Political Chat Digest for nuckin futz


User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
23 Apr 2014, 10:55 am

Post 23 Apr 2014, 10:55 am
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
I'm nuckin futz!

Contrary to viscious rumors about my demise, I am back!

I am an escapee from insaneasylum.org, and was not even phased by Nurse Racheds constant shock therapy.

I understand that this is a "kinder, gentler insane asylum" and I will feel empowered by my mentor and master, Cannonpointer!

I missed my fair share of abuse from you guys.

Now how in the Hell do I post may avatar? Can't find anything about it anywhere! :loco:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
23 Apr 2014, 11:29 am

Post 23 Apr 2014, 11:29 am
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Ah! Sweet Jeebus!

Al- The woman of my creams! Er, I mean dreams.

I have missed your steady, guiding hand!

Everyone over at the asylum has missed you, but no one would rat you out! Specially, the County pervert!

It was a MIRACLE! My avatar just miraculously popped up on its own! I didn't do anything!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
23 Apr 2014, 12:57 pm

Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:57 pm
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Hey! Thanks George!

I just now noticed the miracle. 8-)

Now how do I rack up all that money?

Who do I have to Ben Dover? :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco:

Do they ban the trolls and aholes on this site? I hope so!

If they do, I suppose I am a marked man!

Frequent beatings make a man humble, in my humble opinion! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
23 Apr 2014, 10:59 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
skews13 » 23 Apr 2014 9:15 pm wrote:

You heard right Bing. The President is sticking his thumb right in the eye of the Reagan legacy. Rachel Maddow did a whole show on it toonight, and it was awsome. The show was themed on why people love Reagan based pon a total fantasy of who he really was, and the things he didn't do. She called it RDSIR, Reagan Derangement Sydrome In Reverse. :die:
:die: :die: :die: :die:


Reaganoids never question anything that would expose their saint.

The slow erosion of the middle class stepped up with the Reagan regime, and now is in virtual free fall.

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 10:53 am

Post 24 Apr 2014, 10:53 am
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Nice diversion, GolfButtBoy!

Shintao, its time to post your great piece on National Oil for us to ponder! :clap:

With the elections coming up in November, it might be picked up by a candidate to float as a trial balloon.

If we could get gasoline at $ 2.00 per gallon, the economy could sizzle!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 11:59 am

Post 24 Apr 2014, 11:59 am
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
I am already having 2hd thoughts about this site! I now see that a lot of the flamers and assahollahs from the old site have come here to dominate threads with their garbage

Why are you allowing this? :cry:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 2:12 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
The Chicken Hawk war mongering Neocon perpetual war machine by the Zionist's is WRONG! Bush, Cheney & henchmen have squandered three trillion $ of out tax payer money. Fiscal con baggers should take note!


War Makes Us Poor

[u]




Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image






Washington’s Blog
April 24, 2014
Preface: Many Americans – including influential economists and talking heads- still wrongly assume that war is good for the economy. Many congressmen assume that cutting pork-barrel military spending would hurt their constituents’ jobs.
Image
Image: U.S. Dollar (Wiki Commons).

As demonstrated below, it isn’t true.
Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that war is bad for the economy:
Stiglitz wrote in 2003:
War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon. Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.

Stiglitz has also said that this decade’s Iraq war has been very bad for the economy. Seethis, this and this.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan also said in that war is bad for the economy. In 1991, Greenspan said that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East would hurt the economy. And he made this point again in 1999:
Societies need to buy as much military insurance as they need, but to spend more than that is to squander money that could go toward improving the productivity of the economy as a whole: with more efficient transportation systems, a better educated citizenry, and so on. This is the point that retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) learned back in 1999 in a House Banking Committee hearing with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Frank asked what factors were producing our then-strong economic performance. On Greenspan’s list: “The freeing up of resources previously employed to produce military products that was brought about by the end of the Cold War.” Are you saying, Frank asked, “that dollar for dollar, military products are there as insurance … and to the extent you could put those dollars into other areas, maybe education and job trainings, maybe into transportation … that is going to have a good economic effect?”Greenspan agreed.

