Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
LOL ... although I generally hate to second guess what others may think, nothing I've ever seen posted by lustylad or Tiny suggests to me that they'd consider Volcker's appointment to the Fed a bad idea.
On the contrary, I suspect they would consider that an excellent turning point in history.
I can't speak for Tiny, but in my case you are 100% correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Although Jimmy had been badly failing for two-and-a-half years, he was -- in my opinion -- a profile in courage at least on the day that he made that pivotal choice.
That's a rather charitable interpretation. I don't think the Peanut Farmer had a clue at the time what tools, steps or strategy Volcker would employ to conquer inflation. But he did figure out G. William Miller wasn't up to the job, and the financial markets were screaming for someone as determined as Paul Volcker to be put in charge of the Federal Reserve.
WTF brings up the Volcker appointment to argue stupidly that Carter, not Reagan, deserves the credit for breaking the back of late '70s/early '80s double-digit inflation. That's quite a preposterous argument, but WTF keeps clutching it like a squirrel hoarding a nut. I realize you are trying to be diplomatic and not hurt WTF's tender feelings. As for my own view, here's how I expressed it in the past:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
The dumbass once tried to give Jimmy Carter "credit" for appointing Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman in 1979. That's like giving an arsonist credit for calling the fire department after starting the blaze!
Q) How are we going to pay for all this shit? A) We ain't! The kids, grand kids and great grand kids will be stuck with the tab regardless Shopping list item: We're gonna need a bigger shit-sack to hold all this new shit
The Democrats’ plan to spend a massive amount of money after spending wildly in 2021. Last year’s spending included a $1.9 trillion coronavirus package and a $1 trillion infrastructure package, which many economists say fueled 40-year-high inflation in the same year.
“A few center-left economists, as well as Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.), sounded the alarm that an oversized new injection of spending would overheat a growing economy and cause inflation,” Reason reported. “They were ignored, if not mocked. As a result, almost everyone from the Fed chairman to monetary experts spent most of 2021 explaining away inflation without mention of the roles played by fiscal and monetary policies.”
Nearly one year later in May of 2022, Democrats are once again planning to spend massive sums of taxpayer dollars. Democrats look to splash nearly $40 billion dollars to protect Ukraine’s border from invasion, instead of the U.S. southern border. Democrats are additionally aiming to spend about $20 billion for more coronavirus funding. Punchbowl News reported on the details of the spending proposals in Congress:
Quote:
Congress is going to move forward quickly on a nearly $40 billion aid package for Ukraine. The proposal is $6.8 billion above the White House’s $33 billion request. It provides $3.4 billion more than the Biden administration sought for military aid, plus another $3.4 billion in additional humanitarian aid. House and Senate appropriators spent the last week privately negotiating the proposal.
[…]
House Democratic leaders – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi – have pushed for nearly $20 billion for additional Covid funding, in line with what the White House said it needs. The Senate had been considering a pared-back package worth roughly $10 billion.
The spending comes before the midterms elections. Democrats are attempting to make the election about abortion. But many voters are not buying the sales pitch.
“It’s the economy and jobs,” Laura Wilson told Reuters on Monday about the precedence the economy takes over abortion. Wilson, one of 21 women the publication interviewed, slammed Biden for 40-year-high inflation that will reportedly cost American families an extra $5,200 in 2022.
“Most of the women said inflation, not abortion, was the galvanizing issue for them,” Reuters reported. “Five said they were pro-life and Republican, while 16 said they were pro-choice. Just two of the 16 said the issue was the top priority for them when voting this November.”
Polling supports Wilson’s concern. According to a CNN poll, the economy tops Americans’ greatest worry. Only two percent of Americans said Biden’s economy is “very good.” Seventy-seven percent conveyed Biden’s economy is poor, the highest mark in a decade.
Q) How are we going to pay for all this shit? A) We ain't! The kids, grand kids and great grand kids will be stuck with the tab regardless Shopping list item: We're gonna need a bigger shit-sack to hold all this new shit
The house of cards is going to implode long before our kids and grandkids have to pay the bill. Our government will be replaced with some form of tyrannical rule.
Our progeny will pay by being less free than we were... and ultimately they will have third world standards of living since that's what we're importing.
Sorry, I was all the way over on the other side of the room when you said that
What heard you say is that people should start collecting their social security at the earliest possible date, which is at 62 years old, while it still only takes about 9 workers to cover the cost per retiree. Was that what you said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texassapper
The house of cards is going to implode long before our kids and grandkids have to pay the bill. Our government will be replaced with some form of tyrannical rule.
Our progeny will pay by being less free than we were... and ultimately they will have third world standards of living since that's what we're importing.
What heard you say is that people should start collecting their social security at the earliest possible date, which is at 62 years old, while it still only takes about 9 workers to cover the cost per retiree. Was that what you said?
Yeah, I wouldn't wait for the fire sale... Because that which cannot go on forever, won't.
The house of cards is going to implode long before our kids and grandkids have to pay the bill. Our government will be replaced with some form of tyrannical rule.
That's a rather charitable interpretation. I don't think the Peanut Farmer had a clue at the time what tools, steps or strategy Volcker would employ to conquer inflation. But he did figure out G. William Miller wasn't up to the job, and the financial markets were screaming for someone as determined as Paul Volcker to be put in charge of the Federal Reserve.
Yes, lustylad. You do have a good point. I am trying to be charitable here!
But I'll tell you what. I'll even go one further and give ol' Jimmy props for signing a package that, among other things, cut the capital gains tax rate from about 40% to 28%! (He reportedly didn't want to do it, but was prevailed upon by a couple of people in the financial industry who convinced him that the near-40% rate was actually costing revenue while simultaneously harming the economy, for reasons that you, I, and Tiny have discussed in a couple of threads.)
Of course, the first two-and-one-half years of Jimmy's presidency were pretty much an unmitigated disaster.
But in terms of beneficial actions, he's still 2-0 vs. the current prez!
Oh, wait ...
One of the WSJ's opinion or op-ed writers said last year that perhaps there's a silver lining in the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cloud, after all. Every now and then, the American public needs to learn a painful lesson about what progressive governance is and what it does.
Professors Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are teaching Americans this lesson quite nicely in the current 4-year course. The tuition paid by average Americans will be quite costly, but hopefully the lessons will be well-learned.
In case Professor Biden gets tired and needs a nap, or if all three instructors need a break, Adjunct Professors Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren will be warming up in the bullpen!
One of the WSJ's opinion or op-ed writers said last year that perhaps there's a silver lining in the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cloud, after all. Every now and then, the American public needs to learn a painful lesson about what progressive governance is and what it does.
Professors Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are teaching Americans this lesson quite nicely in the current 4-year course. The tuition paid by average Americans will be quite costly, but hopefully the lessons will be well-learned.
+1
I've reflected on precisely this point many times!
What's sad is how it's even necessary for us to repeat the same costly mistakes over & over again for the edification of each new generation.
I will charitably concede that Jimmy Carter was at least open-minded enough to be persuadable and change course.
I'm not sure I can say the same with respect to today's far-left ideologues. Many of them are slaves to the pernicious poison they were spoon-fed by Professor Stephanie & her ilk in colleges and universities, where their tuition was also paid by average Americans - or will be, once clueless Sleepy Joe "forgives" all their student loans. So in effect, we average Americans are going to pay TWICE for this latest disastrous experiment in libtard mis-governance!
lustylad
Sleepy Joe is/has not forgiven all student loans nor is planning to.
Both parties get failing grades in governance.
To limit it to one party is blind allegiance. In your case Gay blind allegiance.
Trump was giving away money like a hooker would condoms during his time in office. And take a look at the almost trillion dollar deficits in "the best economy ever: (Trumps words)
Professors Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are teaching Americans this lesson quite nicely in the current 4-year course. The tuition paid by average Americans will be quite costly, but hopefully the lessons will be well-learned.
In case Professor Biden gets tired and needs a nap, or if all three instructors need a break, Adjunct Professors Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren will be warming up in the bullpen!
Reassessment time: Jimmy is only up 2-1 vs. Joey!
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
+1
I've reflected on precisely this point many times!
What's sad is how it's even necessary for us to repeat the same costly mistakes over & over again for the edification of each new generation.
I will charitably concede that Jimmy Carter was at least open-minded enough to be persuadable and change course.
I'm not sure I can say the same with respect to today's far-left ideologues. Many of them are slaves to the pernicious poison they were spoon-fed by Professor Stephanie & her ilk in colleges and universities, where their tuition was also paid by average Americans - or will be, once clueless Sleepy Joe "forgives" all their student loans. So in effect, we average Americans are going to pay TWICE for this latest disastrous experiment in libtard mis-governance!
I'm not as optimistic. Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe stayed popular for a long time, despite insane economic policies. Lopez Obrador would win re-election in Mexico if he could run again. (He can't.) I could come up with some less-extreme developed country examples too if I looked.
If Professor Stephanie's ideas go into practice, so that the government starts spending lots more money and running up even huger deficits, that could be very popular, for the people who are on the receiving end of government largesse anyway. It would be a while before the piper would have to be paid. Yeah, at that point the Progressives would be voted out. But how long would that take? How much damage would be done in the meantime?
I'm not as optimistic. Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe stayed popular for a long time, despite insane economic policies. Lopez Obrador would win re-election in Mexico if he could run again. (He can't.) I could come up with some less-extreme developed country examples too if I looked.
If Professor Stephanie's ideas go into practice, so that the government starts spending lots more money and running up even huger deficits, that could be very popular, for the people who are on the receiving end of government largesse anyway. It would be a while before the piper would have to be paid. Yeah, at that point the Progressives would be voted out. But how long would that take? How much damage would be done in the meantime?
Tiny you are turning into Chicken Little.
The Right has a grip on the SC.
There was a reason I spoke about the power of the SC vs WH vs Congress.
The only way the Left has a chance for future wins will be when the GOP starts trying to cut SS and Medicare under the guise that they are responsible for our debt and they start massively cutting government spending!
and particularly in their attempts .to control inflation. But they have succeeded, at least temporarily, in their broader purpose: to secure the economic and political power of a small dominant class by effecting a massive transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to a select group of monopolists and financial speculators.
Break Glass In Case of Fire
