View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
I think Reagon said it best. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.
With 99.999% certainty I can say: Government stinks
Wild Walleye
02-02-10, 14:53
Wild walleye,
Is that free drinks you are offering, I am willing to be the moderator.
Anything else free?I just need you to bring an investor for my Argie company.
the 'screw the poor' right.Esten,
It's amazing how your mind thinks. How exactly is the "right" screwing the poor? By the fact that some people who happen to be politically conservative also choose not to give the money they've earned to others?
So how exactly does that philosophy apply to everyone else. For example, as you walk down the sidewalk, are you "screwing" the other pedestrians because you've quietly decided not to give them your money?
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Walleye
02-02-10, 15:16
Esten,
It's amazing how your mind thinks. How exactly is the "right" screwing the poor? By the fact that some people who happen to be politically conservative also choose not to give the money they've earned to others?
So how exactly does that philosophy apply to everyone else. For example, as you walk down the sidewalk, are you "screwing" the other pedestrians because you've quietly decided not to give them your money?
Thanks,
JacksonI understand Esten. When people who are susceptible to being influenced by others are constantly bombarded by slogans and propaganda, they internalize it as fact, even though they have never seen actual proof that the slogan or propaganda is accurate.
Obama is in Nashua, NH less than a mile away from my home. As I was passing the speech site I saw several dozen protester on the streets. One sign that I saw which cracked me up was "Obama is Washington's Juan Peron".
I am sure my good friend Sid would agree.
Obama is in Nashua, NH less than a mile away from my home. As I was passing the speech site I saw several dozen protester on the streets. One sign that I saw which cracked me up was "Obama is Washington's Juan Peron". I am sure my good friend Sid would agree.And Michelle as Evita? Ouch! Too close to the bone for me!
Member #4112
02-02-10, 18:40
Jackson, perhaps you missed it in Esten's earlier post but he referred to his true colors - "progressive". God save us from the "progressives" since they think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are crap and should be scraped. They are way worse than "liberals" - in fact "progressives" give "liberals" a bad name!
Progressives believe the "power elite" should run the country since we poor stupid masses are unable to think for ourselves, we must be lead for our own good.
I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't) But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job. At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.Esten,
The poor in the USA are better off than the average person in Europe by many measures. Congress and the Obama administration will likely make everyone in the U S worse off, by reducing the incentive for people to work and to start and grow businesses. The policies you espouse not only hurt the wealthy, they also hurt the middle class and those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. See http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf. That's unless you want to avoid reading something that might contradict your prejudices.
Jackson,
I was not referring so much to individuals as to policies. Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs, and increase the concentration of wealth in the wealthy. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder might rightly feel 'screwed' by such policies.
Obama's Q&A at the House GOP retreat was great television.
One notable exchange was with Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling. Instead of just asking his question, he starts in on a long prologue filled with Republican talking points on deficits and debt. At one point Obama jumps in to ask if there's a question coming. Eventually Hensarling gets to his question on the debt, but framing it against Obama and the administration. Obama calls him out on using the Q&A to run a campaign rather than having serious discussion. And then goes on to systematically point out the distortions in his prologue.
I said something before about Obama cutting through the Republican bs and that's just what he did. Apparently after Obama's strong performance, some Republicans were regretting the decision to have allowed television cameras in. FOX news cut away early.
Wild Walleye
02-03-10, 03:18
You can prattle on about any Obama photo op you want (he does about 200/ day) however, before you blow all your goo, try answering the 10-20 points on which you were called out.
Your answer to Jax is only an answer in the eyes of Bill Clinton (I. E. 'an answer is a reply') Trying including some substance in your reply / answer.
P. S. I will still by you a drink and Blackshirt will still deliver Daddy Warbucks
You can prattle on about any Obama photo op you want (he does about 200/ day) however, before you blow all your goo, try answering the 10-20 points on which you were called out.
Your answer to Jax is only an answer in the eyes of Bill Clinton (I. E. 'an answer is a reply') Trying including some substance in your reply / answer.
P. S. I will still by you a drink and Blackshirt will still deliver Daddy WarbucksDude, I'm not going to shave my head.
Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs, and increase the concentration of wealth in the wealthy. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder might rightly feel 'screwed' by such policies.We contend that you are looking at this incorrectly. We believe that that statement (repeated so many times by liberals with no proof except skewed statistics to back it up) should read:
"Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs because when more people are wealthy social programs are not needed as much. These policies tend to increase the concentration of wealth in those who work. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder feel put-upon to actually produce by such policies, or remain poor as the other option, and they feel screwed by that policy."
Again, capitalistic policies have pulled more people out of poverty and provided a better life for more people than any government / socialist program in the history of the world. If you have examples of where that is incorrect and where the government produced programs that actually made things better FOR MORE PEOPLE, please post them so we can see more than "my heart bleeds for those who lack."
Walleye- Hate to disappoint but I am not going to respond to every single comment someone makes. Especially when some of them are too far out to be taken seriously. Where did you believe you 'called me out'? Was it your comment about the Easter Bunny? Was it when you implied I was weak minded? I'm afraid that's only in your imagination. However, if you really feel I've avoided responding to something and want me to address it, just let me know what it is and I'd be happy to do so.
BTW, I was intrigued by your use of the word 'whitey' to address me. I wasn't sure what you meant, whether it had some meaning I was not aware of. So I went on Google to look it up. Here's what I found - I thought you would be interested to read it.
From urbandictionary.com:
whitey
"A person with no pigment to their skin, always refered to a man. Also used as a derogatory term to white people or people acting "white" by people who haven't the intelligence to come up with a real insult. The people who use the insult seem to be more rascist than the target of the slur."
Wild Walleye
02-04-10, 13:27
And also further proof that liberals do not have a sense of humor.
Rock Harders
02-05-10, 12:23
Mongers,
Obama is not doing a good job but he certainly cannot be blamed for sinking GM and / or Chrysler. Those companies are failures because of gross mismanagement that lead to shortsighted product development and the resulting non-competitive products in today's car market. Ford is back to profitability in all markets because of talented management and modern product development; they make quality cars that consumers want. A staunch capitalist such as Sidney should be in favor of letting losers such as GM and C die off while competitive winners such as Ford rise up to take their market share.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Member #4112
02-05-10, 15:11
Esten, in an earlier post you credited Obama with the rise in the stock market from the mid 6000 to 10500 at that point in time, now with the continuing problems with the economy, bad jobs report (even after all the adjustments - how do you loose jobs but lower unemployment numbers? - you cherry pick your sources of course) do you now also credit Obama with the market's fall to under 10,000 today?
Just wondering if Obama only gets credit from you, but none of the blame. Guess this is still George Bush's fault right? I guess not since you are now blaming the fall on Brown's election in MA, in your book it has always got to be one of those dirty Republicans / conseratives that are responsible, never the Big O.
Stan Da Man
02-05-10, 20:26
Mongers,
Obama is not doing a good job but he certainly cannot be blamed for sinking GM and / or Chrysler. Those companies are failures because of gross mismanagement that lead to shortsighted product development and the resulting non-competitive products in today's car market. Ford is back to profitability in all markets because of talented management and modern product development; they make quality cars that consumers want. A staunch capitalist such as Sidney should be in favor of letting losers such as GM and C die off while competitive winners such as Ford rise up to take their market share.
Suerte,
Rock HardersExactly right. For years GM and Chrysler have been marching themselves toward the precipice of failure. After falling over the edge, they then look for someone to blame. It strains credibility to suggest that Obama should be blamed for their failure. Their failure starts with the fact that they negotiated bad union contracts, made poor development and design decisions, had bloated dealer networks, lacked any management foresight, and had years of government assistance that helped them sell the wrong vehicles. This started and played itself out decades before Obama took office. Cancer doesn't overtake its victims overnight, nor is the last doctor on call responsible for causing the disease.
Sid may be a capitalist but he's certainly not a free market capitalist. He was in favor of government handouts to the car companies, and went on record here as being in favor of one for CIT, as well. To my knowledge, the only time he's criticized any of the bailouts has been after-the-fact. His point seemed to be that bailouts are a good thing if they save jobs -- kind of like how Obama measures the effect of his stimulus program with an asterisk: 1 million jobs created or saved*.
Member #4112
02-05-10, 23:14
GM & Chrysler should have been allowed to file for protection under Chaper 11, down size, and emerge from bankruptcy leaner and meaner - able to compete without a dime of tax payer money. But NOOOO the Obama has to "rescue" them with OUR money. Who did Obama really "rescue" his pimps in the UAW - you see in Chapter 11 you are allowed to void your labor contracts and Obama could not let that happend now could he?
Walleye - No problem. I'm sure many other people are having exchanges and disagreements not entirely different from ours. I will not be in BA for awhile, but if / when we are both in town I will take you up on your offer. I typically have a dry sense of humor, but will come prepared with my best joke. If I can't make you laugh, drinks are on me.