Economist Dean Baker notes:
It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.

The Proof Is In the Pudding
Mike Lofgren notes:
Military spending may at one time have been a genuine job creator when weapons were compatible with converted civilian production lines, but the days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone. [Indeed, WWII was different from current wars in many ways, and so its economic effects are not comparable to those of today's wars.] Most weapons projects now require relatively little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned into high-cost R&D (from which the civilian economy benefits little), exorbitant management expenditures, high overhead, and out-and-out padding, including money that flows back into political campaigns. A dollar appropriated for highway construction, health care, or education will likely create more jobs than a dollar for Pentagon weapons procurement.
***
During the decade of the 2000s, DOD budgets, including funds spent on the war, doubled in our nation’s longest sustained post-World War II defense increase. Yet during the same decade, jobs were created at the slowest rate since the Hoover administration. If defense helped the economy, it is not evident. And just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added over $1.4 trillion to deficits, according to the Congressional Research Service. Whether the wars were “worth it” or merely stirred up a hornet’s nest abroad is a policy discussion for another time; what is clear is that whether you are a Keynesian or a deficit hawk, war and associated military spending are no economic panacea.

The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) shows that any boost from war is temporary at best. For example, while WWII provided a temporary bump in GDP, GDP then fell back to the baseline trend. After the Korean War, GDP fell below the baseline trend:
Image

Full article: http://www.infowars.com/war-makes-us-poor/

By 1973, as the Vietnam War was winding down, the economy went into a stagflation slump, as debt increased.


IEP notes:
By examining the state of the economy at each of the major conflict periods since World War II, it can be seen that the positive effects of increased military spending were outweighed by longer term unintended negative macroeconomic consequences. While the stimulatory effect of military outlays is evidently associated with boosts in economic growth, adverse effects show up either immediately or soon after, through higher inflation, budget deficits, high taxes and reductions in consumption or investment. Rectifying these effects has required subsequent painful adjustments which are neither efficient nor desirable. When an economy has excess capacity and unemployment, it is possible that increasing military spending can provide an important stimulus. However, if there are budget constraints, as there are in the U.S. currently, then excessive military spending can displace more productive non-military outlays in other areas such as investments in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure. The crowding-out effects of disproportionate government spending on military functions can affect service delivery or infrastructure development, ultimately affecting long-term growth rates.
***
Analysis of the macroeconomic components of GDP during World War II and in subsequent conflicts show heightened military spending had several adverse macroeconomic effects. These occurred as a direct consequence of the funding requirements of increased military spending. The U.S. has paid for its wars either through debt (World War II, Cold War, Afghanistan/Iraq), taxation (Korean War) or inflation (Vietnam). In each case, taxpayers have been burdened, and private sector consumption and investment have been constrained as a result. Other negative effects include larger budget deficits, higher taxes, and growth above trend leading to inflation pressure. These effects can run concurrent with major conflict or via lagging effects into the future. Regardless of the way a war is financed, the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative. For each of the periods after World War II, we need to ask, what would have happened in economic terms if these wars did not happen? On the specific evidence provided, it can be reasonably said, it is likely taxes would have been lower, inflation would have been lower, there would have been higher consumption and investment and certainly lower budget deficits. Some wars are necessary to fight and the negative effects of not fighting these wars can far outweigh the costs of fighting. However if there are other options, then it is prudent to exhaust them first as once wars do start, the outcome, duration and economic consequences are difficult to predict.

We noted in 2011:
This is a no-brainer, if you think about it. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost twice as long as World War II. We’ve been in Iraq for years longer than WWII. We’ve been involved in 7 or 8 wars in the last decade. And yet [the economy is still unstable]. If wars really helped the economy, don’t you think things would have improved by now? Indeed,the Iraq war alone could end up costing more than World War II. And given the other wars we’ve been involved in this decade, I believe that the total price tag for the so-called “War on Terror” will definitely support that of the “Greatest War”.

