know is : Who decided that selected tree ring data from no more than a handful of trees in a single geographic area can be representative of average global temperatures? I think the answer is Dr. Keith Briffa , who has been trying to defend his tree ring results from an onslaught of statistical analyses that have revealed the flaws in his data and methodology. It is obvious that the IPCC climate modelers have made the most fundamental of scientific mistakes ( in my opinion, a deliberate mistake): Assuming a conclusion and then trying to fit whatever data they can find to their conclusions. Tree ring size is probably more representative of the composition of the soil and precipitation that feeds the tree than it is of temperature.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/10/2010 3:24:18 PM
From: chartseer	Respond to of 224729

oh bummer! Kenny you must be losing it! Your own posting #87361 in the second sentence proves you were completely in error when you posted this post. "The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s, reaching briefly over 100% in the aftermath of the world war." 2010 will be even a higher percentage. We are looking more and more like greece. The only saving grace is while greece couldn't print more currency to solve their problem of over spending the US can and is. post.http://siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx? msgid=26674687 Don't worry! be happy! the stupid hopeless comrade chartseer in the new era of printing more currency and spending more to get out of debt

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87343)	7/14/2010 4:23:26 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Last Friday while speaking at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas about the economy, President Obama said: And these were all the consequence of a decade of misguided economic policies — a decade of stagnant wages, a decade of declining incomes, a decade of spiraling deficits. I want to focus on that last phrase: a decade of spiraling deficits. The best way to compare deficits over time is as a share of the economy. This first graph shows budget deficits during President Bush’s tenure. On this graph deficits are positive, so up is bad. The dotted green line shows the average deficit since 1970 for comparison (2.6% of GDP). As always you can click on the graph for a larger version. This graph does not show “a decade of spiraling deficits.” It instead shows eight years of deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP, followed by a horrible ninth year as the markets collapsed and the economy plunged into recession. (Budget wonks who want to understand why I think we should look at nine years for a Presidency rather than eight can read this.) Even 2008’s bigger deficit than 2007 can be mostly explained by a revenue decline as the economy slipped into recession pre-crash. Before the crash of late 2008 President Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points smaller than the historic average. Deficits did not “spiral” during the Bush presidency or the decade. They bumped around the historic average, then spiked up in the last year. Yeah, but what about that horrible 8.3% in 2009 when President Bush left office? That figure is a combination of a severe decline in federal revenues as the economy tanked, plus the projected costs of TARP for fiscal year 2009. If we include that terrible ninth year in the Bush average (as we should), then the average Bush deficit is still only 2.7%, one tenth of a percentage point above the average over the past four decades. (All data are from CBO’s historic tables.) Yes, that last year sucked. Yes, when President Obama took office he faced an enormous projected budget deficit for his first year in office (which jumped from 8.3% when President Bush left in January to 9.9% at the end of that fiscal year). But it is inaccurate and misleading to characterize the previous decade as “a decade of spiraling deficits.” Am I making too big a deal out of one phrase? I don’t think so, because President Obama’s economic and political argument centers on redefining the entire Bush tenure as an economic failure. There is therefore a big difference between “a decade of failure” and “seven years-of-pretty-good, followed a disaster in year eight.” One could argue that the last year was a result of policies built up during the prior seven years, but that’s a different argument about financial sector policies. Instead the President and his allies are claiming that the President’s policies resulted in “a decade of spiraling deficits.” That is obviously false. Now let us look at the decade we are now beginning. The blue line shows CBO’s estimate of projected budget deficits if President Obama’s latest budget is enacted as proposed. Numbers are once again from CBO. Which exactly is the decade of spiraling deficits? The last one, or the one we’re beginning now? For comparison: * Bush average: 2.7% (including the 8.3% for FY 2009 when President Bush left office in January); * Obama average (projected for two terms spanning nine fiscal years): 6.35% If you’re disturbed by looking at nine budget years for an eight year Presidency, I wrote this to explain why I think it makes sense. This graph shows a sharp projected decline as we recover from the crash/recession followed by a steady upward climb. If President Obama’s budget is enacted as proposed, his smallest budget deficit will be bigger than the largest pre-crash Bush deficit. Let’s look at it another way. Let’s focus only on a hypothetical second term for President Obama, when the effects of the 2008 crash and 2009 recession are far behind us. A second Obama term would span five budget years: FY 2013 through FY 2017. CBO says the budget deficit would average 4.5% in that second term. That’s almost two percentage points above the historic average, 1.8 points above the Bush full-term average including the crash year, and one point higher than the highest pre-crash Bush deficit. The steady deficit climb under the Obama budget that begins in 2014 looks like it fits the description “spiraling deficits” for at least the last seven years of this decade. President Obama is incorrect when he labels the last decade as one of “spiraling deficits.” The Bush presidency was characterized by eight years of deficits with no long-term upward trend and which averaged significantly less than the historic average, followed by a financial crash and a year of severe recession and a consequently large deficit. If the President is right when he says that “a decade of spiraling deficits” are “the consequence of a decade of misguided economic policies,” he is looking at the wrong decade. I don’t see how he can justify his own budget. keithhennessey.com