General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2215323

    “Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate”

    Locked

    by dr dij ·

    Ignore the dorkwad at top who suggests we spend more money we don’t have.

    look at the last two paragraphs in middle of page before ‘Western Europe’

    Job loss has slowed but we are still losing jobs. Somehow press interprets this as ‘getting better’. If a patient is hemorrhaging at 10 pints a minute then slows to 6 that is not ‘getting better’. When he stops bleeding he is getting better.

    (this link is page 2 of the article, prognosis for United States)

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=5022&page=1

    I just want to club on the head the apologists for huge govt overspending and ‘stimulus’.

    since the govt takes 2x the money to create a job this simply puts us more in debt.

    Remember: PO’d people change things!

    If we simply did what canada did and stop states from going into long term debt, and stop the federal govt from both believing in the ‘Magical Mystical Money Fairy’ who produces $100 billion for any cause, no matter how stupid (or even good but unaffordable).

    Maybe if I invent ‘Virtual Vomit’ (I guess that would be VV if you are texting?) I can barf across the internet onto Washington and onto all those piggies saying ‘we have to spend money on my cause’ or bail me out or bail my company out.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2958385

      The government’s economic stimulus…

      by notsochiguy ·

      In reply to “Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate”

      …seems to be working a lot like stimulating someone’s blood clotting (going with your ‘bleed out’ theme) by giving them cumatin.

      “Hey, we’re working through the impediments, and getting the platelets to the wound faster”.

      Or maybe a better analogy is solving the blood loss problem by transfusing blood you know to be infected by HIV?? Moment of cure for a lifetime of ailment and all that.

      • #2958381

        Not even a “Moment of cure”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to The government’s economic stimulus…

        but The Obama is definitely giving us the lifetime of ailment.

        Bet it is hard for anyone who is intellectually honest to still be an Obama supporter. Voters regret has GOT to be setting in fast.

        • #2957344

          Those that would defend…

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Not even a “Moment of cure”

          …would probably state that it has been a half-year into his presidency, and thus, more time is needed.

          I’d point out that it is 12.5% of his stated tenure. That is NOT an insignificant percentage (if someone would argue that it is insignificant, I would gladly accept 12.5% of their salary as a donation to the ChiGuy Fun Fund—someone else’s money is a wonderful thing to waste). Factor in the re-election campaign on the tail end of the first four year term, and you’re looking at a good chunk of his ‘effective presidency’ already completed.

          Like The Who sang: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

        • #2957336

          Let the excuses start

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Those that would defend…

          TheObama claimed that if he were allowed to spend more than every president combined, he could save us all and keep unemployment at 8%. Now in double digits, where are we now and what direction are we going?

          That is what happens when they spend a stimulus package that is not designed to stimulate anything.

        • #2957309

          Well,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Let the excuses start

          [i]That is what happens when they spend a stimulus package that is not designed to stimulate anything. [/i]

          Anything other than his ego….

    • #2958366

      Much as I like to see praise of Canada….

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to “Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate”

      …understand the conditions were a little different.

      We were tied to the Obama automobile bailout. We make 20% of the vehicles of the domestic 3, and to make sure we didn’t have all of our jobs move south, we had to step up with a proportional amount of aid. The conservative government held its nose and did it. The province of Ontario gave its share as well as part of the 20%, as the vast majority of auto jobs are here.

      There isn’t a law in Canada about long term debt, we’ve just been working away at it for a while – since the mid 90s. Alberta doesn’t have an issue because of oil revenues, Ontario will be going into debt for the first time in years.

      But the difference is that we didn’t have to bail out financial instituions. While the auto bailouts were big, they pail in comparison to what the finanicial sector got. Canada was spared most of that. A few of our banks lost some money on US mortagage derivative investments but not enough to threaten their existence. Some of our banks even made a profit last quarter.

      Our Federal government went into debt, and it will take us an estimated 5 years to balance the budget again. Thats not great, but I’d be interested to see an estimate of when the US government could balance the budget with their drunken sailor like money flinging.

      James

      • #2957338

        Not with this administration

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Much as I like to see praise of Canada….

        The Obama, when all is said and done, has shown he doesn’t care how much things cost or who he has to tax or fine to raise money.

        Typical of someone who has never done anything in his life that requires the running of a business and balancing a budget.

        Borrow and print some more.

        • #2957308

          Dreams of granduer

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Not with this administration

          Not unlike Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and every bit as dangerous.

        • #2957056

          as dangerous?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Dreams of granduer

          I don’t see Obama allowing the torture and killing of his own citizens for speaking out against him.

          Kim and Ahmadinejad both have done that.

          Obama isn’t turning a blind eye to Afghanistan’s use of their government assets to transport nuclear bomb-making materials for a known rogue supplier (i.e.- A.Q. Khan, who supplied Iran and North Korea with most of their centrifuges) just to suck butt.

          And unlike some other presidents, he has denounced the use of torture against foreign prisoners.

          Better watch what you wish for.

        • #2957020

          There are more dangerous things

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to as dangerous?

          than torture, or some blown up buildings, or even a decimated city… too bad your chosen ignorance blinds you.

          [i]Better watch what you wish for. [/i]

          Applies to you FAR more than to me.

        • #2957009

          What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?

          by jck ·

          In reply to There are more dangerous things

          Having a president who doesn’t do exactly what you want?

          Having to actually pay your taxes rather than use loopholes to squirm out of them?

          Having someone investigate you for a suspected infringement of the law?

          [i]
          Applies to you FAR more than to me.
          [/i]

          I’m not the one who thinks a terrorist tied dictator in Iran who has “gangs” that harass nay-sayers of his regime is less dangerous than Obama.

          I’m not the one who thinks an extremist communist dictator in North Korea who is well known for taking anyone who says anything negative of his regime and sends them and their families to camps where they torture them, raping the females in their family, and eventually kill all the adults and leave the children in the streets to fend for themselves, is less dangerous than Obama.

          I might be blind, but at least I’m not deaf and dumb too.

          Of course, I’d rather pay more taxes for Obama’s plans (good or bad as they may end up being), than see my girlfriend or niece raped brutally by military guards at a camp all because I said something negative about Obama.

          How about you? Who’s really more dangerous, Tony? The guy who’d charge you an extra $5 a week out of your check? Or the guy who’d order his soldiers to rape and kill your wife and daughter(s)?

          Think about it.

        • #2758213

          How about

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?

          [i]What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?[/i]

          Having the next several generations of Americans turned into slaves?

          [i]Having a president who doesn’t do exactly what you want?[/i]

          [i]Having to actually pay your taxes rather than use loopholes to squirm out of them?[/i]

          Taxing achievement has always been a bad idea.

          [i]How about you? Who’s really more dangerous, Tony? The guy who’d charge you an extra $5 a week out of your check? Or the guy who’d order his soldiers to rape and kill your wife and daughter(s)?[/i]

          Typical modern thinker… think only about the immediate… the future will take care of itself, right? It’s BECAUSE of people who think like that that we are in all of the various predicaments we are in. So keep on doing it…it’s working out SO well![/sarcasm]

        • #2756916

          a disallusion on your part

          by jck ·

          In reply to What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?

          [i]Typical modern thinker… think only about the immediate… the future will take care of itself, right? It’s BECAUSE of people who think like that that we are in all of the various predicaments we are in. So keep on doing it…it’s working out SO well![/i]

          Yeah…you said it. We’re in the housing and banking crisis because of people like bankers who were all about profit profit profit rather than sound business practice.

          And where was that government oversight to ensure they did that? Nowhere, cause the funding got cut, positions got cut, and all for funding a war against weapons that didn’t exist and to fund setting up pet project offices to cater to their campaign donors.

          Let’s see if you can determine what these all have in common:

          Kim Jong Il
          Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
          Kim Il Sung
          Saddam Hussein
          Ayatollah Khomeni
          Mao Tse Tung
          Ghengis Khan

          Besides being tyrants who were known to abuse/torture/murder their citizens for negative speak against them?

          None of them were around just for “the immediate” time.

          It’s not thinking for the now. It’s thinking about what’s practical.

          What’s more valuable? $250 a year in your pocket, or the lives of your family?

          That’s pretty obvious, I’d hope.

          And besides that, no one will be a slave to anything.

          An example? I may well move out of the United States and go to Europe. Can the USA track me down and say “You owe this much tax to us cause we burdened you for the next 10 years!”. The answer: No. If I don’t earn the money here, they can’t tax me so long as i make residence in another country. Taxation without representation isn’t allowed. I just have to come back every so often to keep my citizenship. That’s about it.

          So, Ireland sounds real good about right now. Work 20 years there, get a pension there too, draw it and my SSA check every month, and enjoy life.

          So you stay here, be a slave, and fret over a few bucks a week.

          I’ll go somewhere that the value of a cup of Starbucks is worth considering implementing social and governmental anarchy and stressing out over.

          But really…only thinking for the immediate? Gimme a break. I was one of the ones here saying let the car companies fail and let whoever come in and pay pennies on the dollar and run them right.

          That wasn’t thinking just for now. That is thinking about doing what’s right for the long term in this country: i.e.- getting the crap out of control of the car companies and having another owner put in their people to hopefully do better.

          Anyways…don’t underestimate my vision. Just because I don’t take your drastic approach to “just getting rid of taxes” doesn’t mean I don’t have sense.

          It means I don’t wanna see my roads, support systems, and society crumble and fall apart and have to shoot looters and stuff.

          Oh alright…I do wanna shoot looters 😉

        • #2756812

          Where was it?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?

          [i]Yeah…you said it. We’re in the housing and banking crisis because of people like bankers who were all about profit profit profit rather than sound business practice.

          And where was that government oversight to ensure they did that?[/i]

          Well,it started going bad when the federal reserve was created… but the deregulation occurred starting with Carter, who decided that poor people should own houses. Then Clinton ordered banks to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. Then Bush and company, who thought that bad business practices should be rewarded with bailouts, and Obama’s “Let’s just print more money!” .

          [i]I may well move out of the United States and go to Europe. Can the USA track me down and say “You owe this much tax to us cause we burdened you for the next 10 years!”. The answer: No. If I don’t earn the money here, they can’t tax me so long as i make residence in another country.[/i]

          Ah, you’re one of those… “When the going gets tough, ole jck gets going”. So, you think the debt’s going to disappear just because you skip town? Nope. Someone’s going to pay, and apparently you don’t care who, or how.

          [i]”just getting rid of taxes” [/i]

          I never said that, I said [b]achievement[/b] shouldn’t be taxed. People should be taxed… and taxed exactly equally (equal protection under the law, don’t ya know…).

          [i]Oh alright…I do wanna shoot looters[/i]

          Me too, but not to kill. I can remove the shot and replace it with rock salt 🙂

        • #2757236

          yep…

          by jck ·

          In reply to What’s more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?

          [i] Well,it started going bad when the federal reserve was created… but the deregulation occurred starting with Carter, who decided that poor people should own houses. Then Clinton ordered banks to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. Then Bush and company, who thought that bad business practices should be rewarded with bailouts, and Obama’s “Let’s just print more money!” .[/i]

          Actually, low income housing started before Jimmy Carter. I used to manage the computer systems at a HUD-regulated housing authority. I know for a fact we had assisted housing records back to 1972.

          And, the purchase plans for homes to low-income families actually started back up with Bush Sr. in 1992., not Clinton who took office in 1993.

          [i] Ah, you’re one of those… “When the going gets tough, ole jck gets going”. So, you think the debt’s going to disappear just because you skip town? Nope. Someone’s going to pay, and apparently you don’t care who, or how.[/i]

          Nope, I don’t care.

          I didn’t run it up, I didn’t suck off the system and let everyone else pay for my kids to go to school, etc.

          In fact, I’ve paid taxes/SSI to the US and state governments since I was 11 years old. I know people 20 years older than me who haven’t worked and paid taxes as long as me.

          So, I’ve done my fair share. While you were driving a car and doing other things that used my tax dollars, I was just a kid getting no benefit from it.

          [i] I never said that, I said achievement shouldn’t be taxed. People should be taxed… and taxed exactly equally (equal protection under the law, don’t ya know…).[/i]

          If we had equal protection under the law:

          a) I’d get a group of local cops to huddle around me like Britney Spears does.
          b) The sheriff’s department here would see the guy coming up and begging me regularly and run him off.
          c) I would be able to write off a new ceiling fan as a “home improvement” like the wealthy can a tennis court.