Let’s look at the adverse effects of war in more detail …
War Spending Diverts Stimulus Away from the Real Civilian Economy
IEP notes that – even though the government spending soared – consumption and investment were flatduring the Vietnam war:
Image


War Makes Us Poor

[u]




Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image






Washington’s Blog
April 24, 2014
Preface: Many Americans – including influential economists and talking heads- still wrongly assume that war is good for the economy. Many congressmen assume that cutting pork-barrel military spending would hurt their constituents’ jobs.
Image
Image: U.S. Dollar (Wiki Commons).

As demonstrated below, it isn’t true.
Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that war is bad for the economy:
Stiglitz wrote in 2003:
War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon. Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.

Stiglitz has also said that this decade’s Iraq war has been very bad for the economy. Seethis, this and this.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan also said in that war is bad for the economy. In 1991, Greenspan said that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East would hurt the economy. And he made this point again in 1999:
Societies need to buy as much military insurance as they need, but to spend more than that is to squander money that could go toward improving the productivity of the economy as a whole: with more efficient transportation systems, a better educated citizenry, and so on. This is the point that retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) learned back in 1999 in a House Banking Committee hearing with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Frank asked what factors were producing our then-strong economic performance. On Greenspan’s list: “The freeing up of resources previously employed to produce military products that was brought about by the end of the Cold War.” Are you saying, Frank asked, “that dollar for dollar, military products are there as insurance … and to the extent you could put those dollars into other areas, maybe education and job trainings, maybe into transportation … that is going to have a good economic effect?”Greenspan agreed.

Economist Dean Baker notes:
It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.

The Proof Is In the Pudding
Mike Lofgren notes:
Military spending may at one time have been a genuine job creator when weapons were compatible with converted civilian production lines, but the days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone. [Indeed, WWII was different from current wars in many ways, and so its economic effects are not comparable to those of today's wars.] Most weapons projects now require relatively little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned into high-cost R&D (from which the civilian economy benefits little), exorbitant management expenditures, high overhead, and out-and-out padding, including money that flows back into political campaigns. A dollar appropriated for highway construction, health care, or education will likely create more jobs than a dollar for Pentagon weapons procurement.
***
During the decade of the 2000s, DOD budgets, including funds spent on the war, doubled in our nation’s longest sustained post-World War II defense increase. Yet during the same decade, jobs were created at the slowest rate since the Hoover administration. If defense helped the economy, it is not evident. And just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added over $1.4 trillion to deficits, according to the Congressional Research Service. Whether the wars were “worth it” or merely stirred up a hornet’s nest abroad is a policy discussion for another time; what is clear is that whether you are a Keynesian or a deficit hawk, war and associated military spending are no economic panacea.

The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) shows that any boost from war is temporary at best. For example, while WWII provided a temporary bump in GDP, GDP then fell back to the baseline trend. After the Korean War, GDP fell below the baseline trend:
Image
IEP notes:
By examining the state of the economy at each of the major conflict periods since World War II, it can be seen that the positive effects of increased military spending were outweighed by longer term unintended negative macroeconomic consequences. While the stimulatory effect of military outlays is evidently associated with boosts in economic growth, adverse effects show up either immediately or soon after, through higher inflation, budget deficits, high taxes and reductions in consumption or investment. Rectifying these effects has required subsequent painful adjustments which are neither efficient nor desirable. When an economy has excess capacity and unemployment, it is possible that increasing military spending can provide an important stimulus. However, if there are budget constraints, as there are in the U.S. currently, then excessive military spending can displace more productive non-military outlays in other areas such as investments in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure. The crowding-out effects of disproportionate government spending on military functions can affect service delivery or infrastructure development, ultimately affecting long-term growth rates.
***
Analysis of the macroeconomic components of GDP during World War II and in subsequent conflicts show heightened military spending had several adverse macroeconomic effects. These occurred as a direct consequence of the funding requirements of increased military spending. The U.S. has paid for its wars either through debt (World War II, Cold War, Afghanistan/Iraq), taxation (Korean War) or inflation (Vietnam). In each case, taxpayers have been burdened, and private sector consumption and investment have been constrained as a result. Other negative effects include larger budget deficits, higher taxes, and growth above trend leading to inflation pressure. These effects can run concurrent with major conflict or via lagging effects into the future. Regardless of the way a war is financed, the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative. For each of the periods after World War II, we need to ask, what would have happened in economic terms if these wars did not happen? On the specific evidence provided, it can be reasonably said, it is likely taxes would have been lower, inflation would have been lower, there would have been higher consumption and investment and certainly lower budget deficits. Some wars are necessary to fight and the negative effects of not fighting these wars can far outweigh the costs of fighting. However if there are other options, then it is prudent to exhaust them first as once wars do start, the outcome, duration and economic consequences are difficult to predict.

We noted in 2011:
This is a no-brainer, if you think about it. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost twice as long as World War II. We’ve been in Iraq for years longer than WWII. We’ve been involved in 7 or 8 wars in the last decade. And yet [the economy is still unstable]. If wars really helped the economy, don’t you think things would have improved by now? Indeed,the Iraq war alone could end up costing more than World War II. And given the other wars we’ve been involved in this decade, I believe that the total price tag for the so-called “War on Terror” will definitely support that of the “Greatest War”.

Let’s look at the adverse effects of war in more detail …
War Spending Diverts Stimulus Away from the Real Civilian Economy
IEP notes that – even though the government spending soared – consumption and investment were flatduring the Vietnam war:
Image


The New Republic noted in 2009:
Conservative Harvard economist Robert Barro has argued that increased military spending during WWII actually depressed other parts of the economy.

(New Republic also points out that conservative economist Robert Higgs and liberal economists Larry Summers and Brad Delong have all shown that any stimulation to the economy from World War II has been greatly exaggerated.)
How could war actually hurt the economy, when so many say that it stimulates the economy?
Because of what economists call the “broken window fallacy”.
Specifically, if a window in a store is broken, it means that the window-maker gets paid to make a new window, and he, in turn, has money to pay others. However, economists long ago showed that – if the window hadn’t been broken – the shop-owner would have spent that money on other things, such as food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or recreation, which would have helped the economy as much or more.
If the shop-owner hadn’t had to replace his window, he might have taken his family out to dinner, which would have circulated more money to the restaurant, and from there to other sectors of the economy. Similarly, the money spent on the war effort is money that cannot be spent on other sectors of the economy. Indeed, all of the military spending has just created military jobs, at the expense of the civilian economy.
As Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out:
That is the essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.

We noted in 2010:
You know about America’s unemployment problem. You may have even heard that the U.S. may very well have suffered a permanent destruction of jobs.
But did you know that the defense employment sector is booming?
[P]ublic sector spending – and mainly defense spending – has accounted for virtually all of the new job creation in the past 10 years:
The U.S. has largely been financing job creation for ten years. Specifically, as the chief economist for BusinessWeek, Michael Mandel, points out, public spending has accounted for virtually all new job creation in the past 1o years:
Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying chart:
Image

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 3:15 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Reasonable » 22 Apr 2014 8:06 pm wrote:
I have. Hundreds of times. But trying to explain science to someone as inept as you is like trying to explain algebra to a dog.

The Republican Party was once a conservation party. Nixon started the EPA. Dan Quayle, newt Gingrich, Bush sr. All have spoken out on the earth’s warming and/or the greenhouse effect and the problems associated with it.
Until tea baggers got their hands around the GOP's balls and we start to hear them back pedaling on what science is telling them.

