Morgan Stanley: U.S. dangerously close to recession

[monicasilver]

I'll stop calling them Teabaggers when they stop saying Obamacare

You mean the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

My point was made and there isn't a need to defend the nitpicking.

I actually like teabagging. So, much like I would like the Gadsden Flag returned to its original glory, I would like teabagging returned too.

I'll agree that Obama Cares and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is in effect.

 

[monicasilver]

BTW, whatever happened to people (and supposed 'friends') being able to just dish and take good natured, albeit barbed ribbings from time to time??



Fucking people too serious all the time...a harmless poke or jab becomes an 'insult'.

I'm not exactly sure what the posting before this one was about. I think I can make out some of it that you were offended by some teasing and some jabs. I'm guessing the intent, but maybe a distorted view or paranoia too.

I'm willing to admit I've been offended by your posts directed at me. From this posting I can tell you've taken offense to some things that I or others have said as well. We're human. These things happen.

I'm willing to learn what not to do and wipe the slate clean if you are.

You spend a quite a bit more time on here than I do. I enjoy coming on when I have time and seeing what is out here and posting. I have no idea what your relationship with the owners of the site are and it is none of my business. You could own this site for all I know. I'm not willing to be insulted. I shouldn't insult you either.

 

[Trident1]

Obama

I like Otrauma. It decribes the whole scene.

 

[HeartBroker]

Morgan Stanley: U.S. 'dangerously close' to recession

In its report, Morgan Stanley lowered its global growth forecast to 3.9 percent this year from 4.2 percent, and to 3.8 percent in 2012 from 4.5 percent.

It also said the United States and Europe were "dangerously close" to a recession over the next 6 to 12 months. It said "policy errors" in both the United States and Europe had led to the global downgrade.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...y-close-to-recession-20110818,0,4812238.story


''O''-bummer

"...dangerously close..." ???

That's about the funniest thing I've heard since Carlin kicked the bucket!


:rofl2:

 

[D-rock]

I suspect the Republicans were against it because it was an Obama initiative.

I don't like it primarily because without tort reform, any health care plan isn't going to help. That is going to continue to drive the behaviors of the doctors to recommend specialists instead of providing more cost effective treatment. Adding administration on top of inefficient process doesn't make it more affordable.

I don't see either party tackling the issue.

I watched the news. Obama did ram it though. The vote being on party lines is a good indication of that. He also would not consider other alternatives and continually accused the Republicans of not having any. He was going to get his way, a better leader would have thought ahead and tried to create a better working relationship. Not that it would be easy, but in my opinion I only saw theater, not a genuine attempt to include both parties in the solution.

(Just my opinion on this, but calling the opposition names reduces your credibility. "Teabaggers" is derogatory even though it is in common usage. I think they are a group that act more on emotion than logic, but the reflection of using that term is on you.)

In Obama's defense here, the Republicans alternatives really REALLY sucked. (Not that what Obama came up with was perfect either.) If anything I think Obama compromised way to much and tried to play way to nicey nice with the republicans in the beginning, which was his major fault in the whole thing. All the while they just laughed at him and derailed every thing they could for the sake of doing so or the benefit of a relatively small amount of people.


The cost of health care is going up not because they didn't compromise enough, but because they didn't go nearly far enough. The only way it's going to ever get to be something good as far as cost goes is if we basically socialize the entire medical and health care industry. Unfortunately, to many people are scared of the socialist bogyman and that's not going to happen any time soon.

Tort reform isn't going to amount to much. Most studies I have seen have said it might make a 2 or 3 percent reduction in the cost of health care. (And even that's not taking into account what would also really happen with tort reform, like not being able to sue a doctor or organization that ruined somebody's life through negligence besides a relatively paltry amount that the government says your life is worth.) The real reason it's keeps climbing is because we have a very for profit system in an area that's a necessity to people and shouldn't be treated as a normal business. Of course that means people in the industry, like all businesses in our system, charge more BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, and they do no matter how much it screws up society.

 

[busenbust]

oh, as if we didn't know ! I will say again : we never even came out of the 2008 recession ! This is gonna get nasty. Buckle up folks !!

Nice thread Fac. :thumbsup:


{Thanks Morgan -- u fucking morons !! }/

 

[monicasilver]

In Obama's defense here, the Republicans alternatives really REALLY sucked. (Not that what Obama came up with was perfect either.) If anything I think Obama compromised way to much and tried to play way to nicey nice with the republicans in the beginning, which was his major fault in the whole thing. All the while they just laughed at him and derailed every thing they could for the sake of doing so or the benefit of a relatively small amount of people.


The cost of health care is going up not because they didn't compromise enough, but because they didn't go nearly far enough. The only way it's going to ever get to be something good as far as cost goes is if we basically socialize the entire medical and health care industry. Unfortunately, to many people are scared of the socialist bogyman and that's not going to happen any time soon.

Tort reform isn't going to amount to much. Most studies I have seen have said it might make a 2 or 3 percent reduction in the cost of health care. (And even that's not taking into account what would also really happen with tort reform, like not being able to sue a doctor or organization that ruined somebody's life through negligence besides a relatively paltry amount that the government says your life is worth.) The real reason it's keeps climbing is because we have a very for profit system in an area that's a necessity to people and shouldn't be treated as a normal business. Of course that means people in the industry, like all businesses in our system, charge more BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, and they do no matter how much it screws up society.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what "studies" you have seen, but I have seen articles supporting what you are saying. I think the general consensus of the articles is that tort reform will only impact about 1.5 -3%.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

I understand that. However, I do have quite a few doctors in my family and my belief is anecdotal. I still believe it. Every single doctor I have spoken to, and this is a favorite topic of mine has told me that tort reform is needed. Every single one of them have told me that it affects the way they treat patients and drives up costs much greater that 2%. They actually think it can double the cost of healthcare for about 50% of the patients. I haven't met a doctor that has not told me that they have not only referred patients needlessly in defense of their practice, but have also given treatment that may in fact hurt the patient in the long term because in doing so they were protected from legal action.

As I review and actually read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act my opinion changes. So, for me, the jury is still out.

I understand the conventional wisdom on tort reform. I think it is wrong.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm not exactly sure what the posting before this one was about. I think I can make out some of it that you were offended by some teasing and some jabs. I'm guessing the intent, but maybe a distorted view or paranoia too.

The occasion for me to be offended, insulted, etc. on an internet message board in particularly this one is exceedingly rare. The only time I ever came close to what would be described as offended or insulted was when some know-nuttin, wanna-be-spin thrift, wordsmith attempted to challenge the fact that I served in the military.

And that was only out of respect of the people I served along side of that I felt offense.

Not sure you how you could ever arrive at a conclusion that I was offended from what I posted. Especially since between the two us I have posted exactly 0 times to date the feeling of insult by post as compared to several accounts posted by you.

There is very little I can think of that I could remotely take serious enough (in mere words here) to be offended by. I don't even understand the type of person that could relate to feeling such away over what someone posts on a board.

I'm willing to admit I've been offended by your posts directed at me. From this posting I can tell you've taken offense to some things that I or others have said as well. We're human. These things happen.

I don't take nor haven't taken offense to anything you've stated. That was a misread of my post. Maybe I have been disappointed at some posts that I thought didn't serve what I believe your intellect to be well but maybe that was a misread of your intentions and or intellect on my part.

I'm willing to learn what not to do and wipe the slate clean if you are.

My post was an attempt to glean an understanding of people who get offended by tongue-in-cheek, comparitively harmless quips and snipes. Especially from so called 'friends'. "Why so serious?" People taking serious harmless snipes and an inability to simply laugh when someone is poking at them is the problem as they turn something this simple and harmless into insult-a-thons. I don't get it...this is a goofy internet forum where there are limited rules and people engage in semi-serious debate on contentious matters.

Again though, I will admit to having very little patience for people who act willfully ignorant and purposefully deceitful in trying to support their arguments. Stating a position derived from rank ignorance is forgivable assuming the person is able to simply acknowledge their error.

However, a person with the presumed knowledge and/or education to post reasonable appraisals of the facts then forgoing that in order to post what serves a viewpoint deserves to be ridiculed IMO. I will never change my opinion on that.:dunno:

You spend a quite a bit more time on here than I do.

I spend more time here than some and less time here than others. You spend more time here than some and less time here than others.

In coming days I won't be around much for two reasons;I have something hot right now. And it would seem the board is in even better hands with the contributions of accountantNOT here. The 'Hot Mega' version 2.0 (if that's not an insult to the man) as his posts are quite prodigious IMO and he has proven more than capable of holding down the fort. There was a time where the Hot Mega approach was necessary to beat back the shrillary.. That subsiding, there is probably more room for his less confrontational but extremely effective, reasonable approach to doing the same work.:2 cents:

I enjoy coming on when I have time and seeing what is out here and posting. I have no idea what your relationship with the owners of the site are and it is none of my business. You could own this site for all I know. I'm not willing to be insulted. I shouldn't insult you either.

Could be simply the interpretation you and some of your friends here have of 'insult' is just different from what other people consider it.

Strange though that your interpretation seems to be confusingly liberal considering your self professed affinity for degradation.

But I leave room for the possibility that I'm simply too ignorant on the subject of erotic degradation to know there is a distinction from someone who likes degradation sexually but is hypersensitive to what they perceive are personal 'insults'.:dunno:

In either case the point of my post wasn't to bury any proverbial hatchet as I wasn't aware their was a hatchet between you and I in need of burying. :dunno:

 

[monicasilver]

I'm not exactly sure what the posting before this one was about. I think I can make out some of it that you were offended by some teasing and some jabs. I'm guessing the intent, but maybe a distorted view or paranoia too.

The occasion for me to be offended, insulted, etc. on an internet message board in particularly this one is exceedingly rare. The only time I ever came close to what would be described as offended or insulted was when some know-nuttin, wanna-be-spin thrift, wordsmith attempted to challenge the fact that I served in the military.

And that was only out of respect of the people I served along side of that I felt offense.

Not sure you how you could ever arrive at a conclusion that I was offended from what I posted. Especially since between the two us I have posted exactly 0 times to date the feeling of insult by post as compared to several accounts posted by you.

There is very little I can think of that I could remotely take serious enough (in mere words here) to be offended by. I don't even understand the type of person that could relate to feeling such away over what someone posts on a board.

I don't take nor haven't taken offense to anything you've stated. That was a misread of my post. Maybe I have been disappointed at some posts that I thought didn't serve what I believe your intellect to be well but maybe that was a misread of your intentions and or intellect on my part.

My post was an attempt to glean an understanding of people who get offended by tongue-in-cheek, comparitively harmless quips and snipes. "Why so serious?" People taking serious harmless snipes and an inability to simply laugh when someone is poking at them is the problem as they turn something this simple and harmless into insult-a-thons. I don't get it...this is a goofy internet forum where there are limited rules and people engage in semi-serious debate on contentious matters.

Again though, I will admit to having very little patience for people who act willfully ignorant and purposefully deceitful in trying to support their arguments. Stating a position derived from rank ignorance is forgivable assuming the person is able to simply acknowledge their error.

However, a person with the presumed knowledge and/or education to post reasonable appraisals of the facts then forgoing that in order to post what serves a viewpoint deserves to be ridiculed IMO. I will never change my opinion on that.:dunno:

I spend more time here than some and less time here than others. You spend more time here than some and less time here than others.

In coming days I won't be around much for two reasons;I have something hot right now. And it would seem the board is in even better hands with the contributions of accountantNOT here. The 'Hot Mega' version 2.0 (if that's not an insult to the man) as his posts are quite prodigious IMO and he has proven more than capable of holding down the fort. There was a time where the Hot Mega approach was necessary to beat back the shrillary.. That subsiding, there is probably more room for his less confrontational but extremely effective, reasonable approach to doing the same work.:2 cents:



Could be simply the interpretation you and some of your friends here have of 'insult' is just different from what other people consider it.

Strange though that your interpretation seems to be confusingly liberal considering your self professed affinity for degradation.

But I leave room for the possibility that I'm simply too ignorant on the subject of erotic degradation to know there is a distinction from someone who likes degradation sexually but is hypersensitive to what they perceive are personal 'insults'.:dunno:

In either case the point of my post wasn't to bury any proverbial hatchet as I wasn't aware their was a hatchet between you and I in need of burying. :dunno:

I think this has completely gone off topic.

I wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking.

 

[abrogate]

I think this has completely gone off topic.

I wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking.

I'm guessing HotMega just likes to argue. I don't know him, just read a few of his posts, not even many of his posts. So, my guess is he just likes to argue to the point that unless if he feels that he is completely recognized for his skills and knowledge or he has completely vanquished his enemy, he has to keep arguing.

If you're looking for a debate, I would go elsewhere. :2 cents:

Just a guess. It is unsolicited, but this discussion was posted in private.

I know I could be wrong. I know people may not agree.

The only fact I'm sure of is once I hit "submit reply" I don't care.

:funnyshit:

 

[Hot Mega]

I think this has completely gone off topic.

I wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking.

I agree but would you have preferred I simply ignored your response here?

If your answer to that is, 'yes'. Then what was the point? If it is I could have responded in pvt., my answer would be that I would never respond in pvt. to specifics directed to me in a thread.

However, if there was an abstract thought posted by someone like you (like I posted) and it bore reflection on me or what I thought, I would then have taken the opportunity to reply in pvt. as that is the precise point where I could avert taking the thread off topic and possibly hijacking.

Re: Morgan Stanley....meh, let's wait and see.:2 cents:

I'm guessing HotMega just likes to argue.

:cussing: Keep guessing.:2 cents: Some people's best work only comes from guessing.

 

[busenbust]

oh, as if we didn't know ! I will say again : we never even came out of the 2008 recession ! This is gonna get nasty. Buckle up folks !!

Nice thread Fac. :thumbsup:


{Thanks Morgan -- u fucking morons !! }/

gonna be an interesting week folks ... buckle up: euro bonds? to avert financial disaster? Jackson Hole meeting with Bernanke -- what's he gonna do/say? Not many bullets left ... I am still gonna be trading forex/dow during this week -- what a ride this is gonna be . Last week: plus/minus 100 points in the dow within 3 secs. :shocked: fuck me !

 

[monicasilver]

I agree but would you have preferred I simply ignored your response here?

If your answer to that is, 'yes'. Then what was the point? If it is I could have responded in pvt., my answer would be that I would never respond in pvt. to specifics directed to me in a thread.

However, if there was an abstract thought posted by someone like you (like I posted) and it bore reflection on me or what I thought, I would then have taken the opportunity to reply in pvt. as that is the precise point where I could avert taking the thread off topic and possibly hijacking.

Re: Morgan Stanley....meh, let's wait and see.:2 cents:



:cussing: Keep guessing.:2 cents: Some people's best work only comes from guessing.

Hatchet buried. Apology accepted.

 

[monicasilver]

Hatchet buried. Apology accepted.

Is that an Orange Cat?

 

[Hot Mega]

Hatchet buried. Apology accepted.

Re: Dizzying intellect, I'll take that for what it's worth just like your interpretation of a year long debate amounting to ramming down GOPers' throats.:angels:

Consistent rationale right there.:hatsoff::o

 

[Hot Mega]

In Obama's defense here, the Republicans alternatives really REALLY sucked. (Not that what Obama came up with was perfect either.) If anything I think Obama compromised way to much and tried to play way to nicey nice with the republicans in the beginning, which was his major fault in the whole thing. All the while they just laughed at him and derailed every thing they could for the sake of doing so or the benefit of a relatively small amount of people.

:goodpost:

Not sure how someone could reasonably see what happened as anything other than what you just stated unless they have a personal stake in a spin (a GOPer) or are just myopic on the issue (a GOPer).

I mean, honestly unless you're a person just hell bent on seeing evenness in on an uneven circumstance in spite of the facts..it would not seem possible to be honest and reiterate GOPers feeling slapped. To consider what happened as the republicans having something to feel slapped over is a virtual joke IMO.

They won by getting the Demos to produce a spoiled version of a policy that a majority disliked...all the while voting against it.

GOPers had a stake in perpetuating a myth that it was rammed, etc. But who with a brain buys that knowing the facts???

If a person knows the facts yet perpetuates the notion that it was rammed by reiterating it as if the notion has a shred of credibility, what to make of that?

 

[abrogate]

I agree but would you have preferred I simply ignored your response here?

If your answer to that is, 'yes'. Then what was the point? If it is I could have responded in pvt., my answer would be that I would never respond in pvt. to specifics directed to me in a thread.

However, if there was an abstract thought posted by someone like you (like I posted) and it bore reflection on me or what I thought, I would then have taken the opportunity to reply in pvt. as that is the precise point where I could avert taking the thread off topic and possibly hijacking.

Re: Morgan Stanley....meh, let's wait and see.:2 cents:



:cussing: Keep guessing.:2 cents: Some people's best work only comes from guessing.

Thanks.

Your post proved that my guessing was correct.

 

[abrogate]

:goodpost:

Not sure how someone could reasonably see what happened as anything other than what you just stated unless they have a personal stake in a spin (a GOPer) or are just myopic on the issue (a GOPer).

I mean, honestly unless you're a person just hell bent on seeing evenness in on an uneven circumstance in spite of the facts..it would not seem possible to be honest and reiterate GOPers feeling slapped. To consider what happened as the republicans having something to feel slapped over is a virtual joke IMO.

They won by getting the Demos to produce a spoiled version of a policy that a majority disliked...all the while voting against it.

GOPers had a stake in perpetuating a myth that it was rammed, etc. But who with a brain buys that knowing the facts???

If a person knows the facts yet perpetuates the notion that it was rammed by reiterating it as if the notion has a shred of credibility, what to make of that?

D-Rock's point and the recognition are pretty much on target.

The Republicans are stuck in this "no tax" mantra that is self destructive and I find it hard to believe that they actually believe in it. Taking the hard line even if real cuts are outlined is destructive to more than just their selves.

I think what I'm reading in some of the other posts that you may be alluding to is that this Red v. Blue crap has got to stop. There is a civil war that is being waged between the two parties and every time one gets power the ideology swings the other way. If someone doesn't see that, then in my opinion they sold their soul to one side or the other.

It seems that since Clinton was impeached it has been more of the Red swing and Blue swing.

I think we're lucky for the moment since I don't remember much matching the ideology swing of 2000-2008. It is very much there though.

 

[Stranix]

Morgan Stanley: U.S. 'dangerously close' to recession

In its report, Morgan Stanley lowered its global growth forecast to 3.9 percent this year from 4.2 percent, and to 3.8 percent in 2012 from 4.5 percent.

It also said the United States and Europe were "dangerously close" to a recession over the next 6 to 12 months. It said "policy errors" in both the United States and Europe had led to the global downgrade.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...y-close-to-recession-20110818,0,4812238.story


''O''-bummer

I think right now the term recession is an outdated one because it is truly not a good representation of the economy if you base it off of GDP, or any other growth factors stat people throw in there.

I am a business man myself even educated with an MBA and I can tell you that we are still in a recession. Why? We are a consumer based economy which means that "We the People" need to buy to stimulate and grow the economy.

The problem is unemployment is still high but what is worse is under-employment. Under-employment is unemployments nasty twin because it works the same way. How?

Think of it like this, you're unemployed so you can't spend on anything that will stimulate the economy. Then you get a job but because here in the US where people have been out of work for a long time and are desperate, you feel lucky you got an offer but now your making 25% less than you were at your last job. So now you have a job, you reduce the country's unemployment rate, but can do nothing to stimulate the economy because you make just enough to make ends meet.

We are still in a recession.

 

[LukeEl]

Dangerously close really no way, I thought this was just the left overs from 4 years ago.