Amusing attempt at another jab, rocky...

was there a specific source in my posts you were unhappy with.... ?

I've posted links and sources for additional reading.... maybe you neglected to do the reading.
__________________

Here's a new one that mirrors what I've been trying to say, (between your and your playmates jabs)

NY Times editorial today.

If current trends continue, the United States will borrow an unprecedented $1 trillion this year alone, mostly from abroad, a sum that is reflected in the nation's huge budget and trade deficits.

Any sane market analyst has to wonder how long that can last, and such underlying angst intensifies market swings.

From 2002 through 2004, the rate of national savings was lower than at any time since 1934. This year, savings are once again off to an anemic start.

---

*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...
*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...*News Flash*...

Headlines...Washington D.C.

Presdident Bush announces today the creation of a new Government Office, and he has Hand picked It's Director!!

Today in Washington President Bush announced the creation of the new Government office of Wizard Of Economic Dribble. To head the office he has hand picked Paul Zimmerman, from a small one time quaint little burrough in Alaska. President Bush said that he first came along Mr Zimmerman in a Message Board Forum run by USC Berkeley. The president Stated that Mr Zimmerman's Slanted views and vast ability to cut and paste partial news releases were the final clinching factors in picking him. Mr Bush also stated that Mr.Zimmerman is an expert at dodging direct replies asking for COMPLETE PROOF of his claims and comments, something Mr Zimmerman has accused this Adminstration of.
Mr Bush stated that Paul Zimmerman has such a vast knowledge of the English language, that suits him for the office exclusively. Mr. Bush was quoted in saying that "Paul Zimmerman had been considered for the position of Shell Answer Man". Shell stated "The only reason Mr. Zimmerman did not get the job is because Shell was in fear of their phones becoming clogged with people calling in trying to figure out what the hell he was saying".
In Closing Mr Bush also revealed that the Great State Of Alaska made large consessions in moving Mr Zimmerman to Washington.
"We will begin drilling operations for crude beginning early next month in Alaska", Mr Bush was quoted in saying. "It is a win, Win situation".


Have A Great Day!

---

www.boincsynergy.com

bye bye, tom,

You and your playmates can hash over your ever changing infantile and disembodied clamouring....

---

<blockquote>
Guile~noun~ insidious deception duplicity.... synonym, fraud.... see also deceit.

I've no time for your playground mentality....</blockquote>

Not only do you not know what you are saying, but you also can't understand others. I said persuade Paul, "When did I try to persuade you . . ." by any means. The definition of 'guile' has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. Jeeze! Get a dictionary . . . better yet, have someone who speaks English explain what you are reading, you're not doing a very good job of it yourself. (And while you're at it, have someone proofread your posts for meaning, as you're not doing a very good job of that either.)

Evidently I understand words much better than you, tom
'
'
Guile~noun~ insidious deception duplicity.... synonym, fraud.... see also deceit.

bye now.....

I've no time for your playground mentality....

---

<blockquote>
Your whining and wheedling doesn't impress...</blockquote>

Do you know the meaning of your words?

whee·dle v. whee·dled, whee·dling, whee·dles. --tr. 1. To persuade or attempt to persuade by flattery or guile; cajole. 2. To obtain through the use of flattery or guile: a swindler who wheedled my life savings out of me. --intr. To use flattery or cajolery to achieve one's ends.

When did I try to persuade you by flattery or guile? My comment was a direct criticism of you . . . I have long given up trying to persuade you, since your brain is clearly stuck in the "Bush/Republicans are at fault" rut. My comments on everything you say merely presents the other side of the coin, not to change your (rather small, slightly defective) mind.

As if I might try to be someone else just for you..?

Take it up with your analyst, tom.... Your whining and wheedling doesn't impress...

---

<blockquote> After I don't know how many times noodles has disparaged my posts, I finally comment on her habit and you think it's just so awful.

Poor tom, unsettled again.</blockquote>

Disparaged? More like calling your writing style what it is: rambling, pretentious snobbery. Now, I might add, that the substance of your writing also leaves much to be desired.

<blockquote><blockquote>>fussy, er ..... fuzzy, (fuzzy?)
</blockquote>

After this shot, Paul, you have the nerve to complain about cheap shots? You are the very definition of hypocrite!

</blockquote>

Yes, .... that was a dastardly shot, eh, tom.

After I don't know how many times noodles has disparaged my posts, I finally comment on her habit and you think it's just so awful.

Poor tom, unsettled again.

---

I think this is more suited to the Pub/Bar Seti rather than Cafe. It so ugly to have a brawl where there are young kids. Yeah and the topic.......yaaawwwwnnnnnnn....wont keep me awake. If yall short of cash....print some more lol!

---

<blockquote>>fussy, er ..... fuzzy, (fuzzy?)
</blockquote>

After this shot, Paul, you have the nerve to complain about cheap shots? You are the very definition of hypocrite!

>doesn't go well with the voters! They simply don't like to be talked down to.

fussy, er ..... fuzzy, (fuzzy?)


See the answer I provided for rocky.....

maybe you'll be less inclined to make off hand aspersions and assumptions.....

------------------------------------------

....and when all of you are done with your cheap shots, I'll repost the information that is the subject matter of the thread.

---

<blockquote>Paul,
With all the problems you claim have been the result of this Republican Administration's negligence to "reality" and with all the knowledge you possess in knowing what the answers are to fix them and how to turn the Federal Government into a lean machine,
[snip]
..as Secretary Of The Treasury, what could we expect our lives to be like with you at the helm?
Why is it that you have not been elected by your own community?
Do you carry yourself in the same manner in your hometown that you do here? I imagine that is why you use this forum to bash the present Administration.....Your community turned the channel!

Rocky</blockquote>

Yes, Rocky, I think you answered this yourself! Paul Zimmerman's "love" for the English language and his idiom, his habit of condescendingly talking down to the little people, us, the illiterate plebeian mob, his hate for people who are able to express themselves, and his feeling of being superiour doesn't go well with the voters! They simply don't like to be talked down to and to have to carry thesauri of different kind, just to understand his syntax and rhetoric.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

End Not in Sight for Interest Rate Hikes



(AP) - WASHINGTON-The Federal Reserve, worried about climbing inflation, pushed a key interest rate higher Tuesday and signaled that Americans' borrowing costs are likely to keep climbing in the months ahead.

Fed policy-makers, walking a tightrope, are confronted with two challenging economic forces: rising inflation pressures on the one hand and slowing economic growth on the other.

Higher interest rates are a defense against rising inflation. But when it is more expensive to borrow money, some consumers and businesses are less inclined to spend and invest, factors that would further chill an already cooling economy.

"The Fed, while acknowledging the slowdown in the economy, is focused more on inflation.

_____________________________________________________

I understand there's a story about a 'runaway bride' on the other channel.
____________________________________________________-

Rocky, since you're so interested in who I am that you've done some incomplete research, I don't have any problems with telling you about my attempt to unseat a long term incumbent here.

I live in a borough, similar to a county government. Our borough is a little over 25,000 square miles. About the size of Massachusetts. Out of a population of over 50,000 people my election bid fell short by a mere 90 vote swing, and it was a three way race.

That is the closest anyone has come to unseating this incumbent. I received wide ranging support and, frankly, I was somewhat surprised that I did as well as I did. That's not because of a feeling that I couldn't do the job, but an opinion of how conservative the demographics are.

At the outset, my campaign was only designed to speak to some issues, I had no real expectations that I would end up a leading candidate. I didn't even spend more than a couple thousand for a few signs. No radio, no tv. Just lot's of door to door and participation in some sponsored candidate forums.

I'm not ashamed to say I'm humbled by the wide support I received in that election bid.

People I don't know well and who I know are ardent Republicans still stop me on the street and tell me they wish I would have won, and any number of folks keep encouraging me to take another run.

Make fun of democratic processes, make light of someone's chances to participate in elected politics..... just demonstrates a certain flippant attitude towards process, if you ask me.

Not much more than another attempt to discredit the message by attempting to demean the messenger.