The republican party has become the anti science party and is the ONLY political party in the world still doubting climate change.

Since you're not much for critical thinking .... I guess you can't figure out why the industrialists and polluters pumping a pirate's ransom into the party changed everything.


My new by line:

"In you guts, you know they're nuts!"

Joke of the day:

What's better than roses on your piano?

Two lips on your organ!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 3:18 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Wharf Rat » 22 Apr 2014 9:26 pm wrote:
Go talk to the native people north of the arctic circle and ask them what happened to all that ice they used to travel to their hunting grounds on. See how long it takes one of em to open your gut case n spill out your intestines while you recite your talking points memo from FOX spews.

:lol:


Eskimo with a hard on:

Frigid little midget with a rigid little digit!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
24 Apr 2014, 3:40 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Folk, I screwed this up on copying it!

Read the whole article, then we can discuss. Its on today's infowars.com

It blows holes in the common misperception, that war is good for the economy, Certainly worth discussion!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 6:53 am

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
The problem with stupid people is that they do not realize they are stupid!

You just can't reach some people.

Craven Bundy is the latest celebrity of the far out Reich, and has plumbed the depths of hate and ignorance to new found lows.

My advice to the followers of such depravity, is;

Just turn your back, and walk away slowly, then run like hell! :loco:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 7:07 am

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Long time ago, I met a woman who had been locked up many times in insane asylums.

Her crime? Destroying TV sets! Hers and others folks. She thought that Tom Brokaw was a CIA mind controller.

In talking to her, I found that she was above average intelligence, was witty and wise beyond her years.

Evidently, it is a high crime against the state to destroy the boob tube!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 11:52 am

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
None of this is needed.

There are already Fusion centers and death camps all over the US to house the homeless and clueless.

"Arbeit macht frei" Work will make you free!

This is the Rethuglican sign you will see at each death camp:

Image

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 12:10 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
golfboy » 24 Apr 2014 6:05 pm wrote:
Really? What was said about me?


Your name is all over glory holes in mens rooms accross 'merica!

You are on the most wanted list of the National Potty Patrol!

Mama warned me about people like you!

You are famous of being infamous! :twisted:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 6:22 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
I came on this site so I can swear a lot!

I swear like a drunken sailor in a fight with raging Marines! #$HFUupyur*%&)^!

Swearing liberates me! Whew! I feel better now.!

But it is sad to see the same trolls and flamers on this board as the old one!

Who let NightPisser on here? And GoofButtBoy? And the infamous Nurse Rached?

We need a like and dislike button, which can vote people out of here!

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 6:44 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Those also might be alien implants put there by the spaced invaders from the stoned age!

Does the Govt. need to track you?

Have you done something wrong?

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
25 Apr 2014, 6:48 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
NO MORE BUSH'S!

When will we ever learn?

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
26 Apr 2014, 11:38 am

Post 26 Apr 2014, 11:38 am
nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
It isn't a black or white issue,

But every hard core slave master likes to have his own house nigga, to deflect from the fact that he is a racist!

Bush Retthugs had Kindasleezy Rice, General Colon Bowel

RVC had Michael Steele, Spermin Herman, and other house niggas, to ward off racist charges. ;)

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
26 Apr 2014, 3:57 pm

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
TotallyRad » 26 Apr 2014 12:20 pm wrote:

Maher is a douche.



Yeah, well, he's funny!
And you're are not.

And he's famous!
And you're nobody.

And he's rich!
And you're a gutter bum.

Care to say more? :clap:

User avatar
Posted by nuckin futz
27 Apr 2014, 8:37 am

nuckin futz       
User avatar
      

Posts: 16697
Vegas » 27 Apr 2014 3:53 am wrote:
I doubt you will find a online forum that has intelligent discourse. I get on places like this because I enjoy making fun of liberals.


You think people are laughing with you,

When they are laughing AT you!

You have been bitch-slapped so many times, you are now fuckin goofy! :LOL: