General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2151815

    “The economy is sound” White house says

    Locked

    by jdclyde ·

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090315/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

    The group that berated Senator McCain for saying the fundamentals of our economy are sound, has just said that our economy is sound.

    What does making the same statement Obama demonized say about both the man and the administration?

    Just one more credibility hit.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2752204

      I don’t allow a politician

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      credibility to begin with. Become a politician, lose all credibility as far as I’m concerned.

      What, you’re surprised? :0

      etu

      • #2752194

        But what will

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to I don’t allow a politician

        the Obamaholics say?

        What excuse will be made by his devout followers?

        • #2752193

          Dunno.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to But what will

          But I’m sure they’ll come up with some cheap rationalization the masses will believe.

          I frankly don’t think anyone out there in politics, or the mass media, is telling us the truth. I think it’s uglier than we’re being told, and I think it’s going to get uglier.
          Economically.

          I think all they’ve done with these bailouts is buy time. And probably not much of it.

          God help me, I hope I’m wrong.

        • #2778436

          The thought that bothers me most….

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Dunno.

          …about this entire situation is this:

          It seems as though people are acting increasingly as if there are no long term consequences for anything.

          I’m not a conspiracy nut; but the more I sit and think about that, the more it unsettles me for some reason.

        • #2778253

          The devil is in the details.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to The thought that bothers me most….

          Or, Biblically (and badly paraphrased at that) ‘Take care of the small stuff and the big stuff will take care of itself.’

          I’m old enough to remember when the least little traffic violation was considered a big deal. Chewing gum in class could get me suspended for a day. I could be flunked for bad penmanship. A lie was a lie no matter what color it was.

          All small stuff to some degree. But over the years the public eye has been guided to the big stuff – murder and mayhem to the nth degree. So much so that we now tend to ignore the small stuff in order to tackle the big stuff.
          But the big stuff would be properly managed, I think, with proper attention to the small stuff.

          2 cents.

    • #2752192

      The ones who should be surprised. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      …..are the ones who voted for Barack Obama.

      The claim, [i]Bush lied[/i], pales in comparison to the bill of goods sold by this guy (and his willing accomplices in the media).

      The Obama supporters who don’t hold him accountable for his word(s) will be showing THEIR true colors when they give him a pass on his many lies and misleading comments (change and hope – geesh!).

      This guy is in WAY over his head. And he’s doing nothing except using the position to implement his radical socialist agenda. His debt over the next twenty months, for example, will equal GWB’s debt for the entire eight years of GWB’s presidency!

      Another Obama [i]LIE[/i] about Iraq (one I predicted, by the way), are the 50,000 troops remaining in IRAQ for ……… for how long? For as long as GWB said in the first place. So much for Obama’s [i]promise[/i] to pull them out.

      The really sad thing is that the Obama supporters aren’t holding him accountable for what he says and does – blind faith in their Savior.

      Behind every double-standard is an underlying and unmentioned single-standard.

      Neil actually owes me TWO dinners because of our [i]uninformed Obama supporters[/i] bet. But I suppose I can’t really prove it – UNLESS YOU OPEN YOUR EYES.

      • #2778457

        typical

        by jck ·

        In reply to The ones who should be surprised. . . . .

        [i]The claim, Bush lied, pales in comparison to the bill of goods sold by this guy (and his willing accomplices in the media).[/i]

        As opposed to what? Bush and his staff and the moguls in banking and petroleum who he let financially rape the American people?

        [i]The Obama supporters who don’t hold him accountable for his word(s) will be showing THEIR true colors when they give him a pass on his many lies and misleading comments (change and hope – geesh!).[/i]

        Again…as opposed to what?

        Bush saying that America is strong? How? Declining military enlistment, declining economic conditions, etc. How is that “strong” when compared to America before or even early on in his administration?

        [i]This guy is in WAY over his head. And he’s doing nothing except using the position to implement his radical socialist agenda. His debt over the next twenty months, for example, will equal GWB’s debt for the entire eight years of GWB’s presidency![/i]

        And your suggestion for any president taking over for Bush would be to do what? Nothing? Don’t put money into the economy and let another “great depression” happen?

        You say he pushes a socialist agenda.

        I say you advocate an anarchist state of class separatism and self-interest with your examples of just cutting government.

        [i]Another Obama LIE about Iraq (one I predicted, by the way), are the 50,000 troops remaining in IRAQ for ……… for how long? For as long as GWB said in the first place. So much for Obama’s promise to pull them out.[/i]

        If you go back and read, the Bush administration committed America to 36 months in Iraq. Obama had nothing to do with that. Go back and get the facts right.

        Either Obama keeps the commitment, or renigs on a signed deal with Iraq.

        So would you rather he honor America’s commitment?

        Or have Iraq’s government see us as liars and give the Muslim world something else to dislike us for?

        [i]The really sad thing is that the Obama supporters aren’t holding him accountable for what he says and does – blind faith in their Savior.[/i]

        It’s really hard to hold someone accountable for things when they have only been in office (*looks at calendar*)…55 days?

        Or do you think the economy should have turned around in less than 2 months?

        Perhaps you are holding him to a higher standard than the previous president?

        I think so.

        [i]Behind every double-standard is an underlying and unmentioned single-standard.

        Neil actually owes me TWO dinners because of our uninformed Obama supporters bet. But I suppose I can’t really prove it – UNLESS YOU OPEN YOUR EYES.[/i]

        Indeed…and your double standard is saying you are independent from partisan government and waste, when your actions show bias against one administration by not holding the previous one to the same standard.

