Q. Obama never tires of telling us that the economy was in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression when he entered office, as if he was the only President to have suffered a recession early in his term. But nobody expected that he would use the vast powers of the most powerful office in the world to make it worse. But that is what he has done.
Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”
The Journal elaborated, “The President portrays the financial decline of American families on his watch as part of a decades-long trend. He’s wrong. Real income for middle income households rose by roughly 30% from 1983 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” And MSNBC hosts, listen up, you might learn something. The Journal further explains, “The political left likes to blame the ebbing of union power. But non-government unionization fell dramatically in the 1980s and 90s, and incomes rose.”
True, income growth lagged from where it should have been during the Bush years. But that only reflected the abandonment of half of Reagan’s economic program during those years. While Bush’s tax rate reductions did promote growth, Bush and the Republican Congress lost control of federal spending during the 2000s. Federal spending as a percent of GDP increased by one-seventh during the Bush years, almost exactly reversing the gains that had been won under Speaker Gingrich’s Republican Congress in the 1990s. (Clinton played a good rhetorical game appearing to fight the spending reductions, but deserves great credit for substantively giving into them in the end.)
But more important by far was that the Bush Fed abandoned the Reagan/Clinton strong dollar monetary policy for a cheap dollar, Keynesian style monetary policy, falling for the dopey Keynesian line that a cheap currency promotes exports. The Bush Treasury Secretaries cheered this debasement of the Fed’s monetary policy, reflecting the dark cloud of reemerging Keynesian influence on national economic policy.
What is overlooked is that a declining dollar may reduce the prices of American exports, but it makes the entire nation poorer in the process, reducing the international purchasing power of every dollar every American worker earns, and reducing the international value of every asset owned by every American investor, business entrepreneur, and property owner.
The problem is that Obama has only greatly accelerated everything Bush did wrong, and reversed everything Bush did right. So Obama’s spending has skyrocketed the federal budget by nearly one-fourth as a percent of GDP in just one term. Moreover, the Obama Fed has abandoned any semblance of control over monetary policy, buying most of the soaring federal debt issued to finance Obama’s record smashing federal deficits with newly printed money (actually created by computer record, a sort of cyberprinting). Of course, the whole point of Obama’s tax policy has been to more than reverse the Bush tax rate cuts, which is now already slated under current law to go into effect on January 1.
Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”
The Journal elaborated, “The President portrays the financial decline of American families on his watch as part of a decades-long trend. He’s wrong. Real income for middle income households rose by roughly 30% from 1983 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” And MSNBC hosts, listen up, you might learn something. The Journal further explains, “The political left likes to blame the ebbing of union power. But non-government unionization fell dramatically in the 1980s and 90s, and incomes rose.”
True, income growth lagged from where it should have been during the Bush years. But that only reflected the abandonment of half of Reagan’s economic program during those years. While Bush’s tax rate reductions did promote growth, Bush and the Republican Congress lost control of federal spending during the 2000s. Federal spending as a percent of GDP increased by one-seventh during the Bush years, almost exactly reversing the gains that had been won under Speaker Gingrich’s Republican Congress in the 1990s. (Clinton played a good rhetorical game appearing to fight the spending reductions, but deserves great credit for substantively giving into them in the end.)
But more important by far was that the Bush Fed abandoned the Reagan/Clinton strong dollar monetary policy for a cheap dollar, Keynesian style monetary policy, falling for the dopey Keynesian line that a cheap currency promotes exports. The Bush Treasury Secretaries cheered this debasement of the Fed’s monetary policy, reflecting the dark cloud of reemerging Keynesian influence on national economic policy.
What is overlooked is that a declining dollar may reduce the prices of American exports, but it makes the entire nation poorer in the process, reducing the international purchasing power of every dollar every American worker earns, and reducing the international value of every asset owned by every American investor, business entrepreneur, and property owner.
The problem is that Obama has only greatly accelerated everything Bush did wrong, and reversed everything Bush did right. So Obama’s spending has skyrocketed the federal budget by nearly one-fourth as a percent of GDP in just one term. Moreover, the Obama Fed has abandoned any semblance of control over monetary policy, buying most of the soaring federal debt issued to finance Obama’s record smashing federal deficits with newly printed money (actually created by computer record, a sort of cyberprinting). Of course, the whole point of Obama’s tax policy has been to more than reverse the Bush tax rate cuts, which is now already slated under current law to go into effect on January 1.
A. Under Bush we were losing 700,000 jobs PER MONTH. We have never had that many job losses under Obama, and we have consistently continued to gain jobs since Bush left office. In fact, Obama created more jobs in his first term than Bush created in 8 years.
Is this a good gaming desktop/desktop in general?
Q. I have a HP 15.6" Envy Notebook 8GB RAM, 750GB HD and heres the info on it
Includes Envy 15-3040NR notebook, eight-cell lithium-ion battery, AC adapter, Software Fundamentals Home Edition
2.2GHz second-generation Intel Core i7-2670QM processor, up to 3.1GHz with Turbo Boost
15.6" diagonal Radiance Full HD Infinity LED-backlit display with 1920x1080p resolution
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
750GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive with HP ProtectSmart
SuperMulti DVD burner
802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi
Bluetooth technology
Intel Wireless Display/WiDi-ready
Radeon HD 7690M switchable graphics with 1024MB GDDR5, up to 5093MB total graphics memory
Beats Audio with six speakers, subwoofer
HP TrueVision HD webcam, mic
10/100/1000 ethernet
SD, MMC memory card reader
Two USB 3.0 ports
USB 2.0, HDMI, DisplayPort, RJ-45 ports
Two headphone jacks
Mic jack
Kensington MicroSaver lock slot
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit
Microsoft Office 2010 Starter
2 years of Norton Internet Security 2012
Measures approximately 15"L x 9-5/8"W x 1-1/8"H; weighs 5.79 lbs
UL listed adapter; 1-year LMW
Made in China
All it does is lag and chop on video's and gets super hot. So I am getting a desktop with the below specs.
CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-3770K 3.50 GHz 8MB Intel Smart Cache LGA1155 (All Venom OC Certified)
HDD: 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD [+0] (Single Drive)
MEMORY: 16GB (4GBx4) DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory [+65] (Kingston HyperX [+0])
MOTHERBOARD: * [CrossFireX] GIGABYTE GA-Z77-HD3 Intel Z77 Chipset DDR3 ATX Mainboard w/ IRST, Ultra Durable 4 Classic, 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, 2x Gen3 PCIe x16, 2x PCIe x1 & 2 PCI (Extreme OC Certified)
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA)
Just wondering if this is real good?
Includes Envy 15-3040NR notebook, eight-cell lithium-ion battery, AC adapter, Software Fundamentals Home Edition
2.2GHz second-generation Intel Core i7-2670QM processor, up to 3.1GHz with Turbo Boost
15.6" diagonal Radiance Full HD Infinity LED-backlit display with 1920x1080p resolution
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
750GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive with HP ProtectSmart
SuperMulti DVD burner
802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi
Bluetooth technology
Intel Wireless Display/WiDi-ready
Radeon HD 7690M switchable graphics with 1024MB GDDR5, up to 5093MB total graphics memory
Beats Audio with six speakers, subwoofer
HP TrueVision HD webcam, mic
10/100/1000 ethernet
SD, MMC memory card reader
Two USB 3.0 ports
USB 2.0, HDMI, DisplayPort, RJ-45 ports
Two headphone jacks
Mic jack
Kensington MicroSaver lock slot
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit
Microsoft Office 2010 Starter
2 years of Norton Internet Security 2012
Measures approximately 15"L x 9-5/8"W x 1-1/8"H; weighs 5.79 lbs
UL listed adapter; 1-year LMW
Made in China
All it does is lag and chop on video's and gets super hot. So I am getting a desktop with the below specs.
CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-3770K 3.50 GHz 8MB Intel Smart Cache LGA1155 (All Venom OC Certified)
HDD: 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD [+0] (Single Drive)
MEMORY: 16GB (4GBx4) DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory [+65] (Kingston HyperX [+0])
MOTHERBOARD: * [CrossFireX] GIGABYTE GA-Z77-HD3 Intel Z77 Chipset DDR3 ATX Mainboard w/ IRST, Ultra Durable 4 Classic, 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, 2x Gen3 PCIe x16, 2x PCIe x1 & 2 PCI (Extreme OC Certified)
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0 Video Card (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA)
Just wondering if this is real good?
A. Honestly, that looks pretty excessive and pricey. If you're not already going to you might want to look into building you own computer with some of these. There's no way you're going to need all of that except for Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2, you might want to look into 1tb drive (If you need more a $70 external is the answer, 12 gb of RAM, move to an intel that does 3.1 ghz overclocking but then get a motherboard with two pins and use 8 cores instead of four, screw the sound card, you just need the cheapest integrated one you can get your hands on, Look into a 560 ti graphics card it's going to be way cheaper and you won't notice any differences.
These changes will probably save you $500 and you won't notice any game differences because anything over 64 fps will look the same to you.
These changes will probably save you $500 and you won't notice any game differences because anything over 64 fps will look the same to you.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar