Messages

[YOU NEED TO CUT BACK ON SPENDING]

Don't know where you went to School HB but as in any household, if you're spending more money than you're bringing in, YOU NEED TO CUT BACK ON SPENDING
you could of course go out and get a third or forth job but oh that's right, there aren't any

TO, you are correct, if there is an issues in a household that would be a fairly common sense approach all right, however this isn't a household we're talking about, its the biggest economy in the world and the economics are just a teensy weensy bit more complicated.

Stopping giving a free ride to the richest people in America, and the associated tax income increase. Closing the huge corporate tax loopholes for special interest, huge associated tax increase. Paying a sensible amount of tax at the pump, huge associated tax increase. All those tax increases, and add in the economic benefit of government increased spending and look what we have here- a balanced budget worst case, or heaven forbid even a surplus.

Multiplier effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_(economics) would show that the increase in government spending domestically would actually strengthen the economy, bring more people back to work and increase the amount of money being spent in the economy.

But I see your point, the tea party would rather run the economy as if it were a household, specifically a born again red neck, god bless america, left school at 16, husband wife and two kids with a white picket fence with an income of 20 grand working for an american car company that wouldn't be in existence if big government hadn't already bailed it out against the tea party's own economic policy. Oh wait, it doesn't have an economic policy that any sane person could actually make work in the united states economy of $14.5 trillion dollars per year, or 20% of the global GDP.

in case i wasn't clear on my point IF YOU CUT BACK ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING YOU ARE FUCKED

[The President Surrenders]

I have to take my hat of to the tea party here, they took a complete and utter non issue politically here and hyped it so much that they used it as a rod to beat the democrats into pushing legislation through which is absolutely detrimental to the economy of the US. Not a single tax increase anywhere, just a cut on spending to placate those idiots that think reducing spending is the way to get out of a financial crisis.

The credit default that was warned of will be avoided, but the fact that the tea party had the wherewithal to manipulate the entire political system and to put the US economy at risk, is sufficient for the credit agencies to realize that if can happen, and that the US should be downgraded on that basis alone.

Not only this but the tea party has used a non issue to influence the entire US political system. The economic policies of the last 8 years are home to roost and the idiots in the Democratic party seem content to let them happen on their watch.

I despair...

Nobel Prize Winner for Economics Paul Krugman in todays New York Times :

The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN


A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America's long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn't work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won't even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren't accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it's just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn't, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn't taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we're witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn't over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won't be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation's economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can't.

those are v long odds on Bourdy...

Beck strikes again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/26/glenn-beck-norwegian-dead-hitler

Glenn Beck, the rightwing US broadcaster and Tea Party favourite, has compared those who were massacred on the Norwegian island of Utøya to the Nazi party's youth wing.

"There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics. Disturbing," said Beck on his syndicated radio show.

The comments were condemned by Torbjørn Eriksen, a former press secretary to Jens Stoltenberg, Norway's prime minister.

Eriksen described the comment as "a new low" for Beck, telling the Daily Telegraph: "Young political activists have gathered at Utøya for over 60 years to learn about and be part of democracy, the very opposite of what the Hitler Youth was about. Glenn Beck's comments are ignorant, incorrect and extremely hurtful."

Sagging ratings, a string of damaging remarks and an exodus of advertisers combined earlier this year to end Beck's tenure on the US cable network Fox News.

A campaign to pressure advertisers to boycott the pundit's daily slot had been gathering pace, while Beck was embroiled in battles erupting from his frequently aired conspiracy theories involving individuals ranging from the financier George Soros to Barack Obama.

His denunciation of Soros included reference to his wartime childhood in Hungary. In remarks that were decried as "monstrous" by Jewish groups, the broadcaster claimed: "Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps."

However, his latest comments about the "disturbing" nature of political youth camps may come as a surprise to Beck's followers in the Tea Party movement.

The anti-tax, anti-immigration movement has been holding summer camps in states including Florida and Missouri where children have been taught a curriculum based on God, the US constitution and "the defence of economic liberty".

Its over in the fifth.

How Judah can say that shot caught him in the balls - I dunno

agreed! he's some balls on him, and claiming he thought he was getting a standing 8 count when he was on his knees was pretty ballsy too.

Khan looked at least a weight class above, and Judah was looking for an easy way out.

Despite HBO doing a Mayweather Hard Knocks special- tough to get into a fight thats 7-1.

Money vs Pacquiao or nothing at the minute, is there another fight out there that gets anyone new interested in boxing?

The thing about Darren is that there'll be a 76 carded at some stage.

he can post 76 from here til next year, and he'll still have the 2M cheque from Dunlop golf...

international boxing...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7db_1309474929

How bout those job figures the day lads... to label him an empty suit would be
a spectacular understatement 

Jaysis TO a little context:
Thats like: how about that Gay marriage thing in NY?
Roe vs Wade too, where's that repeal?

There may be a strong case for the blanket banning of all flags, and kerb painting and bunting and arches and all the other territory marking BS

Im guessing he means a hand cart

brilliant buttery biscuit base

i liked wee barry's take on it, Wlad has been knocked down 12 times by poor punchers, hayes is a excellent puncher and if he lands one its over. klitscko is technically strong, and obviously huge, but I do think haye can beat him, he is unbelievably fast

ireland could be in the 2015 world cup...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/28/cricket-world-cup-ireland

looks like Wickham is off to Sunderand- however Diego would be a fine recruit, not really convinced by the Wayne Bridge story though

Armagh should win by at least 10/12 points, anything less would be a bad result

I'll have some of what you're having!

Armagh not winning would be a bad result, that is all...