        You gave the Bush administration 8 years.

        Give Obama’s more than 55 days to make a difference.

        That would only be fair.

        Or do you not think equal time for both presidencies is fair?

        • #2778384

          How long?

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to typical

          How long before it is acceptable to question his results or motives? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 4 years?

          I want to make sure I don’t offend anyone by criticizing him before it’s politically correct.

        • #2778379

          what I think?

          by jck ·

          In reply to How long?

          His motives? If you see something you think wrong: Now.

          But to criticize the results of his policies after 55 days in office and even less time having had them passed by Congress: silly.

          We gave Bush 3.5 years to win Iraq. Didn’t.

          We gave Bush 3 years to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Didn’t.

          So, why is it so fair to think Obama can tackle economic recession within his first 55 days when Bush could not achieve goals within years?

          I am just saying: it is reasonable to question and ask for reasons why when he does something.

          However, to expect results before you give things time to work…is silly.

          It’s like a doctor giving you antibiotics and if they don’t work in an hour, your doctor saying you need surgery.

        • #2778382

          Not “self interest”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to typical

          [i]I say you advocate an anarchist state of class separatism and self-interest[/i]

          Self-[b]determination.[/b]

          Nobody is proposing anarchy. What is your motive in claiming so?

        • #2778374

          because

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not “self interest”

          The absolute elimination of government is to institute anarchy.

          States, especially in this economy, could in no way institute, organize, and begin function to take over what needed establishments had been supplied by federal authorities.

          Max often gives elimination of government as the solution.

          Adopting an across-the-board elimination theory, rather than finding balanced solutions that would fix issues respective of each problem, is instituting anarchy and disarray into the government system at all levels and into society itself.

        • #2778366

          To be fair to Max

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to because

          He has on a number of occasions enunciated those items which he thinks require government and government funding. I don’t think any reasonable analysis would think he is an anarchist.

          He certainly wants less government than you or I, to be sure. But less isn’t zero.

          James

        • #2778361

          not zero

          by jck ·

          In reply to To be fair to Max

          but he does propose quite often mass and drastic elimination.

          I, for one, agree there are things that should be eliminated. Not departmentally, but programatically.

          For instance:

          – Welfare as it exists should be eliminated. If there’s an open job in your area and you refuse to work, you lose your welfare.

          – Personal income taxes should be revamped. What would be so hard about saying 10% or 15%, with exception for things such as a first time home purchase or catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expense being the only write-offs?

          There are things I’d totally re-do, things I’d somewhat re-do, and some things I’d leave alone.

          I don’t think seeing an infected nail means you need to cut off the whole finger.

          And in many cases, Max has proposed elimination of government function as a solution.

          After all, that is the platform of the Libertarian party he espouses to being dedicated to.

          As proof, from their own party platform:

          [i]”Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.”[/i]

          again

          [b]…we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.[/b]

          i.e.-
          income tax
          sales tax
          utility regulation
          banking regulation

          So, charge what you want.

          If people think it’s too expensive, they don’t have to buy it.

          If people can’t afford it, it’s their fault.

          But government should not place itself to interfere.

          Therefore, that body in government should have no use and we could do without it.

          That’s the thought process, and it is anarchical.

          Balanced, sensible reform is what’s needed.

          Not black-and-white decision making.

        • #2778331

          Another jck misrepresentation

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to not zero

          jck said, [i]”After all, that is the platform of the Libertarian party he espouses to being dedicated to.[/i]

          Same offer as in my other message – prove it.

          Show me even one message in which I proclaimed my [i]dedication to the Libertarian party[/i], or for that matter, indicated that I even cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate.

          jck, with all due respect, you’re either just making stuff up, or you lump me in together with others, or you haven’t really read – and I mean really read to the point of trying to understand – any of my messages.

          ——— Edit:

          I’ve often advocated my desire to advance libertarian principles, but never through the Libertarian Party. In fact, I’ve said, on more than one occasion, that the Libertarian Party will always be left out of the arena because its platform is too extreme.

          I’ve also said, on more than one occasion, that I’d never support a Libertarian candidate, not only for the reason I just described, but it would be a wasted vote – resulting in nothing except getting my LEAST preferred candidate elected. Just like the Ralph Nader votes secured Al Gore’s defeat, a vote for a Libertarian candidate would only help the Democratic Party candidate.

          As such, I’ve always maintained that the best way to advance the cause of libertarian principles would be through change within one of the two major parties – in this case, a return to a Republican Party of Barry Goldwater would suit me just fine.

        • #2993568

          Sorry, I don’t fit

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to not zero

          into a single category, and I don’t think many people do. Each political category has things on their platform that I agree with, and things I don’t.

          That is precisely why government should be minimal… It simply cannot be all things to all people.

        • #2778333

          [i]Less isn’t zero[/i] unless. . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To be fair to Max

          …..you’re of jck’s ilk who can’t debate an issue or policy without totally misrepresenting another’s true position, often to the point of blatantly lying about it.

        • #2778339

          Max has never advocated

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to because

          “The absolute elimination of government”

          He has only iterated what he thinks should be the limitations on what it should be doing.

          I’m pretty sure he’d leave intact the parts of the government dealing with defense, interstate infrastructure, and protecting the ‘inalienable rights’ of citizens.

        • #2778337

          [i]Max often gives elimination of government as the solution[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to because

          Does jck lie about other things as well?

          Try to prove your assertion, if you dare. Show me even one instance where I advocated the total [i]elimination of government[/i], and [i]Maxwell Edison[/i] will never post another message on this Web site.

          And if you can’t, how about you agree to the same?

        • #2778573

          fine with me

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]Max often gives elimination of government as the solution[/i]

          Consider it done. I’ll leave TR to appease you.

          However before I go, you posted this in 2007 advocating the elimination of Social Security as it exists.

          And I quote:

          “Fourth of all, we need to develop a plan to phase out this madness, perhaps over the next 50 years. ” -Maxwell Edison

          You did propose elimination of Social Security via a “phase out of this madness”.

          As for the way you’ve chosen to interpret what i said and phrase it to fit your needs to push it as though I said you want to eliminate the [i][u]entire[/i][/u] government.

          It’s not what I meant, but take it as you wish.

          However, you do propose elimination of government where it doesn’t suit your own interests and beliefs. That is clear by the quote I show. Rather than fix Social Security, you want to “phase it out”.

          But, nonetheless. Go on critiquing others like you are the messiah of political gospel, and I’ll go somewhere else.

          This is your early and one-and-only Christmas present from me. Ho ho ho.

          Have a nice life.

        • #2778541

          I’m not the only one who interpreted you the same way

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to fine with me

          JamesRL, Tony, and Scummy all interpreted your words the same way.

          Here’s what you said:

          [i]Max often gives elimination of government as the solution.

          Adopting an across-the-board elimination theory, rather than finding balanced solutions that would fix issues respective of each problem, is instituting anarchy and disarray into the government system at all levels and into society itself. [/i]

          [i][b]…..is instituting anarchy and disarray into the government system at all levels and into society itself[/i][/b] ?????????

          [i][b]…..is instituting anarchy and disarray into the government system at all levels and into society itself[/i][/b] ?????????

          [i][b]…..is instituting anarchy and disarray into the government system at all levels and into society itself[/i][/b] ?????????

          When you make an absurd accusation like that, you should expect to be called on it.

          And you would rather go away instead of simply admitting that you exaggerated a bit? Whatever, dude.

        • #2778534

          Social Security is a ponzi scheme – it can’t be fixed

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to fine with me

          Let’s hold the government to the same standards to which they are holding Bernie Madoff.

          http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html

          If Social Security were a private company operating the same way it’s been run and is still being run, heads would roll and people would be spending the rest of their lives in prison.

          Sometimes the best way to fix something is to simply admit it was a bad plan to begin with, eliminate it, and come up with something new.

          But phasing out Social Security should never be taken as a call to eliminate government. I’m not sure how one could make that stretch.

        • #2778336

          Minimization and elimination

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to because

          Max and others (including myself) believe in minimizing government controls. This is surely not the same as Elimination of government altogether.

          Here are some links
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elimination

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Minimization

        • #2778306

          A replay of a past message:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to because

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3020457

          What I believe:

          I could elaborate on any of the following points, but in a nutshell:

          I believe every citizen should have a voice, regardless of that person’s standing on the economic or social scale.

          I believe it’s both immoral and a recipe for disaster (or tyranny) for a system that allows one citizen to vote himself the earnings of another citizen; it’s tantamount to both economic slavery and the purchasing of votes (purchasing with another’s dollar, I might add).

          I believe it’s immoral to tax a person’s earnings; that, too, is tantamount to economic slavery.

          I believe it’s the role of government to guarantee a society in which people are free to take responsibility for themselves, and have the individual right to seek opportunity and happiness for themselves, regardless of how they choose to define that desired outcome; it’s not, however, the role of government to guarantee the realization of that outcome or to equalize outcome among the citizenry.

          Benevolence is not the role of government. ( I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison)

          I believe the capitalistic system is not perfect, and those higher on the economic and social scale have an advantage over others, and often-times take advantage of others; call it an evil unintended consequence of the system. However, the way to address that evil is not with another evil, as I described in the aforementioned points.

          I believe taxes are necessary and vital to maintain a fully functioning government.

          I could go on, but my conclusion:

          If one generally believes, in principle, either fully or in part, with the points I’ve made, then when it comes to the question of taxation and how to collect the vital revenue for government to function, then one might conclude that a tax based on consumption, not income, is the preferred method. The details of how a consumption-based tax should be structured should only be debated and discussed after the underlying premise is agreed upon.

          If that’s, as you suggested, the basis for a screwed-up tax scheme, then so be it. However, it’s better, in the eyes of many (including, most likely, our founders), than the screwed-up tax scheme we currently have to endure.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=303035&messageID=3026028

          On Legal Plunder:

          [i]How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

          Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law – which may be an isolated case – is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

          The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

          Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. [/i]

          -Frederic Bastiat in [i]The Law[/i]

    • #2752191

      Justifying the trillions already spent

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      on bailouts required a perception of impending disaster. Now the perception of disaster no longer fits the agenda.

      Now things have to be presented positively to make the population (who do not understand even basic economics) feel good that “change” has happened and that the government feels their pain and has responded.

      Most Americans don’t have the attention span to digest this duplicity. It’s business as usual in DC.

      • #2778302

        Forum irony – Negativity vs Positive Spin

        by geek3001 ·

        In reply to Justifying the trillions already spent

        I find it ironic that the same forum/group that was complaining about Obama’s negative comments a few weeks ago is now complaining about Obama’s positive comments.

        It this the DIS-United States of the Party of Your Choice? If so, it will be the death of the country because each side spends more time griping about the other side than working on long term solutions.

        • #2778289

          We’re not complaining about the comment…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Forum irony – Negativity vs Positive Spin

          We’re complaining that he lambasted his opponent a few short months ago for making the same comment.

          [i]”He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works,” Obama said. “Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days … that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?”[/i]

          – Barack Hussein Obama, September 15, 2008, Grand Junction Colorado

        • #2993656

          A reasonable complaint

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to We’re not complaining about the comment…

          I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint.

          Now, can you think of any instances where Republicans have done something similar? I suspect that most, if not all, political parties are guilty of comments like this, especially during election campaigns.

        • #2993575

          Agreed, it’s “politics as usual”.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to A reasonable complaint

          and maybe all such examples should be hoisted high on the flagpole….so that the people can see and hold those who claim they’re going to “change” it accountable to actually do so.

        • #2778767

          Multipartisan Flagpole Tenders

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to Agreed, it’s “politics as usual”.

          There are times when I think we need a multipartisan group of ‘flagpole tenders’ who hoist such examples up the flagpole for ALL instances they encounter. The group would have to provide documentation of the examples WITH context so that you are not getting into the selected sound byte syndrome. They would also need to allow commentary by the people being quoted.

          Such a group would have to try its best to present ALL the facts that are behind the example in order to show that they are being as non-partisan as possible. If necessary, individual members of the group may need to say why they feel an example is “politics as usual” because points of view vary.

        • #2778285

          Spin does indeed have it’s effects,

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Forum irony – Negativity vs Positive Spin

          And the spinners know that. During election cycles, it is SOP for the Democrat party to “talk down” the economy.

          The public perceives the state of the market to be the state of the economy. The market trades upward on confidence in profitability, downward on uncertainty. The drumbeat of disaster spewing forth from politicians and their talking heads degrades confidence, making the claims of financial malaise real. Note, this has little to do with reality other than that the perception drives reality.

          Now, President Obama would like for us to believe that the situation has improved in some fundamental way. Macroeconomics tell us that even the HUGE amounts of money being spewed forth cannot turn something as big as our economy around quickly.

          This is politics as usual at the federal level. I just like to see them called on it when they BS us as they do. Does anybody remember how much flack former President Bush caught about the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier? President Obama should be held to the same standard….

          BTW, Whilst in the military, I saw many Mission Accomplished banners on the way back from a WESTPAC. The banner in question indicated the ship and crew served honorably on that cruise, not that the war was over.

          If our former President can get hammered over that banner (taken out of context), Then our current President can get hammered for a very premature declaration of victory in his own words also.

        • #2993644

          Mission Accomplished Banners

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to Spin does indeed have it’s effects,

          The ‘Mission Accomplished’ situation sounds like a photo op that got exploited by both sides. If the knowledge that said banners appeared on many ships returning from cruises was public knowledge, then the public wouldn’t have been fooled in to thinking that it meant the war was over.

          I agree that you’re right that it seems to be a version of politics as usual.

          Oddly enough I would agree with both McCain’s and Obama’s comment that the economy is fundamentally sound. Unfortunately there are a number of major flaws that have allowed small groups of people to wreck havoc with certain aspects of the economy and be rewarded for it. Those flaws were easily exploited during the election campaign because they gaining front page headlines and lots of TV and radio talk.

          McCain and his team got into trouble because they were telling the truth but had problems explaining away why the economy was tanking. Obama and his team used that weakness, and the tanking economy, to gain control. They didn’t have to “talk down” the economy because things were already having problems.

    • #2752184

      Do you suppose

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      That Obama could be a boy king?

      • #2752181

        Or just a. . . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Do you suppose

        Oh no you don’t. In this warped politically correct world, I’d be persecuted.

        • #2752180

          Thought as much.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Or just a. . . . . . .

          Pregnant, though, ain’t it?

        • #2752177

          LOL

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thought as much.

          Thanks for the laugh! What a set-up!

        • #2752173

          Be well

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to LOL

          After all, it was not addressed to JD.

        • #2778308

          Just something to ponder

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Be well

          It is very likely that President Obama signed his stimulus package at the same desk where President Clinton got his package stimulated… Hmmmmm.

        • #2778278

          Does that mean

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          that Obama signed the bill with a cigar?

          😉

        • #2778269

          That, or

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          it stuck to the desk…. :0

          I am sure if nothing else, Bush had THAT room well cleaned when he came into office… ;\

          Bill, cigar…. nice tie-in…. :0

        • #2778265

          :^0 — however

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          the White House is re-furnished with each new Pres.
          So, the actual desk used is likely at Bill’s home, and Obama is likely using a brand new desk

        • #2778250

          Refurnished with each new Pres…

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          If that’s true, who’s paying for it?
          Oh, silly me. That would be us taxpayers.
          Cool. I know I don’t have anything better to do with my money than buy new furniture I don’t get to use every four to eight years.

          :-&

        • #2778209

          What, you thought

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          that the Pres would have to use ‘used’ furnishings???

        • #2778207

          Used furnishings…

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          are good enough for a significant number of the American population – so much so in fact that bedbugs are once again becoming a huge problem in a number of very large American cities.

          If more politicians had bedbugs and worked off of plywood stacked on top of milk crates, in a cardboard refrigerator box on rural mainstreet, maybe those @ssholes would deign to accomplish something besides wasting my freaking money, dumbing down education so that they can eventually waste money without anyone noticing, selling American real estate to the highest foreign bidder, lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, blah, blah, fooking blah….

          X-(

        • #2778206

          Guido

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Just something to ponder

          Is thinking of incorporating.

          Have you a need, I will (flagrantly) divulge his site.

          Has to do with mindset.

    • #2778451

      Ahh, and this is why

      by the scummy one ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      everything is better (reported at least)

      http://seekingalpha.com/article/126158-three-card-monte-and-the-feigned-outrage-against-aig?source=yahoo

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-says-emergency-aid-used-apf-14648544.html

      So we are paying for bank problems across the globe, but limiting the money being spent on US banks……

      • #2778449

        it’s such a crock

        by jck ·

        In reply to Ahh, and this is why

        AIG should either been left to fail…or when the government bought 80%, they should have mandated terms of the deal.

        But, I guess Paulson brokering their aid and not making sure there were strict terms on it during the Bush administration didn’t help.

        I just hope Obama and his people tighten the reigns on this whole situation. $165M to bonuses, as well as $105B out of $180B going overseas, is just unacceptable.

        But, there’s no way to tell if things are truly better for a while.

        So, both sides of the argument are wrong in judging things only 55 days into this whole re-vamping.

        • #2778441

          Do you think Obama will

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to it’s such a crock

          do anything over this? Until now he has tried the same thing as the Bush administration — hiding information from the public on the matter.
          Seriously, I do no think Obama will do anything needed over this.

        • #2778430

          Change you can believe in!!!

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Do you think Obama will

          Turning a problem that was blamed on a (R) administration into one that will be blamed on a (D) administration.

          Woo
          Friggin’
          Hoo!!

        • #2778425

          the horror of it is

          by jck ·

          In reply to Do you think Obama will

          there’s not much legally can do about what has been done, according to all the reports I’ve heard.

          What AIG did? Totally legal.

          Again, the bulk of AIG’s $180B was given them by the Bush administration without strings.

          What Obama does in the future I think will be a clear indicator of what is going to happen.

          So long as he’s really got Congress on his side, I think things will be alright so long as his decisions are sound.

          I don’t know what he’ll do. If I did, I’d invest in something that would make me money. lol

        • #2778423

          Was speaking with some buddies…

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to the horror of it is

          …about how things were going so far in his administration.

          Someone mentioned that Obama inherited quite the full plate.

          “No”, I said, “He got the entire buffet to himself.”

        • #2778421

          Knew going in, though

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Was speaking with some buddies…

          He stepped up and say he was the one that would save us all, knowing full well what was going on.

          If he fails, he has no one to blame but himself for taking more of a portion than more of the world knew he couldn’t handle, based upon his experience (lack of, that is).

        • #2778413

          the irony of that…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Knew going in, though

          He doesn’t say that he alone, nor his administration alone, would save us all…that I can find.

          That’s just spin and rhetoric there, jd

          Examples of Obama’s own words (including an excerpt from even before he got elected):

          [i]”Now, the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it’s not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence. We can restore opportunity and prosperity.”[/i]
          – Speech at George Mason University, Jan 2009

          [i]”I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others. And rightly so. If you haven?t been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has ? a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family. You don?t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It?s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It?s the job you thought you?d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that?s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere.

          But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this:

          We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”[/i]
          – Address to Joint Session of Congress, Feb 24, 2009.

          [i]”This is one of those moments. I realise you’re cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you’re disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what’s been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history. I ask you to believe ? to believe in yourselves, in each other, and in the future we can build together.

          Together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can’t afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves.

          We can do this. Americans have done this before. Some of us had grandparents or parents who said maybe I can’t go to college but my child can, maybe I can’t have my own business but my child can. I may have to rent, but maybe my children will have a home they can call their own. I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.

          Now it falls to us. Together, we cannot fail. Together, we can overcome the broken policies and divided politics of the last eight years. Together, we can renew an economy that rewards work and rebuilds the middle class. Together, we can create millions of new jobs, and deliver on the promise of healthcare you can afford and education that helps your kids compete. We can do this if we come together, if we have confidence in ourselves and each other, if we look beyond the darkness of the day to the bright light of hope that lies ahead. Together, we can change this country and change this world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.”[/i]
          – Obama Speech on the Economy, 13 October, 2008

          Seems to me, even in his campaign, Obama is pushing that [b]we[/b] (not [b]he[/b] as you have claimed he said) can make America better.

        • #2778373

          Any politician that wants sympathy from me…

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Knew going in, though

          …would be directed to look in the dictionary between sh!+ and syphilis! 🙂

          The old adage of being careful of what you ask for comes to mind in the case of Obama getting the presidency.

          That said, I do hope things get better under this administration (if only because it means things got better sooner rather than later).

          God bless us all…we definitely need the help!!

        • #2778369

          I second that, NotSo

          by jck ·

          In reply to Knew going in, though

          🙂

        • #2778307

          Obama: ‘Only government’ can solve nation’s ills’

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Knew going in, though

          http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0109/010809ts1.htm

          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/obama-takes-stimulus-case-nation-prime-time-press-conference/

          [i]”It is absolutely true that we can’t depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth,” he said. “But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.” [/i]

        • #2993640

          Hmmmm…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Knew going in, though

          “God bless us all”

          Blessing with rebellion…

          hmmmmmm…

        • #2778377

          That’s where the majority of their debt lies…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to it’s such a crock

          [i]I just hope Obama and his people tighten the reigns on this whole situation. $165M to bonuses, as well as $105B out of $180B going overseas, is just unacceptable.[/i]

          Why WOULDN’T they send it overseas?

        • #2778370

          because

          by jck ·

          In reply to That’s where the majority of their debt lies…

          if they hold responsibility for debts against foreign banks, sending the money out to those banks rather than keeping the capital which represents those investments…simply puts the eggs in someone else’s basket and out of ours.

          Besides, I saw a good point made:

          Why aren’t the other countries (like Germany, France, Belgium) bailing out their banks instead our tax dollars?

          Guess everyone’s on the gravy train now.

        • #2993569

          We agree on that, jck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to because

          [i]Why aren’t the other countries (like Germany, France, Belgium) bailing out their banks instead our tax dollars?[/i]

          bad business (even a bank) should be out of business!

          But in a bankruptcy, for example, the remaining assets are divided proportionately among the creditors… and IF bailouts are to be provided, they should be distributed the same way.

    • #2778395

      Most saddening

      by dwdino ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      is the American people bought it all. Without question or inquiry.

      Have the American people as a whole reached such a place as to be apathetic even unto their own demise? Or maybe so self centered as to not contemplate the ramifications of choice?

      We are sprinting towards doom, not from some foreign threat or great cataclismic (sp) effect; but from our own moral decay and character void.

      If the American people have truly sunk to this depraved and ignorant state, we shall drink the poison with glee and dance until we die.

      • #2778390

        yep

        by jck ·

        In reply to Most saddening

        Some of the first, and a lot of the second.

        Most Americans are “me me me” types. So long as it gets them more and doesn’t land them in jail, who cares.

        Then some others just don’t think they can make a difference, even though it’s their right by law to do so…through voting and expressing their opinion.

        But, everyone is different.

      • #2778363

        11 most expensive catastrophes in history:

        by ksoniat ·

        In reply to Most saddening

        11 Most Expensive Catastrophes in History

        # 11. Titanic – $150 Million

        The sinking of the Titanic is possibly the most famous accident in the world. But it barely makes our list of top 10 most expensive. On April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and was considered to be the most luxurious ocean liner ever built. Over 1,500 people lost their lives when the ship ran into an iceberg and sunk in frigid waters. The ship cost $7 million to build ($150 million in today ‘ s dollars).

        # 10. Tanker Truck vs Bridge – $358 Million

        On August 26, 2004, a car collided with a tanker truck containing 32,000 liters of fuel on the Wiehltal Bridge in Germany . The tanker crashed through the guardrail and fell 90 feet off the A4 Autobahn resulting in a huge explosion and fire which destroyed the load-bearing ability of the bridge. Temporary repairs cost $40 million and the cost to replace the bridge is estimated at $318 Million.

        # 9. MetroLink Crash – $500 Million

        On September 12, 2008, in what was one of the worst train crashes in California history, 25 people were killed when a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles . It is thought that the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal while the conductor was busy text messaging.. Wrongful death lawsuits are expected to cause $500 million in losses for Metrolink.

        # 8. B-2 Bomber Crash – $1.4 Billion

        Here we have our first billion dollar accident (and we ‘ re only #7 on the list). This B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on February 23, 2008. Investigators blamed distorted data in the flight control computers caused by moisture in the system. This resulted in the aircraft making a sudden nose-up move which made the B-2 stall and crash. This was 1 of only 21 ever built and was the most expensive aviation accident in history. Both pilots were able to eject to safety.

        # 7. Exxon Valdez – $2.5 Billion

        The Exxon Valdez oil spill was not a large one in relation to the world ‘ s biggest oil spills, but it was a costly one due to the remote location of Prince William Sound (accessible only by helicopter and boat). On March 24, 1989, 10.8 million gallons of oil was spilled when the ship ‘ s master, Joseph Hazelwood, left the controls and the ship crashed into a Reef. The cleanup cost Exxon $2.5 billion.

        # 6. Piper Alpha Oil Rig – $3.4 Billion

        The world ‘ s worst off-shore oil disaster. At one time, it was the world ‘ s single largest oil producer, spewing out 317,000 barrels of oil per day. On July 6, 1988, as part of routine maintenance, technicians removed and checked safety valves which were essential in preventing dangerous build-up of liquid gas. There were 100 identical safety valves which were checked. Unfortunately, the technicians made a mistake and forgot to replace one of them. At 10 PM that same night, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps and the world ‘ s most expensive oil rig accident was set in motion.

        Within 2 hours, the 300 foot platform was engulfed in flames. It eventually collapsed, killing 167 workers and resulting in $3.4 Billion in damages.

        # 5. Challenger Explosion – $5.5 Billion

        The Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after takeoff due on January 28, 1986 due to a faulty O-ring. It failed to seal one of the joints, allowing pressurized gas to reach the outside. This in turn caused the external tank to dump its payload of liquid hydrogen causing a massive explosion. The cost of replacing the Space Shuttle was $2 billion in 1986 ($4.5 billion in today ‘ s dollars). The cost of investigation, problem correction, and replacement of lost equipment cost $450 million from 1986-1987 ($1 Billion in today ‘ s dollars).

        # 4. Prestige Oil Spill – $12 Billion

        On November 13, 2002, the Prestige oil tanker was carrying 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil when one of its twelve tanks burst during a storm off Galicia , Spain . Fearing that the ship would sink, the captain called for help from Spanish rescue workers, expecting them to take the ship into harbour. However, pressure from local authorities forced the captain to steer the ship away from the coast. The captain tried to get help from the French and Portuguese authorities, but they too ordered the ship away from their shores. The storm eventually took its toll on the ship resulting in the tanker splitting in half and releasing 20 million gallons oil into the sea.

        According to a report by the Pontevedra Economist Board, the total cleanup cost $12 billion.

        # 3. Space Shuttle Columbia – $13 Billion

        The Space Shuttle Columbia was the first space worthy shuttle in NASA ‘ s orbital fleet. It was destroyed during re-entry over Texas on February 1, 2003 after a hole was punctured in one of the wings during launch 16 days earlier. The original cost of the shuttle was $2 Billion in 1978. That comes out to $6.3 Billion in today ‘ s dollars. $500 million was spent on the investigation, making it the costliest aircraft accident investigation in history. The search and recovery of debris cost $300 million.

        In the end, the total cost of the accident (not including replacement of the shuttle) came out to $13 Billion according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics..

        # 2. Chernobyl – $200 Billion

        On April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the costliest accident in history. The Chernobyl disaster has been called the biggest socio-economic catastrophe in peacetime history. 50% of the area of Ukraine is in some way contaminated. Over 200,000 people had to be evacuated and resettled while 1.7 million people were directly affected by the disaster. The death toll attributed to Chernobyl , including people who died from cancer years later, is estimated at 125,000. The total costs including cleanup, resettlement, and compensation to victims has been estimated to be roughly $200 Billion. The cost of a new steel shelter for the Chernobyl nuclear plant will cost $2 billion alone. The accident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed.

        # 1. 2008 Presidential Election- $800 Billion in the first two months.

        • #2778298

          You missed one….

          by cupcake ·

          In reply to 11 most expensive catastrophes in history:

          Cost of the Bush era: $11.5 trillion

          The outgoing administration has presided over 8 years of disasters and crises with some of the biggest price tags the nation has ever seen.

          By John Dyer, MSN Money

          George W. Bush’s presidency cost the country about $11.5 trillion, if we estimate liberally.

          Of course, it’s debatable how much blame the president should bear.

          $150 billion surplus disappears

          Over the past eight years, we’ve suffered calamities that were bound to damage the nation deeply: two recessions, the most lethal terrorist attacks ever on U.S. soil, the invasion of Iraq on dubious grounds, the near destruction of one of our most storied cities and, finally, the Wall Street meltdown.

          Quiz: What cost the most?

          Because the median U.S. household income is about $50,000, readers may have trouble grasping the concept of spending trillions.

          For context, let’s compare two cases of extraordinary spending under Bush.

          After the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington pledged $22 billion to help rebuild in lower Manhattan. At the time, that sum sounded enormous. It was more than one-fourth of the $80 billion budget that New York state had adopted a month before. Though some called for even more aid, the country at large was satisfied that this response was adequate to cope with calamity on a colossal scale.

          Oh, how far we’ve come.

          In early October of 2008, Congress appropriated $700 billion to rescue Wall Street’s financial institutions. Once that was done, the sky was the limit, and the numbers became dizzying.

          http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/cost-of-the-bush-era-11-point-5-trillion.aspx

        • #2778286

          Ok, but

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to You missed one….

          let’s do some math.

          11.5 Trillion / 8 years = ~1.4 Trillion annually

          or

          2 Trillion / .16 year = ~12.5 Trillion annually

          So if you compare the average spending rate…

          (Edited to fix short Obama time frame.)

    • #2778261
      • #2778226

        “slap in the face of African-Americans.”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Getting rid of DEBT is bad!

        Very interesting link. Thanks.

        • #2993639

          Despicable

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to “slap in the face of African-Americans.”

          That idiot holding a position of importance is a slap in the face of Americans that can rub two IQ points together.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to employ my solution for energy independence. I’m going to hook turbines into the graves of our founding fathers. All that spinning and turning will probably meet my energy needs for the next 50 years, if not more!!

      • #2993576

        I apologize…

        by dwdino ·

        In reply to Getting rid of DEBT is bad!

        I was looking for a little information in regard to the disagreement between the federal and state governments and the use/existance of “stimulus” monies.

        I am sorry to have presented such trash. After reading the “Huffington Post”, I regret having ever exposed anyone hear to such junk.

    • #2778251

      I can’t judge Obama yet

      by av . ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      He hasn’t been in office long enough, but I think the “fundamentals of our economy” statement says that we may not get the “change we can believe in” government that he promised.

      His Iraq policy sounds like GWB’s as well. Where is the change?

      I think Obama is finding out that his hands are tied on many issues. Obama is a dreamer.

      AV

      • #2778249

        If Obama is a [i]dreamer[/i]. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I can’t judge Obama yet

        ….what does that make his supporters?

        One should always vote substance over style, and reason over emotion, at least in my opinion. But it’s style and emotion that got Obama elected – no substance, and no reason.

        • #2993464

          People voted for the dream

          by av . ·

          In reply to If Obama is a [i]dreamer[/i]. . . . .

          Everyone wanted hope after a very grueling eight years under GWB. Obama was absolutely elected because of his charisma and hope for the future. This is the new Camelot in the White House for sure.

          I consider everything before I vote, but in the end I will always vote for experience.

          I think people took a real chance in voting for Obama because of his lack of experience. They voted for his style and charisma, but mostly because of his eloquent speeches. He is like Lincoln, Kennedy and Martin Luther King all rolled into one.

          Still, I think he is a sincere person and thats refreshing to me even though I don’t agree with some of his ideas. Whether he has substance is another story.

          AV

        • #2993461

          So, Obama is now King Arthur?

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to People voted for the dream

          Hmmm…

        • #2993441

          No. He’s like Kennedy

          by av . ·

          In reply to So, Obama is now King Arthur?

          Michelle Obama is portrayed like Jackie Kennedy. There are children in the White House again. Obama’s popularity reminds me of that time. Camelot.

          AV

        • #2993432

          That is the line they are trying to sell us

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to No. He’s like Kennedy

          trying to hand him credibility he has done nothing to earn, based upon what people in the past HAVE earned.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=304548&messageID=3036852

          He is NOT off to a promising start, and is not living up to his own hype.

          The fact that he is now going to use a prompter for ALL of his talks, even press conferences because he is horrible without them, again, takes away from his credibility.

          Imagine what the Bush haters would have said if he would have been fed answers in a press conference?

          Obama is not the great speaker ANY of the above mentioned people, he is a great speech READER.

        • #2772600
    • #2993567

      Of course the economy is [i][u]sound[/i][/u], but right now it lacks…….

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      any real substance. That’s what the economy is currently; sound, all sound and very little else. You have a choice right now; either fasten your seat belt and hang onto your hat because the ride is going to get rougher, or believe the BS, stick your head between your legs and kiss whats left of your ass goodbye.

      [b][i]Dawg[/b][/i] ]:)

      • #2993437

        By Sound you mean

        by the scummy one ·

        In reply to Of course the economy is [i][u]sound[/i][/u], but right now it lacks…….

        like an echo in an empty vault, right?

        • #2778756

          Termites and exterminators

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to By Sound you mean

          I’d say that it is more of a case of having too many termites in parts of the economic structure.

          These termites seem to think they can get something for nothing and they go around gnawing at the economic infrastructure, focusing on short term profits (i.e. getting fat) while ignoring long term impacts (i.e. having the building fall down).

          They have brought down part of the economic structure, destroying a lot of wealth and shaking the confidence of the people. But by revealing that they exist and are causing problems, the termites signal that exterminators are needed.

          Some of those exterminators will be government based. Regulations that were slashed back or ignored will be put back into place and enforced. People will go to jail. Outrageous bonuses will be taxed.

          Other exterminators will be market based. With enough angry stock holders, you can always vote out a board of directors that rewards incompetence. You can also get people together and come up with more competitive businesses that could out compete those organizations that have become too unwieldy.

          There WILL be a mix of things. My preference is that the market based exterminators would do most of the work.

        • #2994699

          Very interesting analogy…

          by dixon ·

          In reply to Termites and exterminators

          …but the trouble is, termites never care what happens to the building, and it’s not likely that they ever will. And instead of exterminators, we seem to have house painters, trying to make all the holes less visible.

        • #2994696

          I think

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Very interesting analogy…

          [i]…but the trouble is, termites never care what happens to the building, and it’s not likely that they ever will.[/i]

          that if they could comprehend that eating up the building meant no more food, they might.

        • #2994688

          Fair enough, but…

          by dixon ·

          In reply to I think

          …what do you think the odds are that they’ll gain that comprehension before the damage to the house is irreversible? I’m not a betting man, but…

        • #2993960

          Or

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Fair enough, but…

          before the paying tenants decide to move out…

        • #2993760

          I think the exterminators need to be watched

          by av . ·

          In reply to Termites and exterminators

          Especially the government based ones. We could be ushering in a new era of government control under the guise of fixing our economy. Sure, stricter regulations are needed, but how far will the government exterminators go? Nobody knows for sure.

          AV

        • #2772630

          I agree

          by dixon ·

          In reply to I think the exterminators need to be watched

          The exterminators seem to be using a bunch of experimental chemicals that haven’t been proven safe or effective against termites.

      • #2778518

        So you think we should all take down the signs?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Of course the economy is [i][u]sound[/i][/u], but right now it lacks…….

        Brings to mind the hot dog stand scenario.

        When England faced a serious recession post WWII, did people roll up the sidewalks and prepare for the worst? Nope. Heads held high, continue day to day life and just tighten the belt a bit.

        As for the market, run screaming or let the dead cat bounce for a few years.

    • #2778522

      Is it?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to “The economy is sound” White house says

      It wasn’t Obama, really, just as it was never Bush. Christina Romer said “The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology,” she said. “We know that ? that temporarily we’re in a mess, right? We’ve seen huge job loss, we’ve seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we’re in a ? in a bad situation.”

      So she didn’t say, The funamentals are sound.

      She said “The fundamentals are sound in the sense that….”

      I love the way reporters pose questions and then offer the answers in such a way as to attain what they WANT to report while completely ignoring what was actually said.

      US politics, gotta love it, what a circus.

      • #2778489

        Media sound nibbles

        by geek3001 ·

        In reply to Is it?

        The biggest problem I have with media sound bites is that they tend to ignore the context.

        I would love to find a site that publishes the FULL context of an interview so that people can view the source of the sound bites. That would allow people to judge the accuracy of the sound bite, which might destroy the credibility of the people presenting them.

        SoundNibbles.com Hmmmmm. That might be kind of fun if I had the funding. (It seems to be available…)

Viewing 9 reply threads