---

Paul,
With all the problems you claim have been the result of this Republican Administration's negligence to "reality" and with all the knowledge you possess in knowing what the answers are to fix them and how to turn the Federal Government into a lean machine, why is it that you have not been elected into Political office in your own Burrough. You could lead by example. Once the Federal Government sees how you can turn around your Burrough...Island...then the State of Alaska, the Government could tap you to be the next Greenspan. Hell what am I saying, you could be unbelievably better than Greenspan Right? After all the Government wants the best of the best. The brighest of the bright.Economists, advisors etc. Hey why stop there, Govenors, Senators, Representatives. Oh but then what would you say, it is only those with the most money , that can buy the most influence that get positions like that.
Paul...as Secretary Of The Treasury, what could we expect our lives to be like with you at the helm?
Why is it that you have not been elected by your own community?
Do you carry yourself in the same manner in your hometown that you do here? I imagine that is why you use this forum to bash the present Administration.....Your community turned the channel!



Rocky

---

www.boincsynergy.com

>Woah! What person am I attacking? Do you think the fictitious person in my post had its >feelings hurt? Are you living in a fantasy world, or have you stopped taking your
>medication?


Your 'ficticious' person act is disingenuous, do you think you fooled anyone claiming
that you did not 'aim' your post? .......Speaking of hogwash...
-------
Are my 'feelings' hurt? No, but it does demonstrate the childish act you bring to the table.



>So, when you sell your house you can charge half-price for it. First you say investing in
>houses is not liquid, then you say money tied up in mortgages is fueling consumer
>spending. So which is it–is the money tied up or is it being spent? It’s fun when you
>contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

No contradiction at all, tom.

Your house is not nearly as liquid as other investments... often in a falling housing market, one will not find a buyer. So if you have a large percentage of your assets tied up in your house and a falling market, you will not easily shift your assets to another more lucritive investment vehicle. Ask any investment advisor, it's a common rule to consider when investing in real estate. Lack of simple liquidity can be a detriment.

As to mortgage monery fueling the economic spending by consumers, that's also common knowledge. Consumer debt is sky high. Easy financing and refinancing is credited with fueling the increase in consumer debt. Those who say home ownership is at an all time high are not giving recognition to the fact that few of the new home'owners' actually have much equity in their new houses. Home ownership actually rests with the banks, credit unions, and refinancers. Again, this is not disputed by any but seemingly you.

>That’s a lot of hogwash. The middle class is paying less in taxes now;

If one only considers 'income' tax it may appear so, but add in all federal taxes, consider the loss of state and local revenue sharing due to shrinking federal revenue and program cuts and you will find that the overall tax burden on the middle class has increased.

>savings is low due to people taking advantage of “bargains” in the real estate market

savings is low because not very many people have the extra cash to increase their savings. Those 'bargains' in the real estate market you speak of are being financed, and refinanced again. That financed debt is where the money is coming from that has fueled consumer spending. Again, seems it's only you who disputes that.

>and due to increased spending as consumer confidence rises.

Consumer confidence? Haven't been following the news, eh? Consumer confidence just hit an 11 month low.

>And even if the fed interest-rate rises 100 points (that’s 1%) that would be a 4% Fed Fund rate, which is quite low.

It will equate to a much higher rate to the average borrower. The Fed rate is what the banks can get the money for.... check interest rates for the consumer and it's always higher than the Fed rate.

A famous Alaskan politician once said he would consider tax incentives to lure new industry and businesses. Maybe you know the guy: he said, “Certainly we should explore all avenues to attract business, all methods to grow our economic opportunities”. Now that guy understood that tax policy can and should be used to spur economic growth.

Many a study has shown that the return on tax initiatives rarely recoup the costs. These tax incentives account for what's commonly known as 'corporate welfare'. That famous Alaska politician you speak of maybe should explain why the promises of the tax initiatives and incentives have resulted in a net loss to state revenues. (Guess who's making up the shortfall?) Less revenue, less state revenue sharing, increased local and municipal tax to make up for the loss.


With interest rates so low, using an adjustable mortgage is just a poor economic decision. If you can’t afford 4 to 6% fixed-rate mortgages you should reconsider your decision to buy a house. In fact, bad economic decisions can and do lead to bankruptcy, which is no longer such an easy route for people who either make bad decisions or want to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy laws are not eliminated, they have just been tightened.

Adjustable rate mortgages may be a poor decision. That hasn't prevented the banks and the refinancers from touting them and it hasn't prevented the average borrower from taking the bait. The Mortgage Bankers Association reports that ARMs accounted for almost 46 percent of all new mortgages in 2004 and 32 percent of all applications.

The housing affordability index for first time home buyers is also slipping. If this decline in affordability continues, it can weigh on home sales and appreciation rates as new buyers are priced out of the market.


>Greenspan also said the economy is undergoing a vigorous expansion, as inflation and job growth remain low.

What the Fed did was raise interest rates in hopes of containing rising inflation.... and yes, the Fed did note job creation was stagnant. Greenspan noted productivity was still expanding but the productivity rise was not producing investment or jobs. Usually rising productivity is accompanied by increases in wage growth, but wages are still slipping.

Most every news story on the economy lately has talked of the slowing or the 'soft patch' ahead. Funny that you haven't noticed that, do you actually read the news or maybe you could show us your sources for this contradictory information only you seem to have access to.



>Yet you oppose additional drilling in the US.

No, that's not a true representation of my beliefs at all.

Oil prices are high and what's surprising is that inventories are also very high. It's in the news tom, you should read it sometime.

I noted that drilling in ANWAR won't change our dependance on foreign oil as claimed. I've noted that as long as we can purchase oil on the market we should be wary of drilling and selling our oil overseas. There will come a time when we need what oil is produced here, I see no reason to give it away just for short term profits when it may serve a more vital need in the future. Again, you mischaracterize my stance on drilling to suit your bias.

>See Greenspan’s statement, above. Employment is definitely not down, we have been adding jobs, though not as quickly as everyone wants (don't confuse lower job growth with lower employment).

Don't compare lagging job growth with lower employment figures? That would be one way to ignore reality. We need a net job growth of something like 150, 000 new jobs a month to provide employment for new job applicants entering the job market each month. Each month we lag behind that number we have created a net loss in employment. You're funny tom, ..... don't compare job growth to employment.... heh heh

See any study you want to quote from tom. Employment is down, job growth is lagging, and the job growth that was promised as a benefit to the tax cuts never materialized.

Economic growth has slowed to the weakest pace in two years. The rate of GDP growth is down, job growth is down, wage growth is lagging, retail sales are falling, factory production is falling, new orders for manufactured goods has declined, and interest rates are rising.

>Hyperbole? From you Paul? Since when is 3.3% inflation (last year's rate) a
>“precipitous level”? Now, during the Carter years, the 15 to 18% inflation was much
>worse (and it took Ronald Reagan’s economic policies to clean up that mess, at the
>same time that he was destroying communism), but even the Carter years do not
>compare to inflation rates in many other countries during true economies hard times.

Rising inflation rates were the cause of the Fed's raise in interest rates. Their hope is to contain rising inflation through those tightening efforts. Any number of scenerios, such as additional trade imbalances, or a shock to the oil supply could result in runaway inflation. Hyperbole, .... no, just what can happen.

Invoking Carter or Reagan is a fun exercise for you tom, but you don't mention that Reagan's tax cuts resulted in trickle down economics.... remember the tax increases that Reagan began before his term was over? The subsequent tax increases necessary to even out the losses? Funny your 'history' is not complete...

>What economist is that, certainly not your fellow Alaskan, Paul Zipferbrains. Greenspan >and the Fed seem to think the economy is going well. You must hang with the wrong
>croud of economists.

You may have misread Tuesday's Fed Reports, tom. Lagging economic indicators and a steeper than forecast rise in inflation were cited in the report as reasons to raise interest rates. Perhaps the US Commerce Dept economists might fit your bill, read any of their reports lately? Standard and Poor's analysts? The Fed governors, past and present. (contrary to your saying they think the economy is 'going well', to a man they have stated quite the opposite and their actions bear that out.)

The falling dollar, the increasing trade imbalance, unfunded liabilities and the increasing deficit problems just add to the overall uncertainty in the economy. Black hole? I don't think that's what I've been saying. I have said that economic policy is ignoring what the indicators are showing.

Not addressing the problems with our economic outlook, could very well lead to disastrous consequences.... Not being cautious, not curbing spending, continuing to erode federal revenue and continuing to borrow to fund our shortfall is not good policy.

---

<blockquote>DING DING DING! We have a winner!

[Although I feel at this point a "thread closed" would be appropriate I don't have the time tonight to answer for it in the Flame thread.]</blockquote>

Oh, it's not necessary to close the thread, it may be resurrected again if appropriate.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!



[Although I feel at this point a "thread closed" would be appropriate I don't have the time tonight to answer for it in the Flame thread.]

> [Edit] Fuzzy, pass the popcorn.

OK!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Paul Zimmerman wrote:
Yet another attempt to . . . make unfounded and mean-spirited attacks on another person...

Woah! What person am I attacking? Do you think the fictitious person in my post had its feelings hurt? Are you living in a fantasy world, or have you stopped taking your medication?

The housing bubble has serious consequences for investment down the road . . .

So, when you sell your house you can charge half-price for it. First you say investing in houses is not liquid, then you say money tied up in mortgages is fueling consumer spending. So which is it–is the money tied up or is it being spent? It’s fun when you contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

Interest rates were cut, but the ensuing rise in the deficit and loss of federal tax revenue has shifted the tax burden to the middle class . . . a 5.5% Fed fund rate is quite likely.

That’s a lot of hogwash. The middle class is paying less in taxes now; savings is low due to people taking advantage of “bargains” in the real estate market and due to increased spending as consumer confidence rises. And even if the fed interest-rate rises 100 points (that’s 1%) that would be a 4% Fed Fund rate, which is quite low.

A famous Alaskan politician once said he would consider tax incentives to lure new industry and businesses. Maybe you know the guy: he said, “Certainly we should explore all avenues to attract business, all methods to grow our economic opportunities”. Now that guy understood that tax policy can and should be used to spur economic growth.

If the Fed fund rate gets anywhere near 5.5, interest payments on all those variable rate adjustable mortgage loans will squeeze consumer spending beyond most American's ability to balance their personal budgets . . . families will be forced into bankruptcy . . . recently enacted Bankruptcy 'reform' legislation has eliminated protections through bankruptcy

With interest rates so low, using an adjustable mortgage is just a poor economic decision. If you can’t afford 4 to 6% fixed-rate mortgages you should reconsider your decision to buy a house. In fact, bad economic decisions can and do lead to bankruptcy, which is no longer such an easy route for people who either make bad decisions or want to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy laws are not eliminated, they have just been tightened.

Greenspan has stated the his advice was not followed by the present administration.

Greenspan also said the economy is undergoing a vigorous expansion, as inflation and job growth remain low.

. . . this administration has refused to release oil from our strategic reserves . . .

Yet you oppose additional drilling in the US.

Despite tax cuts promising to fuel investment, business investment is down, inventories are over stocked, consumer spending has slowed, wages have fallen, employment is stilll down, wholesale prices have risen...

See Greenspan’s statement, above. Employment is definitely not down, we have been adding jobs, though not as quickly as everyone wants (don't confuse lower job growth with lower employment).

Current account deficits, unfunded liabilities, and the falling dollar has pushed inflation to precipitous levels.

Hyperbole? From you Paul? Since when is 3.3% inflation (last year's rate) a “precipitous level”? Now, during the Carter years, the 15 to 18% inflation was much worse (and it took Ronald Reagan’s economic policies to clean up that mess, at the same time that he was destroying communism), but even the Carter years do not compare to inflation rates in many other countries during true economies hard times.

But according to a frustrated apologist for a failed economic policy maker, the economy couldn't look better.

Who would that be Paul? I never said the economy couldn't look better, I am saying it not the black hole you think it is.

Any attempt to have a discussion of where we're at or why is met with derision that ignores reality.

How ironic that you accused someone else of ignoring reality.

Hopefully, people will have the sense to look beyond the ramblings of a frustrated ideologue who wants so badly to believe in his hero that he's willing to ignore and attempt to distort reality any way he can to preserve his vision that down is really up.

You can’t call me an ideologue! I called you that first (#76677). Still not an original thought in your head. So, if down is up, then when the stock market gained 125 points today, was it really down? You are confusing me.

A question that should be answered is why the general consensus on the economy by those who study the economy is that both the economy and the market are headed for a continueing and steeper slide in the future . . .

What economist is that, certainly not your fellow Alaskan, Paul Zipferbrains. Greenspan and the Fed seem to think the economy is going well. You must hang with the wrong croud of economists.

It doesn't take a genius to look at your own investments for indications of how well or how miserably current economic policy is performing.

Is that what this is all about? You mean to say that all this ranting is simply because your investments are not performing well? I had a feeling you were selfish, but I had no idea . . .

[Edit] Fuzzy, pass the popcorn.