Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2
This isn't a bad article, considering the guy is a sports journalist. I would be all for year round education, as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.
No, I don't trust the bureaucracy much at all. However I do understand how it works, which I'm sure you do as well but you are apparently playing dumb on the matter to score political points for single moms.
Might as well include pumpkins into inflation too, the price of those rises dramatically in October every year.
Don't know what you mean DS, I guess you're advocating that interest rates should be set based on the buying power of single mothers?
Inflation as the government calculates it conveniently doesn't include gas or food in its calculations. Considering those are the two things that are really skyrocketing for the average citizen right now, the government calculations are pretty much worthless to the average American.
Its like telling a leper their finger didn't just fall off, despite the fact that it just fell into the potato salad.
The government does calculate food and gas prices into the inflation numbers, it's called headline inflation and is a really, really dumb tool to use when making projections. Those two items are left out to determine core inflation. Headline inflation is only important when it starts to leak into core inflation. Sustained high energy prices did this in the fall of 2008 just before the collapse of the financial markets. The high prices were pushing up the costs of goods used to compute core inflation.
Food and energy are both commodities and subject to wild variations which make them terrible for judging month-to-month inflation. You're just one Russian drought/OPEC country going apeshit from having another inflation measure that's pretty much worthless to the average American.
Headline inflation is in blue, core is in red.
Headline inflation could possibly hit 4 percent some time this year if the dollar reverses its current climb and completely goes in the tank (unlikely with the Euro facing major distress). Core inflation will probably clock in between 2-3 percent, right around the Fed's target of 2 percent, and that target should probably be a bit higher.
Even with all the money that has been printed, there's less "wealth" in the U.S. than before the financial markets collapsed. The net wealth of the country was about $66 trillion in late 2007 early 2008. About $13 trillion of that evaporated in the Great Recession (stocks, home values etc). It's back to about $57-59 trillion right now.
The real challenge for the Fed, and this is a big challenge, is to pull the trigger on raising rates when GDP growth hits 4-5 percent and unload all barrels if it gets above that. Most of the money that's been printed isn't circulating, so it's as if it never existed. If banks start to lend again, things can quickly go south with double-digit inflation.
Because its some theoretical "headline inflation" instead of some other theoretical "core inflation" it doesn't count. Convenient.
Tell that to the single mom paying twice as much out of her budget as she did a couple months ago for gas to get to work.
The government reports both. It doesn't care about headline inflation until it persists enough to start affecting core inflation. Where does this single mother live that gas has doubled in two months?
Inflation as the government calculates it conveniently doesn't include gas or food in its calculations. Considering those are the two things that are really skyrocketing for the average citizen right now, the government calculations are pretty much worthless to the average American.
Its like telling a leper their finger didn't just fall off, despite the fact that it just fell into the potato salad.
The government does calculate food and gas prices into the inflation numbers, it's called headline inflation and is a really, really dumb tool to use when making projections. Those two items are left out to determine core inflation. Headline inflation is only important when it starts to leak into core inflation. Sustained high energy prices did this in the fall of 2008 just before the collapse of the financial markets. The high prices were pushing up the costs of goods used to compute core inflation.
Food and energy are both commodities and subject to wild variations which make them terrible for judging month-to-month inflation. You're just one Russian drought/OPEC country going apeshit from having another inflation measure that's pretty much worthless to the average American.
Headline inflation is in blue, core is in red.
Headline inflation could possibly hit 4 percent some time this year if the dollar reverses its current climb and completely goes in the tank (unlikely with the Euro facing major distress). Core inflation will probably clock in between 2-3 percent, right around the Fed's target of 2 percent, and that target should probably be a bit higher.
Even with all the money that has been printed, there's less "wealth" in the U.S. than before the financial markets collapsed. The net wealth of the country was about $66 trillion in late 2007 early 2008. About $13 trillion of that evaporated in the Great Recession (stocks, home values etc). It's back to about $57-59 trillion right now.
The real challenge for the Fed, and this is a big challenge, is to pull the trigger on raising rates when GDP growth hits 4-5 percent and unload all barrels if it gets above that. Most of the money that's been printed isn't circulating, so it's as if it never existed. If banks start to lend again, things can quickly go south with double-digit inflation.
Claude Choules, the last combat veteran of WWI, has died in Britain. He was 110.
take it to the birther pit, wgaf
Change of plans....
Gary Johnson....would vote
Herman Cain.....maybe
But Gary has as good a chance as Ron Paul since most hypocrite Americans don't understand libertarianism, so it's almost a moot point.
Herman Cain...I like his ideas of the fair tax, so yeah maybe, but...
....will thetea party vote for a black man?
for the record, i'm not sure this is the best move. But whatevs...it's entertaining.
Also, both Eric Hosmer and Kila are trending. wow.
You hate Hosmer, just come out and say it.
nahh, i'm more of a Kila apologist. imo, I don't think the Royals can contend this year, and we haven't given Kila enough PA's. I hope they prove me wrong though.
I'm really excited about Hosmer though..
<---only Royals.
http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound
There appears to be a squirt gun under the corpse in the second picture
You're right. So they WERE armed.
What on earth were they up to in there? Apparently playing a bunch of grab-ass.
QuoteThe new Medicare tax is for all unearned net investment income and includes interest income, dividends, rents, and capital gains. The new Medicare tax will not impact the capital gains exclusion for principal residences ($250,000 for individuals/$500,000 for married couples). The 3.8 percent tax only will apply to taxable gains above this exclusion. The tax will take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, and will be applicable to high-income taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more for individuals, or $250,000 or more for married couples.
yup. another hidden tax disguised as a health care bill.
So well hidden it's been talked about for more than a year.
Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass.
1. Governments generate revenue through taxes.
2. In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.
3. When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially.
4. That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008.
You can read more about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
There's your lesson for the day. You can thank me later.
Ron Paul, 2012
Of course you're all about it now Ben . . . A Democrat is President.
Tap out noted.
"Yahhh Torture" . . . Obamabots.
Dude. STOP trying to make Obamabots happen. It's NOT going to happen.
Dax is going to be super pissed when he finds out that Obama campaigned on the exact scenario that played out in Pakistan on Sunday. Nothing like being butthurt over a politician fulfilling a campaign promise.
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.
It's called a "Stimulus Package." Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.
Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.
I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation. Way to go FED! Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system. Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk". I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd. You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind. However, it actually makes him look like an idiot. Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy. But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.
All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession. That's simply a fact. It's not up for debate.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.
I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.
