| #1 - Posted 26 January 2012, 2:51 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | Watch Out For 2013 Quote: JIM ROGERS: Watch Out For 2013 Experts are increasingly pointing to 2013--not 2012--as the new year of doom. Peter Orszag warned of a gathering storm of expiring tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts, and another debt ceiling fight headed for the U.S. Meanwhile, WPP chief Martin Sorrell also said the U.S. should watch for 2013. Jim Rogers is another big name in the 2013-is-the-end-of-the-world camp. In an interview with the Economic Times, Rogers said the U.S. economy is only being "juiced up" before the elections and the the armageddon in Europe has just been postponed: "Of course you have the American government spending staggering amounts of money right now, printing a lot of money and getting ready for the election. It happens every four years in America. They do their best to get the economy juiced up so they can win the election. …They [ECB] have postponed Armageddon, I am glad you put it that way. We discussed before here that 2013 and 2014 are what I am most worried about because this year everybody is trying to just get through the next election. There are 40 elections in 2012. Everybody is going to do their best to get us through the election. Watch out for 2013." http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rogers-watch-out-for-2013-2012-1 Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |
| Advertisement | |
Sponsored Links | |
| #2 - Posted 26 January 2012, 2:55 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Quote: "Give the guy a printing press, he’s going to run it as fast as he can." Rogers has long been critical of Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and quantitative easing: "Dr. Bernanke unfortunately does not understand economics, he does not understand currencies, he does not understand finance. His whole intellectual career has been based on the study of printing money." ![]() Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |
| #3 - Posted 26 January 2012, 4:35 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: March 2008 Member #: 522 Posts: 5804 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Quote: anthonyC previously said: Quote: JIM ROGERS: Watch Out For 2013 Experts are increasingly pointing to 2013--not 2012--as the new year of doom. Peter Orszag warned of a gathering storm of expiring tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts, and another debt ceiling fight headed for the U.S. Meanwhile, WPP chief Martin Sorrell also said the U.S. should watch for 2013. Jim Rogers is another big name in the 2013-is-the-end-of-the-world camp. In an interview with the Economic Times, Rogers said the U.S. economy is only being "juiced up" before the elections and the the armageddon in Europe has just been postponed: "Of course you have the American government spending staggering amounts of money right now, printing a lot of money and getting ready for the election. It happens every four years in America. They do their best to get the economy juiced up so they can win the election. …They [ECB] have postponed Armageddon, I am glad you put it that way. We discussed before here that 2013 and 2014 are what I am most worried about because this year everybody is trying to just get through the next election. There are 40 elections in 2012. Everybody is going to do their best to get us through the election. Watch out for 2013." http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rogers-watch-out-for-2013-2012-1 Clicked the link above and saw the picture of Jim Robers. Although, much of what he says deserves attention and credit, I am not so sure about taking too serious a guy who wears a bow tie with a red satin, Chinese Tang suit jacket. |
Post IP/Country: 168.221.159.3* / US | |
| #4 - Posted 26 January 2012, 5:14 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: July 2009 Member #: 3112 Posts: 786 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 ![]() spending like Bush and Reagan you mean |
Post IP/Country: 65.184.182.11* / US | |
| #5 - Posted 26 January 2012, 5:18 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: July 2009 Member #: 3112 Posts: 786 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience. "Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said. Controversy ahead The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody." Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You] "The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists." Brains and bias Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican] In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100. Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.) As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias. People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races. "This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science. A study of averages Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said. "There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said. Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally. "We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap." Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice." In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked] Simple viewpoints Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible. The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general. "My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful." Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ. "There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts. http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html |
Post IP/Country: 65.184.182.11* / US | |
| #6 - Posted 26 January 2012, 7:19 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Quote: benforpeace previously said: ![]() spending like Bush and Reagan you mean Wow. Really pulling out that tired old lie???? Quote: A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 09/29/2011 There’s a saying attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like this: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Try as we might at The Fact Checker, we find that no matter how many times we clearly identify an untruth — such as a ridiculous e-mail on Obama’s health-care plan — it still keeps popping up, months later. So imagine our surprise when we found in our Facebook feed this week a chart, purporting to show how Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — had increased the debt by a significantly greater percentage than either Bill Clinton or President Obama. Pretty impressive chart, “liked” by at least 7,000 people on a posting by the liberal group MoveOn.org. But this chart, originally