          See…no matter what they say…the law is NOT fair in America. That’s a myth. Never has been, and never will be.

          Besides that, use taxes like you think are the only way to go make for an unstable and anarchic society.

          What happens when the market hits bottom?

          What’s been happening for the last 3 years.

          I suppose you want that more, eh?

          [i] Me too, but not to kill. I can remove the shot and replace it with rock salt happy [/i]

          To hell with rock salt. I’m killing the bastards. Why should I pay to jail some idiot, or worse yet have to spend my pay to defend myself against some lawsuit that a low-life looter would bring for wounding them?

          Kill them all…let God sort them out.

        • #2758279

          Give him time

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to as dangerous?

          He still has 3.5 years left to make the necessary changes.

        • #2758212

          Right

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Give him time

          He’s probably taking notes now…planning his re-election campaign…

        • #2756952

          We got a sampling

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Right

          of the Democrats definition of “free elections” with in Washington state and Minnesota. As long as they have illegals and dead people voting, they can be in power for as long as they want.

          I find it interesting that all of the liberals who were whining about how Bush “stole” two elections don’t make a sound when their candidates rig an election.

          I guess it’s OK as long as they’re Democrats and they’re stopping those evil conservatives.

        • #2756912

          illegal aliens = democrats?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Right

          Evidently, you didn’t hear about California, Florida or Texas.

          The majority of electeds there are Republican and (supposedly) conservative.

          Examples?

          GW Bush (former TX gov)
          Jeb Bush (former FL gov)
          Crist (current FL gov)
          Mel Martinez (former rep, senator, US Sen., dir of HUD from FL)
          Schwarzenegger
          etc etc

          So, don’t think that because in the past that Democrats were the champions of citizenship that now the Republicans haven’t sucked up to them too to get their votes.

          And by the way…my official stance on illegal immigrants:

          Get them out. If they came to this country illegally, they broke our laws.

          We don’t have enough people to do the jobs? Bull. we have 9.x% unemployment nationwide. Hire an American who wants to work to feed their kids right now.

          California has $1Bs in shortfalls and a lot of it is 2 things: road maintenance and social service funding. If they got rid of their illegal population that feeds off welfare, public funded medical, etc., they’d save billions.

          So…get rid of illegals…send them home. It’s cheaper than paying to house, feed, and treat their families for years to come.

          And yes, all my ancestors that immigrated here came through Ellis Island or Philadelphia or Plymouth Rock to this country. They did it right and by the law.

          No one should be able to abridge our laws…NO ONE.

        • #2756902

          Democrats were the champions of citizenship?

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Right

          Yeah, right. Democrats don’t care if they have citzenship, they only want to make sure that they can control the election process so illegals can vote.

          That’s why they insist on trying to prevent any type of identificaton validation at the polls.

          Then all you have to do is promise them a bunch of Government freebies and voila, you have a Democrat elected.

          As for the dead people, you don’t need to promise them anything. You just need to hire someone to vote for them since they can’t seem to get to the polls. Which is another reason they want to control the checks at the polling places.

        • #2756890

          The people that fight making voters have identification

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Right

          are always Democrats. Why is it Democrats don’t want to make sure there isn’t voter fraud?

          Because that is one of the biggest tools to getting Democrats elected.

          Well, that and finding a way to not count military absentee ballots.

          The two go hand in hand.

          Yeah, Democrats gave blacks their freedom… oh wait, they didn’t….

          Democrats gave women the right to vote…. oh wait, they didn’t….

          Buying votes with other peoples money, now THAT they did/do/will continue to do.

        • #2757242

          as I said, puppy

          by jck ·

          In reply to Right

          look at the border states. for at least a decade, the majority of elected officials are Republican.

          Why? Cause they are a) sticking up for the minorities (mainly hispanic) and b) about 1/3 of them are actually of hispanic descent.

          But, the illegals here are criminals. Period. We should spend about $250 a head, fly them back wherever they came from in Mexico, Central America or the Carribean, and tell them if they come back we turn them into Blue Agave fertilizer for Sammy Hagar’s Cabo Wabo farm. :^0

        • #2757234

          wrong again, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Right

          Democrats are the ones against national IDs?

          Coulda fooled me. I have seen both sides vote against it.

          Wasn’t Bush building a wall? Why would you need a wall if ya have a national ID card?

          Maybe that was for looks. lmao

        • #2957052

          If you actually took the time to check his credentials

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not with this administration

          He did work as a financial analyst so he has worked in the business sector.

          Having been a state senator and US senator, he did have to work with balancing a budget with the state of Illinois and the federal government.

          More negative, incorrect, hateful spin on your part.

    • #2957061

      actually

      by jck ·

      In reply to “Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate”

      if a patient’s bleeding goes from 10 pints/min to 6 pints/min that is technically “getting better”.

      it is just not “stable”. 😉

      • #2957053

        More like

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to actually

        Exsanguination unto depletion and death.

        • #2957051

          the bleeding

          by jck ·

          In reply to More like

          Fact is, the bleeding isn’t going to stop until all the businesses stop stupid practices and their profiteering even in the down times.

          You realize that after the US government paid Merill Lynch and Bank of America stimulus monies, the two merged.

          I just wonder how much of that bailout money got paid out in stock buyouts at elevated values in the takeover, and payouts of huge parachute contracts for executives being let go.

          Friggin makes me sick. Companies find anyway they can to take advantage and it’s legal, but if a private citizen did that they’d get sued or prosecuted.

        • #2758386

          profiteering

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to the bleeding

          so, businesses should start losing money intentionally until everyone is out of business?

          Where did you ever get the idea that a profit is bad? You do realize without profit, there is no company, right? there are no wages paid to people, no benefits provided, nothing.

          There is more here than your obsessive and often insane hate for management.

        • #2758383

          well…

          by jck ·

          In reply to profiteering

          you’re so against the bailout monies…

          You’re saying a roundabout double-dipping by banks isn’t even more wrong?

          I never said they should start losing money, because they’ve already lost their asses on their own. You can’t start what you’re already doing because of crappy business practices.

          And yeah, trust me. I ran a successful computer consulting business doing programming and systems setups while in and after college before my first full-time non-self-employed gig. I know how business works, and I know how to run a business without bankrupting it… unlike some people you admire.

          BTW, it’s not a hate for management. It’s a hate for business taking advantage of a system that will let them 2 banks take monies supposedly for independent rebuilding and backing, merge, fire regular staff, pay out huge bonus/retirement packages to executives, and all the while double dipping on the American taxpayers dime.

          So, are you saying that profiteering at the cost of YOUR tax dollars is okay now?

          Go ahead and waffle. You’re good at it. You should work at IHOP. 😉 :^0

      • #2758388

        Actually

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to actually

        that is getting less worse, NOT better.

        • #2758384

          not quite

          by jck ·

          In reply to Actually

          better = improvement over previous circumstances.

          losing less blood per minute = better

          worse = degradation from previous circumstances

          less worse = lesser state of degradation over previous comparisons of progress.

          So…if you went from paying 10,000 to 6,000 in taxes per year without a pay cut…is that better…or less worse?

          😉

        • #2758256

          Saying jobless rate will stop at 8% but still broke 10%

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to not quite

          you HAVE to say it is worse, even if the rate it is getting worse has slowed.

        • #2758255

          The arithmetic

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Saying jobless rate will stop at 8% but still broke 10%

          Of acceleration, remember, can be positive or negative.

          Not that it helps. The analogy of blood loss didn’t, either.

          People: you need to accelerate positively to a higher order.

        • #2758217

          Punishment and reward, positive and negative

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The arithmetic

          A simple concept that threw most in my psych class for a loop.

          You have both positive and negative punishment.

          You have both positive and negative rewards.

        • #2756909

          i believe

          by jck ·

          In reply to Punishment and reward, positive and negative

          in your psych class they called them “Strokes”.

          ahhhh…where is Billy Squier when ya need him? lol :^0

        • #2756910

          I dunno, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Saying jobless rate will stop at 8% but still broke 10%

          If my taxes went down from 10,000 to 6,000…

          Or if unemployment went from 10% to 6%…

          I’d say it got better…not worse, or less worse, or less bad.

          Now if something went from 10 inches to 6 I’d say that’s bad.

          I MEANT RAINFALL!!! PERVERTS!!! :^0

        • #2757381

          But nothing went down, even if you try to change the topic

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I dunno, jd

          The unemployment rate continues to get WORSE, not BETTER. Even the most pathetic of Obama cultists can’t deny that.

          He claimed if he was allowed to rush through trillions, he could stop it at 8.

          Now for the consistency part. Did he LIE or was he just WRONG?

        • #2757233

          actually

          by jck ·

          In reply to But nothing went down, even if you try to change the topic

          unemployment has improved here in most Florida, as well as parts of North Carolina.

          Sorry Michigan has such hard luck. Maybe you should consider…Montana :^0

        • #2757369

          Not quite the same as the original topic

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to I dunno, jd

          A better analogy is if your taxes went from $6000 (Year1) to $10000 (Year 2) and then to $12000 (Year 3).

          They’re getting worse, just at a smaller rate between year 2->3 than from 1->2.

          Put another way, if we all lost our jobs right now, the current politicos would probably spin it as:
          “Recovery on the horizon: No job losses expected in the next fiscal quarter”.

        • #2757231

          yep

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not quite the same as the original topic

          They all spin it. It’s not just the current one.

          Besides, JD is gonna whine until things only go in his favor.

          He was always talking positive about Bush, even though it was the leadership of his administration that lacked the motivation and effort to stave these things off.

          Then when Obama stepped into a no-win situation, he turned it all negative.

          He only sees the flood getting deeper, and can’t recognize when the level of the water has slowed its rise.

          Such a negative man he is.

        • #2757226

          I’d agree with that….

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Not quite the same as the original topic

          …all of them would spin it; regardless of side of the aisle.

          My voting philosophy reflects that:

          If the name is next to an (I), my vote I’ll deny

          🙂

        • #2756612

          i just think

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not quite the same as the original topic

          we’ve had elitest attitudes running this country far too long…in government and in the private sector.

          we need to change our attitude, especially when it comes to dealing with our own.

          sure, we shouldn’t even have a “welfare” system as it stands today, i.e.- no one should get something for nothing. that’s why i am in favor of the Jamestown, VA model of society.

          – If you’re an infant, others will look out for you
          – If you’re old and can’t work, others will look out for you
          – If you’re infirmed and can’t work, others will look out for you
          – If you’re able-boded, can work but won’t, and refuse to contribute…THEN YOU STARVE.

          Personally, I think that the US Dept. of Health and Human Services needs to utilize the US Dept. of Labor and find all the jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds, sweeping the floor at Home Depot, working at a recycling center sorting bottles, etc., and tell welfare people “you can do this job. if you refuse, we’re cutting you off.”

          That would help things a bit.

        • #2756737

          Reminds me of th buzz-phrase

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Saying jobless rate will stop at 8% but still broke 10%

          congress was using a dozen or so years ago…

          “We’re going to reduce the increase in spending.”

          The bleeding will stop… when the heart does.

    • #2757364
      • #2757337

        I had to check to make sure today wasn’t 4/1

        by notsochiguy ·

        In reply to Here we go again…

        I can understand people overlooking the lessons of 100 years or so ago.

        What I can’t fathom is how people can ignore the lessons learned within the last few years; save for some form of mental deficiency.

        Next up: lowering income standards for home loans (reason given will be high unemployment makes it harder for the children to live in a house)

      • #2757239

        Stop being so insensitive!

        by puppybreath ·

        In reply to Here we go again…

        Everyone should be able to buy a condo whether they can afford it or not. We shouldn’t make rules to stop people from living the American dream.

        The fact that we’ll have to bail them out in a few years shouldn’t stop you from letting these people have a few years of happiness.

        Can’t we just all get along?

        😉

    • #2756429

      One minor point

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to “Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate”

      [i]If we simply did what canada did and stop states from going into long term debt…[/i]

      Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but the constitutions of most states prohibit deficit spending. In many states, this has actually made the problems worse.

Viewing 4 reply threads