created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Our friends at PolitiFact did a pretty thorough takedown of it in May, giving it their worst rating: “pants on fire.” They even caught the Pelosi people in a bad mathematical error, based on the fact that the Democrats calculated the numbers as if Obama took office a year later than he did. That error greatly reduced Obama’s supposed percentage increase (from 35 percent to 16 percent) and boosted George W. Bush’s increase (from 86 percent to 115 percent). Pelosi’s office corrected the math error after it was spotted by PolitiFact, but amazingly, the chart that turned up in several places in our Facebook feed was the old chart. But even with the corrected number, this is still a Four-Pinocchio whopper. Let’s explain why. The Facts The person who posted this on Facebook noted: “From the US Treasury Dept — any questions?” But it actually is not a Treasury Department calculation, just manipulated data taken from the Treasury Web site. The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. For instance, as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same. The chart also cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show “public debt” but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt. Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness, at least among economists. If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league — 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush — even though Bush served as president much longer. But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time. If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush. Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points (Note: We derived most of these data from table 7.1 of the budget office historical tables, which gives end-of-fiscal year figures, so they do not quite match up to presidential terms. Obama’s figures are based on the GDP: public debt ratio as of June 30, 2011) Update: David Clayton, one of our dedicated readers, crunched the numbers for calendar years and shows that, in the transition from Bush to Obama, adjusting the dates makes a difference in the result. His math shows that a more accurate figure would be plus 11.6 percentage points for Bush and plus 19.7 percentage points for Obama. The shift doesn’t change the overall result but divides up the responsibility for the debt more accurately. In a later column, we also posted other ways that readers suggested to look at presidential debt records. One can offer reasons for why Obama’s performance appears so poor, including the fact that he is battling a recession. An improvement in the nation’s economy would boost the gross domestic product, which would certainly begin to reduce his ratio. But the fact remains that under basic economic measures, not phony ones, his record on the growth of the national debt is the worst of recent presidents. (We make that statement using the logic of Pelosi’s office, which pins all of the growth of the debt on individual presidents. In reality, many factors, including the economy, wars and congressional actions, contribute to the rise of the debt.) The Pinocchio Test If MoveOn.org or Pelosi’s office had any sense of shame, they would have quietly removed the links to this chart from their websites when PolitiFact gave it a “pants on fire” rating four months ago. The fact that an outdated version is still floating around — and that people are still deluded into thinking it to be correct — is doubly shameful. Four Pinocchios http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |
| #7 - Posted 26 January 2012, 7:21 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Quote: benforpeace previously said: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. I always said that Liberals are dumb. Now you have posted and article to prove it. Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |
| #8 - Posted 26 January 2012, 8:09 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: December 2007 Member #: 4 Posts: 17818 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 benforpeace previously said: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. i have said that a million times, in reference to anthonyc. |
Post IP/Country: 200.88.169.23* / DO | |
| #9 - Posted 26 January 2012, 11:36 PM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Quote: dreadlocks previously said: benforpeace previously said: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. i have said that a million times, in reference to anthonyc. Sweety. Everybody knows that it is the Left who believes in institutional racism and prejudice. Haven't you ever heard of Affirmative Action? Racial Quotas? Political Correctness? Wow..It must SUCK TO BE YOU!!!! Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |
| #10 - Posted 27 January 2012, 10:55 AM | |
Location: United States Join date: June 2008 Member #: 933 Posts: 7988 | RE: Watch Out For 2013 Good news for Dready!!! ![]() Quote: Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01/26/2012 08:05 AM ET If the Republican primaries are any indication, one big debate in the upcoming election will be whether President Obama is pushing the country toward a European-style welfare culture. Mitt Romney, for example, argues that "over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society." Newt Gingrich has taken to calling Obama "the best food-stamp president in American history." Obama, in contrast, says the government must play an increasing role — what he likes to call "shared responsibility" — to ensure a society that is fairer. So is Obama turning the country into a welfare society and away from one focused on opportunity? While it's true that the country has been headed in this direction for many years — with the explosion in entitlements since the 1960s and the aging of the population — Obama has, in fact, greatly accelerated the trend. Examples: Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama's last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending. People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries. Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan. Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama's first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead. http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm Edited on 1/27/2012 10:55 AM by anthonyC. Proof of dreadlocks Bigotry. "....... what did Cubans do to deserve preferential treatment?......and treat Black people in the most racist of ways.......... the Cubans are just a bunch of uberracist savages." : I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY POSTS BY THE BIGOT KNOWN AS DREADLOCKS. |
Post IP/Country: 98.254.152.12* / US | |