Doppelganger - you have me misunderstood. My post on the market last year was simply to balance your post in which you implied a large drop was due to Obama. I think much of the action last year was just a normal correction to an extreme oversold condition, helped by Fed and government policies and some short frying thrown in. My post about Brown and the market was a total joke (hence the smiley) in response to Sid's silly assertion that a big down day was Obama's fault. I don't have much interest in speculating on short term movements. Though I think we were long due for a downward correction. I am capable of faulting Obama and crediting Bush, I am not entirely one-sided. I credit Bush for prodding Congress to approve the financial bailout, which I think at the time was needed and the right thing to do. Bush had the unfortunate honor of becoming a wartime president. BTW, I supported the Iraq war. I think Bush (and others) mis-managed the economy, but I am not much of a Bush-hater. My larger issues are with Republican policies and the downsides of capitalism.
"The Tea Party is the future of American politics."
- Sarah Palin, speaking at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, February 6 2010
http://tv.gawker.com/5466004/did-sarah-palin-write-notes-on-her-hand-at-the-tea-party-convention-update-yes
If she's the future of the Republican party.
El oh el
Question : "What should a republican congress's top 3 priorities be?"
Answer : "Stop spending," "energy policy," and ..............
"I think, kind of tougher to put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we're not afraid to say especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we're not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know – they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance to our creator."
At first, I thought the Tea Party stuff was a thinly-disguised veil for the Republican party and / or the part of Fox that opines (as opposed to their very good news outlet)
Then I read something about Ron Paul's 2008 campaign for President. All major news outlets (including Fox! Completely shunned Ron Paul during the Republican convention, even though he was showing strong and ended up second behind MacCain toward the end, even without such support from any media.
The only person who DID NOT SHUN Ron Paul was Glenn Beck. He had him on his show and did a question-answer session with him for the entire hour - the only real coverage Paul got during his campaign.
I know a lot of liberals (particularly "progressive" liberals) think Glenn Beck is the spawn of the devil, and to tell the truth I don't like the way he presents his views. But it turns out that I DO like MOST of his views (just keep me away from the religious crap)
Glenn Beck is libertarian in thought, if not in name.
For those of you who don't now who Ron Paul is - he's a congressman from Texas's 14 district. He is a Libertarian who joined the Republican party in an attempt to not be so marginalized in our two party system. He is a man of high character and is a consitutionalist and a States' rights activist. He has been presenting a bill for the last 20 years to get the US out of the UN, to get rid of the US Department of Education, and many other things that impinge on US sovereignity and States' right. He's my kind of guy.
Back to the Tea Party stuff.
I went to their site last week because of Glenn Beck's connection to libertarianism and some of the things I've seen him talking about on his show.
Turns out that this is really a grass roots movement that has been left intentionally leaderless to see where it goes.
The site itself has a "Contract From America." According to them, this is the opposite of the "Contract WITH America" that the Republicans tried in the 90s. That was a bunch of legislators getting together and telling the American public what they were going to do as Republicans if they were elected in a majority. This time, the "contract" is coming from the people and is a statement of desire of conduct for our elected officials. The intention is that those who do not adhere to the contract do not get funded by that organization. If it becomes big enough, that could have significant meaning.
The Tea Party movement is intending to develop a platform with which they intend to support candidates that follow the precepts they have laid out. Some basis of those precepts are smaller government, adherence to the Consitution (which we haven't really done as a nation for quite some time, except when it's "convenient") and trying to move towad a truly free market, which we have NEVER had in this country (nor has really existed elsewhere either)
The manner of their platform development is interesting to me. They are requesting members to get together online and give suggestions as to what they would like to see, and then other members will vote on those suggestions. The Tea Party organizers plan to pick what they consider best fit the stated ideals and goals of the organization and begin supporting cadidates FROM ANY PARTY that will adhere to those precepts.
Can you imagine Obama and his ilk actually asking the American people what they want and PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM?
What I like about this is that they are getting people together and discussing how to get control of the government. For those who think that things are ok, and that the government is a good thing that just needs a little adjustment - I believe you are dead wrong and for the good of the country should be strongly opposed. Just as, I'm sure, those same people probably think that what I'm talking about here must be opposed as strongly as possible by people like Obama and the other progressives.
I once made a comment on this forum that Obama and his people weren't "evil" - that what they were trying to do was surely what they thought best for the country, that they were just wrong-headed about that.
After seeing what's happened with health care and many other things that Obama wants to do, listening to Pelosi saying that they will pass healthcare no matter what, will do whatever they have to do to get it done, even in the face of a clear majority of Americans that don't want what the progressives were trying to push, I have changed my mind.
The progressives are trying to change the US. They are trying to make it over in their image, not work within the Constitution and the framework of working together in order to accomplish what the majority of Americans really want. They are trying to TELL the Americans what is best for them, running against what was laid out in the Constitution and many, many writings of the founding fathers who wrote that document.
The Republicans are not much better in many ways. Aside from the war and the problems I have with that, Bush didn't pay enough attention to us domestically and we are paying the price for an inattentive Republican, in my opinion. Republican Senators and Congressmen as a whole are no better - they are not working diligently to make government smaller - they are in it just as deep as Democrats.
What I like about the Tea Party is that they are trying to get back to the roots of what government should be. So far, they have not gotten into too much religious crap - most of it is conservatism related to economy and government, not religion.
I do think that it is unfortunate that Sarah Palin was the first keynote speaker of this organization in their first national convention, and in an interview with someone afterward the interviewer mentioned "Palin for President" which she shrugged off with a smile. I don't know if she is really the idiot that everyone portrays her to be, but right now she could hurt the movement in my opinion because of the perception of many. We'll have to see how that goes.
But the good thing is, the Tea Partiers are not a political party in and of themselves - they are a PAC that are supporting what I consider to be the correct way of thinking about government and I am going to watch what they do and may even become involved where I can if I like where it goes.
You're right Bad Man - what we should be doing is standing straight in the aisles with our jackboots clicking together, cheering whatever Obama has to say.
Go read the Tea Party site and see what they have to say. Palin is one person - there are others. While the liberals make fun of her, they can hardly make fun of some of the things being proposed on that site and I truly hope that they begin quaking in their boots and worrying about trying to implement the socialist view in the US.
Religion, however, be damned! If the Tea party succumbs to religious fervor, screw them. So far, there are some idiots on the Tea Party site talking about things like that, but there are many talking sense, saying "stay away from that or you are going to turn this movement into a right-wing religious movement and that's not what we're about."
El oh el.
http://bg-video.cp.motionbox.com//motionboxons//flash//VideoPlayer.swf?type=sd&video_uid=7c99dab2181defccf4&security_token=prod3.ef5dd1a64e3dd09a
http://tv.gawker.com/5466004/did-sarah-palin-write-notes-on-her-hand-at-the-tea-party-convention-update-yesIf those few words on the palm of her hand are all the TelePrompter she used in her speech - how does that stack up to Obama using two TelePrompters for every one of his speeches?
Oh, come on now!
Obama used a telepromptor (or telepromptors) for a classroom chat with sixth graders (12 year olds)
Member #4112
02-08-10, 14:09
I happen to have the misfortune to live in Ron Paul's district, which was gerrymandered by the Republicans to keep Paul's seat in "Republican" hands - FYI I consider myself an independent. I don't much care of Paul and am supporting the Republican challenger in the upcoming primary. Paul is really no different than other politicians and I truly lost any confidence in him when he began the debates blaming American for the world's problems and his isolationist policies. Paul is the same old political hack we see day in and day out with just a little different twist. I certainly would not call coming in second to McCain much of a recommendation.
About the only thing I did agree with him on was when he provided my daughter with her appointment to West Point, but he turned that into a photo op which I declined to participate in. FYI his son is running for the Senate in Arkansas I believe and may win. I guess the rotten fruit does not fall far from the tree!
Wild Walleye
02-08-10, 18:28
I haven't made up my mind on 2012 yet (just like I don't know what I am having for dinner tomorrow night) but it would be a mistake to dismiss Palin just because the left says she is stupid. Remember, Reagan, the leFt thought he was stupid, too.
Writing on one's hand is an age-old method for putting a little, last minute reminder in a place that is: 1) difficult to lose, and 2) likely that you will see, thus being reminded of its purpose. I still use this method sometimes.
A couple of words on ones hands is not akin to having a crib sheet for an entire exam. I agree with the comment pointing out the inverse correlation between her use of 5 words written on her hand to Obama's complete reliance upon the teleprompter.
You can easily tell the candidate that the left fears most. It is the one that they attack the most often and most relentlessly. If she was so pathetic a candidate and a "sure-fire loss for the republicans" the left would be building her up like they did McCain. The fact of the matter is, Palin is a strong woman who connects with the public in large part because she is a real person, untainted by Washington and willing to stand up for that in which she believes. In very un-Washington fashion, she walks-the-walk rather than just talking-the-talk. The facts that she is fairly articulate and attractive, help to further her appeal.
I haven't formulated an opinion about Sarah Palin, but I do like that she bugs all the right people.
For a moment there I thought you were talking about Obama.
Silly me.
You can easily tell the candidate that the "right " fears most. It is the one that they attack the most often and most relentlessly.
The facts that she is fairly articulate.I think that some members of this board have a different definition of the word 'articulate' than the rest of the english speaking world, just as they have with the word 'marxist' when describing Obama.
My honest take on Palin:
People are talking about her today because she was in the national spotlight yesterday with her speech. Normally she gets a little but not a lot of media coverage.
She brings much of the unfavorable attention on herself, not because people fear her. I would suspect most of the fear with her lies on the right, as to whether she could harm the GOP. I don't think she has the message that is going to sway large numbers of independants to vote Republican.
The fact that she is a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in is commendable. However, she delivers the same old attacks and talking points right out of the GOP playbook. She rarely makes an original point, let alone an intelligent, reasoned argument. It should be no surprise then that many people have trouble taking her seriously. When combined with her folksy delivery, she even becomes humorous.
Her defense of Limbaugh's use of the word 'retard' (after attacking Rahm Emanuel) absolutely defies all logic. Examples like this further raise questions as to her intelligence and substance.
Honestly, there is no other politician that routinely causes me to break out into spontaneous laughter like she does. And not just her but headlines about her. The headline today "Palin says 2012 presidential bid a possibility" is a great example.
In short, I hope to see much more of Sarah in 2010!
All January, dealing with the 'christmas bomber' in the criminal justice system was a huge GOP talking point. Obama was attacked daily as someone who "doesn't understand we are at war". How this makes it more difficult / impossible to gain potentially valuable intelligence. Etc etc.
I never bought into this, and assumed that there were valid reasons why this approach was being used. Including the ability to employ different tactics to gain said intelligence.
With the news last week of the suspect's cooperation, it turns out there ARE effective methods other than torture.
Deputy national security advisor John Brennan said he was tired of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football. And that critics were second-guessing the case with a "500-mile screwdriver" from Washington to Detroit.
I think Republicans screwed-up on this attack. And I find it puzzling why they politicized this thing so much, given their usual stance of always doing the right thing when it comes to national security.
I think Palin's appeal is to the same crowd that Jerry Springer draw from.
I think Palin's appeal is to the same crowd that Jerry Springer draw from.
My honest take on Palin:
People are talking about her today because she was in the national spotlight yesterday with her speech. Normally she gets a little but not a lot of media coverage.
She brings much of the unfavorable attention on herself, not because people fear her. I would suspect most of the fear with her lies on the right, as to whether she could harm the GOP. I don't think she has the message that is going to sway large numbers of independants to vote Republican.
The fact that she is a strong woman who stands up for what she believes in is commendable. However, she delivers the same old attacks and talking points right out of the GOP playbook. She rarely makes an original point, let alone an intelligent, reasoned argument. It should be no surprise then that many people have trouble taking her seriously. When combined with her folksy delivery, she even becomes humorous.
Her defense of Limbaugh's use of the word 'retard' (after attacking Rahm Emanuel) absolutely defies all logic. Examples like this further raise questions as to her intelligence and substance.
Honestly, there is no other politician that routinely causes me to break out into spontaneous laughter like she does. And not just her but headlines about her. The headline today "Palin says 2012 presidential bid a possibility" is a great example.
In short, I hope to see much more of Sarah in 2010!
Articulate?
I think that some members of this board have a different definition of the word 'articulate' than the rest of the english speaking world, just as they have with the word 'marxist' when describing Obama.Like I said, she bugs all the right people.
Thanks,
Jackson
I am not that familiar with what Palin has been doing lately but I agree with Wild Walleye. Most of the comments I have heard from the peanut gallery about Palin sound similar to the comments the peanut gallery made about Ronald Reagon - before Reagon was elected President in a landslide and reelected President in the biggest Presidental landslide in American history.
Unless you have fried most of your brain cells, it should be obvious that Reagon became one of our best Presidents.
With the news last week of the suspect's cooperationI suppose you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too?
Funny how this "revelation" came out after long discussion of how the terrorist had lawyered up.
At any rate - whatever he's saying now is two months old, not two hours old. Intelligence is like a fish - it begins to stink after three days. If the Bush Administration had put hands on this guy, all his Al Qaeda colleagues would have been on the receiving end of Hellfire missiles within hours of his nabbing.
Nice try, attempting to cover for your leader.
Perhaps The One should now try saying "I'm sorry for what America has done" to the Jihadi Muslims some more? He's such dynamic and wonderful speaker, all he has to do is bow, scrape, grovel and apologize and they will really begin to like us.
Like I said, she bugs all the right people.
Thanks,
JacksonJackson,
Palin doesn't bug me in the least. In fact I find it quite amusing that someone who couldn't even name one newspaper that she reads could be a contender in a presidential election.
Recently I've become increasingly more in alignment with your libertarian views, but that still doesn't prevent me from laughing at any description of Obama as a marxist. I'd call him a puppet of the big banks and corporations. Its a forlorn hope, but the next time anyone does, please give us your definition of marxist so I can review my opinion.
Thanks.
Steve
Wild Walleye
02-09-10, 15:00
Her defense of Limbaugh's use of the word 'retard' (after attacking Rahm Emanuel) absolutely defies all logic. Examples like this further raise questions as to her intelligence and substance. Did you hear what Limbaugh actually said? Were you listening? Did you see the Palin interview and actually hear what she said? My guess is that you heard it third hand and took the POV of the source. I happen to hear both live and there is absolutely no inconsistency in her stance nor did Limbaugh say or do anything wrong, unless satirizing corrupt government officials is now illegal.
Jackson,
Palin doesn't bug me in the least. In fact I find it quite amusing that someone who couldn't even name one newspaper that she reads could be a contender in a presidential election.
Recently I've become increasingly more in alignment with your libertarian views, but that still doesn't prevent me from laughing at any description of Obama as a marxist. I'd call him a puppet of the big banks and corporations. Its a forlorn hope, but the next time anyone does, please give us your definition of marxist so I can review my opinion.
Thanks.
SteveHi Steve,
I think you may have me confused with another poster. I don't recall my having referred to Obama as a Marxist. My primary criticism of Obama is his appalling lack of executive management experience, a deficiency that is now becoming obvious to everyone except his his most faithful sycophants.
In the real world, the people who hired this inexperienced college professor to be the CEO of the world's largest organization should themselves be fired for making such a poor personnel decision.
Unfortunately, many of them have actually suffered this fate.
Thanks,
Jackson
Recently I've become increasingly more in alignment with your libertarian views, but that still doesn't prevent me from laughing at any description of Obama as a marxist. I'd call him a puppet of the big banks and corporations. Its a forlorn hope, but the next time anyone does, please give us your definition of marxist so I can review my opinion.Hi Jackson,
Sorry, I could have written this paragraph better. I wasn't referring to you here, but those who do call Obama a Marxist. Descriptions such as underqualified I can accept. But marxist is just ridiculous.
Again, those calling him a marxist, can we have your definition of the word?
Wild Walleye
02-09-10, 21:31
Hi Jackson,
Sorry, I could have written this paragraph better. I wasn't referring to you here, but those who do call Obama a Marxist. Descriptions such as underqualified I can accept. But marxist is just ridiculous.
Again, those calling him a marxist, can we have your definition of the word?I believe it was I, to whom Steve was referring. Steve, I am sure that you are a nice enough guy and that your Prius is saving the same earth that my H1 Hummer is destroying but, you are a little light on facts. Just because you say something is ridiculous does not make it so.
In case you missed it, 'let me be clear' I believe that Obama is a Marxist. He has Marx and Engels in his DNA, it is who he is. I base this upon my knowledge of Marxism and Obama's own statements and actions. So let's look a little deeper. How does Obama score on the three main tenets of Marxism?
1. He believes that the history of mankind is based upon struggles between the social classes (I have never heard him opine on other struggles like good vs. evil, etc) foisted upon populace by the dark plague of economic development. Further, productivity cannot increase without a similar increase in the divisions between social classes, therefore, the outcome of economic advancement will be unfair and detrimental to the people, unless controlled by the proletariat via an authoritative, central government. He perpetually uses class warfare to try to exploit this view:
i. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day:
"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."
ii. Radio ad in the Texas primary race:
"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
(for i and ii above to be factual, 'some' CEOs would have to make US$416 million and $$500 million, respectively. According to Forbes, there are no CEOs making that much)
2. He believes that capitalism is inherently evil and is based upon the 'haves' exploiting the 'have nots.'
September 2008, Obama on Capitalism: So let's be clear: what we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed'
Take a look at all of his anti-market and anti-capitalist policies such as health care and cap and tax.
3. He longs to seize the private property of individual citizens (assets that are theoretically still protected by the Constitution) which he believes to be ill-gotten-gains and place them under his auspices to inure for the benefit of the under classes (who he sees as the rightful owners) which is essentially a proletariat revolution.
Please refer to the recent government seizures of GM and Chrysler, both of which were taken from their rightful owners via extra-constitutional means by the executive branch and given to proletariat proxies (I. E. Labor unions) His intended swan song is to bankrupt the US with these deficits and watch as we fall from our position of global leadership and wealth down into obscurity.
I'll bring my well-worn copy of Das Kapital when I return to Bs As and welcome you to familiarize yourself with its contents.
WW,
Thanks for the response. A bit of the usual sarcasm (I don't even own a car, don't need one living here in BsAs) but light on arguments. A few isolated quotes from campaign speeches, your opinion that health care reform is the the end of capitalism as we know it (OK, I can do sarcasm too) plus claims like "He longs to seize the private property of individual citizens." and "His intended swansong is to bankrupt the US.", just don't convince me. And thanks for the offer, but don't bring down Das Kapital, I couldn't read that again, life's too short.
Steve
Did you hear what Limbaugh actually said? Were you listening? Did you see the Palin interview and actually hear what she said? My guess is that you heard it third hand and took the POV of the source. I happen to hear both live and there is absolutely no inconsistency in her stance nor did Limbaugh say or do anything wrong, unless satirizing corrupt government officials is now illegal.I saw the videos. Both Emanuel and Limbaugh used the "R" word did they not? Did you read Palin's Facebook letter? She described Emanuel's remark as a "slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities". Just as bad as the "N" word. And said she wanted her child to grow up in a country "free from gratuitous insults". I'm not bothered by the R word, but it defies logic how Palin can give Limbaugh a pass here.
According to Palin, when Limbaugh uses the R word on national radio, it's satire. When Emanuel uses it in a private meeting, it's demeaning. ROTFLMAO!
Palin's whole "Brand" is being authentic and real. I wonder if she really has the guts to stand up for what she believes in.
Jackson - not bugged, merely entertained.
This clip from Stephen Colbert is too much. He analyzes the Palin and Limbaugh videos to demonstrate Palin's point on the R word. Classic.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/colbert-sarah-palin-is-a_n_454744.html
Wild Walleye
02-10-10, 13:01
I saw the videos. Both Emanuel and Limbaugh used the "R" word did they not? Did you read Palin's Facebook letter? She described Emanuel's remark as a "slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities". Just as bad as the "N" word. And said she wanted her child to grow up in a country "free from gratuitous insults". I'm not bothered by the R word, but it defies logic how Palin can give Limbaugh a pass here.
According to Palin, when Limbaugh uses the R word on national radio, it's satire. When Emanuel uses it in a private meeting, it's demeaning. ROTFLMAO!
Palin's whole "Brand" is being authentic and real. I wonder if she really has the guts to stand up for what she believes in.He set up the lampoon / satire early and used it often. It was and is all about Emanuel. It is just like whenever he or anyone on the right points out something someone on the left said, the left attacks the messenger and accuses him / her of the slur. It is like little kids. One kid calls another one "stupid" (or uses another banned word) the aggrieved kid goes crying to mom "he said stupid" and the other kid says "but he just said 'stupid'" in an attempt to avoid responsibility for his prior statement.
Steve: Do you really think I had to cherry-pick Obama's statements? As for 'longing' to seize private property. It is a matter of fact, since he has done it with GM and Chrysler. Why not ask the bondholders (whose UCC claims ranked higher than those of the unions) how they wound up being subordinated to the unions? By the way, the 'bondholders' included lots and lots of little people. However, the proletariat pure-play was to give the companies to the unions, that way they could avoid giving it to anyone in the "investor class" (except of course those elitists that run the unions to their enrichment and the detriment of their members)
WW - I agree with you on many things, but in this case, it just seems to me that Limbaugh himself actually made Palin look even dumber than she seems to begin with - and maybe he even had an ulterior motive besides ratings.
First, I thought Palin overreacted way too strongly to Emmanuel to begin with, calling for him to resign because he used a phrase that is very common in our country to begin with and doesn't necessarily denigrate anyone like the word "nigger," at least not how it was used. Ok, so mentally retarded people may be offended, but let's think about what he is really saying here.
What's another word for retarded? "Mentally challenged?" Well, I think Emmanuel saying that other members of the Democratic Party being mentally challenged is correct to begin with, and use of a more common phrase, "retarded," is not necessarily incorrect.
If he had used the word "nigger" in this case, it would have truly been reprehensible, to use an example of a truly despicable word that would deserve such ire as Palin put forth. That is nothing but a racist label that really serves nothing except prejudice and would have been extremely wrong-minded.
The fact is, the Republicans started this whine-fest with Palin's very strong remarks calling on Emmanuel to step down. Limbaugh knew there was going to be a media storm when he made the comments - he proudly states in the transcripts of his show that he predicted the outcome of that (wasn't very hard to do, eh?
"Retard" is a word that has come to mean someone who does something stupid. We have all used this word for decades at least, and it doesn't mean that mentally retarded people are bad people. Palin was actually doing what Limbaugh was preaching against (and of course, yes he used satire to do so) - using this "politically correct" crap to castigate someone on the other side.
Palin should have originally said something like "how unfortunate that Emmanuel has to resort to name calling within his own party and using the word retard is even more unfortunate" instead of calling on him to resign. But Palin does not strike me as an intellectual giant to begin with, and some of the battles that she picks are certainly not going to get the independent center voting for the Republicans in November 2010.
The fact that Limbaugh is an entertainer and may even have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind makes me wonder if he didn't do this "satire" on purpose, knowing that it would put some heat on Palin, who I suspect he doesn't particularly care for personally either (Limbaugh is a pretty smart guy, no matter what people think of his show) and may see her a danger to the Republicans if she becomes too much the front for them in 2010 during this extremely important campaign season.
BTW - my ex-brother-in-law is mentally retarded. Severly. We never shied from using the word to describe other people. His condition is a statement of fact, and using it on other people makes it clear that the speaker thinks the other person is mentally challenged. In other words, unable to think clearly, in many cases unable to see future consequences for present actions, so on and so forth. Not like calling someone a "nigger" which implies that that person, due to genetics, is somehow an inferior being and does not deserve to be labeled "human."
No one ever said that retarded people aren't human - just that they don't think so clearly. I think that goes for Downs syndrome people who actually are genetically predisposed to their condition, people like my ex-brother-in-law who had German measles as a kid with such a high fever that it permanently disabled him, as well as people who for whatever reason simply cannot reason and perform mentally.
You know, being a true independent (fiscally conservative, socially liberal) I have to wonder why it is that neither side can actually see that they are almost always doing what they accuse the other side of doing in one way or another.
In fact, it seems a little retarded to me:)
Some positions are just so indefensible that the very defense of them makes it obvious to the other side and to those in the middle what's going on. Those who are truly in the middle have this crick in the neck related to watching the volley go back and forth with no real points scored for either side.
Wild Walleye
02-10-10, 17:20
At least on Limbaugh's satire which was completely appropriate given both Emanuel and Palin's comments, which occurred before his show.
As for starting the whine-fest, I agree that this particular episode was brought to life by Palin (because no one else would draw attention to it) It is perfectly appropriate for Palin to call out Emanuel on this subject. The problem here is that while the right holds its own to certain standards, there are no standards for the left.
The left specializes in feigned outrage when anyone on the right says anything that is either inappropriate or can be stretched to look like something inappropriate. Allen, Lott, and Limbaugh are just a few targets. However, when someone on the left says something, it is glossed over. Recent examples include Harry Reid using the 'Negro' when discussing the president and Emanuel using the term f-ing retards (albeit when referring to a group of f-ing retards)
Opposition to Obama's candidacy and opposing anything Obama proposes is racist, even if you do so tacitly. Therefore, I guess we can't oppose anything. However, the left can operate with impunity because they are not held to any standards.
That said, is it appropriate for him to be fired for saying that? I don't know. George Allen was barred from office from saying "macahcah" which was a meaningless made up word, until given meaning by the left. A former republican speaker of the house had to give up his position because he toasted some old geezer at a birthday party saying that it would have been great for the geezer to have been elected president way back when. No one, even the left and the media (guess that is redundant) believed that Lott was endorsing segregation (he probably didn't even recall that the geezer was a former segregationist--at least he wasn't a grand wizard of the KKK like Bird (d. West Virginia)
Stan Da Man
02-10-10, 20:53
That said, is it appropriate for him to be fired for saying that? I don't know. George Allen was barred from office from saying "macahcah" which was a meaningless made up word, until given meaning by the left. A former republican speaker of the house had to give up his position because he toasted some old geezer at a birthday party saying that it would have been great for the geezer to have been elected president way back when. No one, even the left and the media (guess that is redundant) believed that Lott was endorsing segregation (he probably didn't even recall that the geezer was a former segregationist--at least he wasn't a grand wizard of the KKK like Bird (d. West Virginia)I agree that the left has a double standard on this, but so does the right. It's political opportunism whenever someone from the other party says something off-color. Palin does look disingenuous in giving Limbaugh a pass. She's crafted the "satire" defense, but it's weak at best. What she ought to do is tell him to stop using the word, as well, and he can ignore her or not. She's just worried that she'll step on his toes and alienate some of his supporters, which is why she's coming off as disingenuous with the satire defense.
By the way, I'm no linguist, but "macaca" is monkey in Portuguese. The Portuguese word is actually macaco, but it's pretty darn close. Like a lot of slang, I highly doubt Allen knew that. And, again, I'm no entymologist, so I don't really have much proof that this is where the slang term hails from. But, it's pretty close both in denotation and slang connotation.
My spin on these things is: Everyone, on both sides, is too quick to feign offense, including Palin here. Rarely does the casual use of a word cause any real offense -- at least not to the people who are feigning offense. But, you can usually tell something about the folks who are pretending to be offended, since they are attempting to manufacture a controversy to serve some ulterior motive. So, I would generally go the opposite way: Anyone feigning offense at words probably isn't fit to serve in public office, since they have hidden political agendas they are trying to advance.
Are you "retards" still yapping about the "left" and "right?"
Not sure where you guys are from, but I can guarantee that you haven't encountered many real Marxists / Leftists in your lives.
WW, I do have to admit you made me laugh with the Obama Marxist comments. It almost appear like you actually read Das Kaptial. I'm sure you just googled it, though.
Anytime you are in BsAs, let me know. We can sit down with a couple of beers and discuss it as much as you can stand. Owning the book and talking out your ass may not get you very far, though.
Member #4112
02-10-10, 22:47
While I have to agree the Right is beginning to be as bad as the Left when it comes to becoming indignant about certain "banned" words, the Left has always taken a pass on punishment or resignations of positions or office over such transgressions while the Right seems to always fall on their own swords like good soldiers – ie Trent Lott and Newt Gringrich et al.
Barney Frank is a great example, bending over pages while his "housemate" ran a male prostitution business out of Frank's house - Barney claimed he had no idea and was shocked – yea right!
How about the departed John Murtha who was captured on ABSCAM video turning down a bribe but alluding to doing business for more money at a later date not to mention all his bombast against American soldiers in the field pronouncing them murders or women and children without so much as a scrap of truth then refusing to even apologize when proven wrong.
Then there Cris Dodd and his sweetheart deal with Countywide for financing his properties – you know the documents he pledged to make public nearly two years ago but those papers have never seen the light of day.
The grand lizard of the KKK has already been mentioned, but the list goes on and on. Typically the Left howls for blood at some verbal transgression and the Right just surrenders, but when the Right howls for blood the Left just says well "I was taken out of context", "that's not what I meant", "I should have chosen a better word" and the list goes on for excuses when the real response from the Left is "So What!" Or as they say in Poland – Tough Shitisky!
Dopple,
How many times have you been called a Retard in your life? 10-20 thousand?
And a fag? 5-10 thousand?
And a Nigger? 0?
If you don't see the difference between Strom Thurmond/Trent Lott's and Rahm Emanual's "verbal transgressions" then I guess maybe it was more like 30-40 thousand.
Member #4112
02-11-10, 00:56
Schmoj,
I guess you must run with a very different crowd than I do based on your response. Retard? Fag? Folks didn't use that sort of language and remain healthy where I live.
Did you even know what Lott said? From your response I doubt it. FYI living in the south I have been called a nigger even though I am white. Also you should have noticed black folks call each other nigger with wild abandon yet if someone else uses the word they are racist.
My point in the prior post is the Republican's tend to do the "right thing" and resign while the Democrats / Liberals would not know the "right thing" if it bit them in the ass - which IMHO is going to happen in November this year.
I also think the whole thing is over blown but the Liberals / Democrats are great at dishing it out but pretty thin skinned when it comes to taking it.
Exit soapbox stage right!
Doppel, people aren't going to resign (or fire someone) just because someone from the other political party thinks they should.
Wild Walleye, you really do put the 'Wild' in your name.
Some of your stuff is so far out it cannot be taken seriously. But you do it so often it starts becoming difficult to take you seriously. I like your intellectual arguments (honest) but they are so frequently peppered with wild statements that I don't know what to make of it.
He believes that capitalism is inherently evil Absurd. Obama like Dems in general recognize the shortcomings of capitalism, and want to address them while still maintaining a largely capitalistic system.
He longs to seize the private property of individual citizens GM was a special situation. He has said and done little to suggest this is what he thinks about every day.
The problem here is that while the right holds its own to certain standards, there are no standards for the left.Rather one-sided don't you think?
Opposition to Obama's candidacy and opposing anything Obama proposes is racist Never heard anybody suggest that until now.
His intended swan song is to bankrupt the USOh boy.
Yes, I believe I will now have to address you by your first name.
Folks. Why can't we all get along.
When it comes to blacks, African Americans, coloreds, Negros, or what ever.
The truth be told, if you meet someone from above and their nasty mother fucker with no redeeming value as a human being (I. E rappers, thugs, gang bangers) the're a NIGGER in my book.
But if their civilized and willing to assimilate and contribute to society and leave the race issue in the past, then their cool. Using the word NIGGER is a racist comment and reflects badly on you as a person.
Bottom line:
The word NIGGER is fitting and appropriate in my opinion to reflect the distain society should have for people who are undermining spciety and trying to game the system, regardless of color.
Greetings Everyone,.
I am aware that the vast majority of references to racial issues are legitimate. However, past discussions in the Forum has repeatedly demonstrated that the subject simply cannot be discussed intelligently, in any form or for any reason, without being misinterpreted and without starting flame wars.
Please do not engage in discussions about race or racism in the Forum. Please read the Forum's Posting Guidelines for further information.
Thanks,.
Jackson
Wild Walleye
02-11-10, 16:31
Feel free to take issue with any of the facts or opinions that I have stated. You may label me any way you like, cast dispersions, what have you. As you have hopefully noticed, I enjoy deploying the razor tongue and being part armadillo, I have thick skin. However, your rush to dismiss me as a right wing kook is an obvious ploy to try to discredit anything I say, a tactic seen over and over again.
Scmoj, welcome back. The attached photo is for you.
My personal opinion, formed within my own tiny brain, is that Obama is bad for the nation, its citizens and its founding principles. I prefer not to wait until the country is broken and on its knees to take issue with 'leadership' that promises to destroy what has made this nation great. If you cannot or chose not to see the facts, you will need to rely on others to protect your rights for you.
If you were screaming about Bush, you should be howling about Obama. His words and deeds speak volumes for his disregard for the rule of law, specifically the Constitution (not that he, as a 'Constitutional Expert' should be expected to be able to discern between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) The left seems to think that he is so brilliant and special that we should allow him to be untethered from the constraints of the Constitution so that he can fix what is wrong with the country. Further, because he is do divine and the Democrats so enlightened, we should weaken checks and balances so that they don't get in the way either. Silly supreme court justices making decisions he doesn't like (and clearly doesn't understand) While we are at it, why don't we reduce the number of votes needed for a super majority in the Senate (you might be surprised to know that it wasn't always 3/5s (used to take 2/3s) to make a super majority) so the pesky minority doesn't get in the way?
Look, I am certain Obama is much smarter than all of the founding fathers combined, so let's just make him Supreme Ruler.
You dismiss out of hand the very real example of what happened in the case of GM.
GM was a special situation. He has said and done little to suggest this is what he thinks about every day.Obama: "Because of the terrible mess I inherited from George W. Bush (who by the way is really Beelzebub) I am going to ignore and willingly contravene the Constitution and take these assets (GM) from their legal owners (bondholders in top UCC position (you probably don't know or care what that means) and give them to the unions (who were instrumental in getting me this gig) Just this one time. OK, just twice because I am going to do it with Chrysler, too." "Other than that, I am A-O-K with that Constitution thingy."
Suspending provisions of the Constitution is no small matter that can be dismissed as a special situation. Lincoln suspended habeus-corpus in 1862 and that is a major moment in US history. This is a slippery slope. Next stop, tracking your every move via your cell phone.
Exhibit #1: Case 08-4227 "In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America For An Order Directing A Provider of Electronic Communication Service To Disclose Records to the Government United States of America" The appellant in that case is none other than the Obama administration, which "has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U. S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls."
I am sure you were all over Bush for 'warrantless wiretapping' (which was nothing of the sort and is an activity currently being used by the Obama Administration.
Member #4112
02-11-10, 17:48
Esten,
Perhaps you could explain that to Trent Lott et al.
Perhaps you could explain that to Trent Lott et al.That's hilarious. Notice how you (and some Republicans) make the comparison with Lott as the entire basis of your position. Rather than judge what Reid said on its own.
I'm not going to debate what they said, it would bore me to tears. I think what they said was different, though neither warranting a resignation. Though Lott's statement was a bit on the edge. Black leaders did not have an issue with Reid's statement. Please note the use of the word 'just' in my prior post.
Member #4112
02-12-10, 08:09
Esten,
Trent Lott is only one of several Republicans which could be named. That aside, based on your postings - it seems you are permitted to make grand pronouncements on your beliefs but no one else is afforded this "privilege" if they disagree with you.
Is this a case of either "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" or "Don't confuse me with the facts"?
By the way – I'm an independent not a Republican.
Because I never said that. We are all entitled to post and respond to what we wish to.
Wild Walleye
02-12-10, 14:56
Black leaders did not have an issue with Reid's statement. This is not critical of Esten's statement.
Just pointing out that feigned outrage is overflowing when a republican says something that is inappropriate or can be misconstrued, however, when the source is a protected liberal, the aggrieved constituency is silent, or at least the anointed leaders (I. E. Those I nlock-step with the left) speaking for them (or more accurately claiming to speak for them) are notoriously absent.
I don't think that either Lott or Reid should be drummed out of office for their comments. Let the voters decide. That said, this is a blood sport and language is one of the avenues of attack favored by the left, therefore, the right cannot shy away from demanding a two-way street on this (although they will never get it)
Just saw where the U. S. Govt. Is spending $400,000 to pay for Gay men to troll Gay Bars in Arg. To study their frequency of having sex after drinking alcohol.I bet it's part of their "Stimulus Plan".
ROTFLMAF!
Jackson
Stan Da Man
02-12-10, 18:52
Though Lott's statement was a bit on the edge. Black leaders did not have an issue with Reid's statement. Please note the use of the word 'just' in my prior post.Esten:
How can you take Palin to task for giving Limbaugh a pass but not do the same for the self-appointed "black leaders" who gave Reid a pass? It's the exact same issue. Each chooses not to feign offense when members of their own constituency utter supposedly off-color remarks.
Candidly, what Reid said is objectively more offensive than anything Limbaugh and especially Lott said.
The idea that black leaders didn't have an issue with what Reid said is the point: They've got a double standard. If they want to insist that Lott resign, they darn well better stand on the same principles with Harry Reid. The fact that they didn't just shows that they are obvious hypocrites. And, yes, I would paint Palin with that same brush.
Did the Obomination fund the study?
Hey Sid,
Just saw where the U. S. Govt. Is spending $400,000 to pay for Gay men to troll Gay Bars in Arg. To study their frequency of having sex after drinking alcohol.I'm afraid this $400,000 study funded by the National Institutes of Health will not in the end result in scientific data that will demonstrate why some gay men engage in high risk behaviors that could result in the acquiring or transmitting of the virus that causes AIDS.
By research standards this is a small study. Only $275,000 will be used for direct costs (to actually conduct the study in the field) and $125,000 (about 45% for doing little) is for indirect costs (this will go to the New York Psychiatric Hospital Institute that is the recipient of the grant)
I can't imagine they will have a sufficient large pool of subjects interviewed and observed such that they can conduct a power analysis of the raw data. In the end they will end up with wording such as: "Gay men under the influence of licit / illicit intoxicants will participate in high risk sex in the presence of an environment that presents highly eroticized stimuli." By the way, you can replace gay men with heterosexual men and you would end up with the same results.
This is what we see and hear about the US economy in Australia. I just thought I'd pass it on for comment.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Cloud-over-US-retail-pd20100223-2WRJQ?OpenDocument&src=kgb
One of the more sobering pieces of US economic data came out last week when retail giant Wal-Mart released its fourth quarter results.
The world's largest retailer saw its same-store sales drop 1.7 per cent in the final three months of 2009, the first decline in its history.
Wal-Mart boss, Mike Duke, was wary about the immediate outlook, commenting that the economy remained "challenged" for many of the stores' customers around the world, and that US sales in the first quarter of 2010 were likely to be "difficult".
Now, Wal-Mart picks up about $1 of every $10 spent at stores in America, so signs that its sales are flagging suggest the US consumer is in trouble.
And that's bad news for the US economy, because the US consumer accounts for more than 70 per cent of gross domestic product.
US consumers are in bad shape for two reasons. In the first place, they've got too much mortgage and credit card debt. Consumers built up heavy debt loads over the past decade, lured by easy credit conditions and low interest rates. As a result, they're now saddled with an estimated $4 trillion of debt that they have to progressively work off.
But an even more pressing problem is the poor state of the US labour market. Because without jobs, consumers can't spend.
The US unemployment rate edged down to 9.7 per cent in January, but many argue that this figure significantly understates the size of problems in the jobs markets.
That's because the figures only count those people who have been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer, and are actively looking for work. In contrast, the broader measures which include discouraged workers currently stands at a massive 16.5 per cent.
What's more, the dismal jobs market over the past two years has prompted a large number of people to decide to permanently quit the labour market.
It's estimated that if the labour force participation rate had stayed at its 2000 levels, the official US unemployment rate would be closer to 13 per cent.
There's also evidence that employers are responding to the uncertain economic conditions by hiring part-time, rather than full-time workers. This has led to a 3 per cent drop in the number of people working full-time.
The weak state of the US jobs market has led to an increased dependence on the government benefit payments. A staggering 20 per cent of personal income in the United States now comes from transfer payments, which is money handed over by the government.
It's difficult to see how the US is going to rectify its unemployment problem, given that so many of the big employers – such as state and local governments, and the construction, retailing and finance sectors – are facing huge stresses.
There are tentative signs that US factories are hiring more staff, but this is unlikely to be sufficient to compensate for the likely job cuts in other areas.
As David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff notes, manufacturing only employs 11.5 million workers in the United States, or about 9 per cent of the workforce.
Even a 5 per cent pick up in hiring in the manufacturing sector would only generate slightly more than 500,000 new jobs.
In contrast, there are 7.7 million people working in the financial services sector – which is facing huge downsizing pressures.
The retail sector employs 14.4 million people, but this sector is under stress due to lower sales and pressure on margins.
Another 20 million people work for US state and local governments, but many of these institutions are grappling with budgetary problems.
And there are 5.7 million people working in the embattled construction industry.
As Rosenberg notes, "The bottom line is that any improvement we are going to see in that 11.5 million manufacturing workforce is going to have to be pretty impressive in order to cushion the blow from what is likely to be downsizing in the combined 48 million workforce in the lower levels of government and the retail, financial and construction sectors."
The combination of hefty debt burdens and weak employment conditions means that US consumers are not likely to start spending any time soon.
In fact, many are worried that bankruptcies are set to rise as consumers find their income is not enough to meet the interest payments on their debt.
Wild Walleye
03-02-10, 18:59
Ford + 43%! Your Obomination's government ''working for you''!Like pre-embargo cuban cigars. Collectors' items.
Rock Harders
03-02-10, 19:01
Sidney,
Obviously we don't share the same political views and I respect that but your constant blaming of Obama for GM's capitulation is so off base that I just don't understand why you keep bringing it up. GM is a failure and a loser because of incompetent management and engineers who design shitty cars that the consumer does not want. GM and Chrysler had no hope long before Obama even considered running for office. Ford, which did not go bankrupt, showed a $1 billion + profit in Q4 2009 and just reported a 40%+ sales increase from February 2009. Why is Ford successful? Good management and excellent engineers who design quality cars that can compete with the best in the world. Stop blaming the government for destroying your beloved GM when you know that they are a failure only from their own incompetence.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Sidney-
Obviously we don't share the same political views and I respect that but your constant blaming of Obama for GM's capitulation is so off base that I just don't understand why you keep bringing it up. GM is a failure and a loser because of incompetent management and engineers who design shitty cars that the consumer does not want. GM and Chrysler had not hope long before Obama even considered running for office. Ford, which did not go bankrupt, showed a $1 billion + profit in Q4 2009 and just reported a 40%+ sales increase from February 2009. Why is Ford successful? Good management and excellent engineers who design quality cars that can compete with the best in the world. Stop blaming the government for destroying your beloved GM when you know that they are a failure only from their own incompetence.
Suerte,
Rock HardersAnd it's Harders for the win. Again. Sidney, you just got served.
There is a deep divide between those who see "government is the solution" and those who see "government is the problem". Whichever side you take, you're going to see the other side's arguments as "obviously flawed" and your own viewpoint as "unassailable."
I find myself straddling that divide: There are functions of "societal survival" that are best performed by government - for instance, the justice system, or "the national defense" - but there are other functions that are worst done by government, where "the public interest" is better served by the marketplace.
The problem I see in the USA's auto industry isn't "Ford vs GM" - it's government intervention into industry, into commerce, into the marketplace. The USA's current government (executive and legislative branches) appear, to me, "interventionist" to a degree that makes FDR look like an enlightened libertarian.
I don't like this situation, not at all, but I recognize that none of my arguments will make sense to those who see government intervention as the solution to society's problems.
Wild Walleye
03-03-10, 17:00
Not sure what the local papers are saying (for two reasons, my Spanish sucks and I am not in Bs As) about the second major international policy f-up in the last week or so.
A stop in Argentina was not on Hilary's itinerary. I suspect that Bill was on board and wanted some Bs As 'strange.' Whatever the reason, her visit to Bs As is appalling. I am not opining on any issue related to the sovereignty of Falklands, rather one of US foreign policy. Last I checked, Great Britain was an ally of ours--not just an ally, perhaps our best and most important ally.
There was no driving reason for the US to stick its nose into the issue, especially in a manner that allies us with Hugo Chavez and puts us in opposition to one of our most important allies. What has Christina done for the US?
I am pretty sure that the attached picture includes two of the most unattractive women ever posted to this forum. All that plastic surgery would have been better spent on giving hot young women bigger breasts.
Christina looks like she is saying "yes, those buck teeth really are unfortunate. Why don't you call my private dentist and see if he can't fix them?" Hilary can't hear a thing. She's guffawing (just like Bill would) grabbing her shoulder and thinking "hmm, your kinda toned for a woman of your vintage. I've never eaten penguin before."
Christina looks like she is saying "yes, those buck teeth really are unfortunate. Why don't you call my private dentist and see if he can't fix them?" Hilary can't hear a thing. She's guffawing (just like Bill would) grabbing her shoulder and thinking "hmm, your kinda toned for a woman of your vintage. I've never eaten penguin before."You are killing me dude. F*cking Hillarious!
Happy Mongering All.
Toymann
The issue of the "Malvinas" is really just one of internal Argentina politics. Oh, sure they have some sort of formal protest or resolution in the UN, but it's really only something that Argentinians even know about.
Here is a little on the latest "saber" rattling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm
The key quote being:
"It's more of the same and we come to expect it when Argentina's government are experiencing difficulties at home. We're a very convenient distraction."
Walleye, if you were here and could read Spanish, you would see more and more in the coming weeks. Early April is "Malvinas Day" (Translation: Falkland Islands day) Each year, they drag out the veterans and children of veterans and let them tell their tearful stories on Cronica and C5N. Culminating in getting everyone riled up in a nationalistic fervor. I think there is a parade. Then it's forgotten about for 10.5 months.
Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money.
news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217
Wild Walleye
03-05-10, 13:05
Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money.
news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217How can anything be leaked if it is presented to a sizable audience?
As an aside, "scare tactics" infers that a sense of fear is being inappropriately inserted into something that no one should fear. How can it be "scare tactics" if the subject is something that everyone should fear?
Stan Da Man
03-05-10, 19:55
How can anything be leaked if it is presented to a sizable audience?
As an aside, "scare tactics" infers that a sense of fear is being inappropriately inserted into something that no one should fear. How can it be "scare tactics" if the subject is something that everyone should fear?I've got to agree with you there. This is just one more of the many examples of the media's pronounced left-wing bias. The writer inserted "scare tactics" for the notion that the GOP is going to address people's fears. Essentially telling that their fears are real. The leap from 'playing to people's fears' to 'scare tactics' is typical left-wing media hyperbole.
Although this article discussed it, the most telling thing is the stark absence of similar articles about the Democrats while George Bush was in office. He and Cheney were held up as 'evil incarnate' by so many in the Democratic party, yet those same tactics got a pass from the media. Indeed, if anything, the media just threw gasoline on the flames. It was the same when Reagan was in office. He was portrayed as a mentally-challenged-religious-zealot-war-monger, and the left wing media was complicit in the affair the entire way. It was only after he left office. When the left was forced to acknowledge Reagan's obvious successes. That the media finally gave the guy a modicum of credit.
Chalk this story up to 4th Branch bias. It's pure hogwash.
Wild Walleye
03-06-10, 15:18
The only thing was that they were around words like "terrorist." We were also being taught that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Anyhow, what should scare everyone is the slight of hand going on with health care. The talk about reconciliation is bogus.
Reconciliation is being sold to the public as some deliberative machination that will make this colossal cock-up into something wonderful. Gullible and dishonest Dems in the house who don't like the bill that the Senate passed will attempt to use this as cover but it is nothing. There is nothing to be reconciled without a bill passed by both Houses. A bill passed by both houses goes somewhere else (not back to the Senate for reconciliation)
The only way to get to reconciliation is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then reconcile it. Funny thing is, that if the House passes the Senate bill, it then goes to the President's desk where Obama will sign it and it will become law. There is absolutely no requirement that there be any reconciliation once it becomes law.
If the House passes the Senate bill, we have Obamacare, end of story.
Wild, It was leaked because it wasn't intended to be seen by the general public. The direct references to fear and childish cartoons of top Dems in a fundraising document aren't likely to impress voters. The RNC chairman was on FOX saying it was unfortunate and inappropriate. Even the reporter said it didn't look good and asked if someone would get fired.
The FOX video: GOP's Steele in damage control mode after 'Evil Empire' presentation.
rawstory.com/2010/03/steele-evil-empire-presentation/
I also thought it interesting how the RNC document apparently described some Republican donors as "ego-driven" who can be made to give money by appealing to their animosity against the Obama administration.
Member #4112
03-07-10, 13:54
Esten, are you telling me the Left did not do the exact same thing in spades with Bush in the last election - didn't matter Bush was not even on the ticket - to motivate their donors casting Bush as Beelzebub reborn?
From healthcare reform, to climate change, to "green" jobs, to the reduction of dependence on foreign energy sources the Left has been nothing but one big fear factory – manufacturing one "crisis" after another to further their own ends.
Question: as an aside, how did a liberal suave man about town such as yourself get "ripped off" by one of the liberal loving chicas? It boggles the mind.
My Former Name
03-08-10, 03:38
While many of us would agree the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and many others in the medical provider world are probably ripping us off, if you subtract their profits from our medical costs, we still are going broke paying for medical care.
Obamacare is not enough. It is not the cure. It's a placebo.
Republicans offer nothing, but political chicanery. A man without a suit.
What's the solution? Simple, the only way to solve this is demand destruction. You can take all the sick people and kill them (not an ideal solution if your sick) or you can change the SOP (standard operating procedure.
I have had doctors tell me they are running a test on me 'just to cover my ass', or 'why do you care, your insurance company will pay for it.'
I resent wasting my time and money just to increase the revenues of the medical establishment. We are spoiled. We think more tests; more procedures will extend our life, improve our quality of life, or lessen our pain. Not true. In many cases, it's just entertainment. Your pain will not be less, nor will you live longer. They are just more tests and procedures without any value.
Much money is spent on patients with cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. We must find more productive ways to improve the quality of life and efficacy of care for those with these afflications. Give us a better bang for our buck, not enrichment of those who offer promises but deliver snake oil. We are quick to throw money at those who offer miracles and deliver excuses. Stop it.
The medical community is rewarded on pay for services rendered. The more services rendered, the more money earned.
We need to change the rules. Pay for good outcomes. If they fix your problem, they get N dollars based upon the diagnosis. If they keep you out of the hospital with a flu, they get N. If they extend your life by a year with cancer, they get X. If it takes twenty visits or five visits, the payment is the same. Guess what. Great doctors will make a lot of money. Poor doctors will go broke, and take up work at a restaurant serving meals. We will do fewer tests, less procedures and live longer with less pain. I can hear the medical community and the politicos screaming about 'death panels'. Pendejadas. Bullshit.
Sound simple. It isn't. It will take many safeguards. Make sure the diagnosis is valid. Medical auditors to certify the books will be needed. Make sure the docs don't kill you to make more money. Get the medical boards and the AMA to pull the license of bad docs. Slow the ambulance chasers with tort reform. Capitalism is the best system if you can control the cheaters. Determine how to cheat and provide strong disincentives to doing so. We don't need Bernie Madoff running this scheme.
When I was a young man in the 60s and 70s, healthcare for me (and my elderly mother) was a small percent of my income. Not anymore. It overwhelms many today. We can't go on like this.
If you're a medical provider, you will not like my plan. You will get your lobbyist to try to defeat it. But let me tell you, you will need to find a different line of work. Believe as you will, you can't win. If medical costs keep rising, death will be the only affordable alternative. You will lose your job anyway, because your patients are dead or broke.
Mongers. I hold little hope. I ask that you don't take the sugar pill. On the next election, vote only for those who have appeared on Comedy Central. If congress is going to be a joke, let's have a few laughs.
Seriously, I hope someone has the guts to ride the third rail and solve this death spiral. I'll vote for him / her. Will you?
Respectfully,
MFN
I know the title of this thread is about Obama s presidency, but most of his decisions are the result of a generation scale political orientations.
I found Generation Zero extremely instructive about the irresponsablity chain that lead to the financial collapse. This is more than just a question of political party, it s a cultural question: the loss of common sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sss0irwcOX8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbSny44Je-s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8O_FDz7H3M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN-hO7RVlkE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NzLIMcyCxg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsI41CFby1s&feature=related
It's simplistic to only look at profits. Far more important is the costs from executives enrich themselves through executive salary, bonuses, stock options, expense accounts, private jets, corner office suites, and just generally living large on the company's dime. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as I'd be doing exactly the same thing in their situation but it's a pretty obvious cost.
Most health insurance companies really don't care about controlling costs except as a marketing line on the proposal that they make to their large corporate customers which are almost all cost+overhead contracts. There are only a few companies that are large enough to bid on corporate contracts and they are competing more on markup than base cost. Real "pooling of risks" insurance is a small part of the industry and unimportant to the big companies. The business is nothing like life, homeowners, and auto insurance.
The real problem is health care costs, not health care "insurance" costs. Read the March 15th Business Week for the cover story and the "Outside Shot" column. I think they illuminate both the real problem and one possible solution (integrated systems) Integrated systems have their own problems that he glosses over as anyone that has ever had Kaiser Permanente can attest but they have significant systemic cost savings as well.
Doppel, I don't like to see unfair attacks or demeaning tactics from any side. I'll agree Bush got his fair share, I don't support it.
BTW, you got the chicas confused. The 'liberal' chicas we were joking about in another thread were Zamara and Moira, who I had a good time with. The one who ripped me off is a different chica.
Wild Walleye
03-10-10, 13:21
I think Esten's quote from the other thread was probably a good one.
The 'liberal' chicas we were joking about in another thread were Zamara and Moira, who I had a good time with. I think that a 'conservative' chica in Bs As is one that only does cbj, no cola, no cob nor cof and believes that the government should run everything.
Member #4112
03-10-10, 14:37
Walleye.
Now I disagree with you on that. You have the two confused, the liberal chicas would want what you describe. The conservative chica would be all for free market and the best price for the best goods / performance (Cola, bbbj, cim ect) and the customer comes first.
Esten,
Just joking abou the "ripoff chica" and the "liberal chicas", a little tongue in cheek - not to be confused with what chicas mean by that phrase
I don't know - I think a conservative in the old USSR, for example, would be quite against free markets and such, while a liberal there would have been for free markets. Given the Kirchner's leanings toward fascism and government-controlled everything, I think a conservative here may be against free markets as well;)
Off topic I'm sure, but a good read on the insanity of the 'war on drugs'.
I can't imagine how much the USA is spending on this particular war. Get's really interesting from "And drug-related bribery is gnawing deep into US institutions."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-usmexico-border-where-the-drugs-war-has-soaked-the-ground-blood-red-1924634.html
Off topic I'm sure, but a good read on the insanity of the 'war on drugs'.
I can't imagine how much the USA is spending on this particular war. Get's really interesting from "And drug-related bribery is gnawing deep into US institutions."
[[/url]Insanity? It would be insane not to fight the Cartels. How much the US is spending is irrelevant, obviously Uncle Sam is not spending enough, probably thinking the bad guys will not harm US interests in the long term. Wrong! Sooner or later Calderon's problems will become Uncle Sam's issues.
Word is spreading that cities like El Paso or Phoenix are having a tough time fighting drug related crime. People are being kidnapped in gang related retributions between gangs.
Stan Da Man
03-22-10, 18:20
Well, with Sid gone, I'll try to fill a small portion of the gap:
Twenty years from now, I believe we'll all look back at yesterday's "vote" on health care and realize that this was the beginning of the end of a great nation. Of course, that point can be quibbled with in many ways. Some may argue that the decline started long ago. Some would say that such a statement is hyperbolic. No, I don't suggest that things have been rosy up until yesterday, nor do I suggest that the country is going to come apart at the seams.
But, we've embarked down the path of fully socialized medicine -- where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing. Everyone is a ward of the State, at least where health care is concerned. The government will take from the few to provide for the many -- via a host of new taxes, including the 3.8% tax on "unearned investment income" they jammed through at the last minute.
Anyone who was "for Obama" -- and I would have voted for him if I had voted -- has got to be at least a little appalled at all of the dirty, backroom, underhanded dealings. One might say, "well, that's politics." True. But, when the guy who promised "sunshine" -- and "change" and elimination of "pork" and to put the whole process on C-Span -- is behind all the subterfuge, special deals and dirty pool, well, then you have to seriously question what you voted for. For those of you who opposed Obama from the start, this is just confirmation of what you thought: A say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite who may be a bit more smooth than those who came before him, but is otherwise indistinguishable from them.
I believe that we'll look back at the CBO estimates in twenty years and just shake our heads -- not because most of us are amazed at how wrong those jokers were, but because so many of us knew they were wrong, yet the Democrats were able to pull the wool over enough eyes, and use sleight of hand as to the rest, such that they were able to ram this thing through anyway.
An entitlement like this is irreversible, unfortunately. We are stuck with it, and we will be stuck with the social consequences -- generations of citizens who expect government to take care of 'one more thing' in their daily lives, and don't realize they are suffering under the yoke of further government expansion until its far too late.
There are many who want to trumpet this as a victory for the uninsured. If that were true, even I'd be cheering. But, unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do this to help the uninsured. You have to be utterly naive to believe they did. Instead, this was all about permanently expanding the entitlement class who depend on the Democrats for their daily manna -- unemployment benefits, support of expansive unionization, reverse tax rates for anyone in the bottom 50% income bracket, make-work government jobs for those who can't get work elsewhere and, soon, immigration "reform" to buy still more votes.
I will take my hat off to the Democrats to a small degree: I didn't think they would be stupid enough to try to get this done via reconciliation. They will pay a heavy price for it in November. They know that. But, in the long run, they will have greatly expanded their entitlement base, thereby cementing loyal support from a larger percentage of voters in the future -- those folks who "can't," or "don't want to," and expect the State to pick up the tab. It's a pity, really.
Well, with Sid gone, I'll try to fill a small portion of the gap:
Twenty years from now, I believe we'll all look back at yesterday's "vote" on health care and realize that this was the beginning of the end of a great nation. Of course, that point can be quibbled with in many ways. Some may argue that the decline started long ago. Some would say that such a statement is hyperbolic. No, I don't suggest that things have been rosy up until yesterday, nor do I suggest that the country is going to come apart at the seams.
But, we've embarked down the path of fully socialized medicine -- where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing. Everyone is a ward of the State, at least where health care is concerned. The government will take from the few to provide for the many -- via a host of new taxes, including the 3.8% tax on "unearned investment income" they jammed through at the last minute.
Anyone who was "for Obama" -- and I would have voted for him if I had voted -- has got to be at least a little appalled at all of the dirty, backroom, underhanded dealings. One might say, "well, that's politics." True. But, when the guy who promised "sunshine" -- and "change" and elimination of "pork" and to put the whole process on C-Span -- is behind all the subterfuge, special deals and dirty pool, well, then you have to seriously question what you voted for. For those of you who opposed Obama from the start, this is just confirmation of what you thought: A say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite who may be a bit more smooth than those who came before him, but is otherwise indistinguishable from them.
I believe that we'll look back at the CBO estimates in twenty years and just shake our heads -- not because most of us are amazed at how wrong those jokers were, but because so many of us knew they were wrong, yet the Democrats were able to pull the wool over enough eyes, and use sleight of hand as to the rest, such that they were able to ram this thing through anyway.
An entitlement like this is irreversible, unfortunately. We are stuck with it, and we will be stuck with the social consequences -- generations of citizens who expect government to take care of 'one more thing' in their daily lives, and don't realize they are suffering under the yoke of further government expansion until its far too late.
There are many who want to trumpet this as a victory for the uninsured. If that were true, even I'd be cheering. But, unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do this to help the uninsured. You have to be utterly naive to believe they did. Instead, this was all about permanently expanding the entitlement class who depend on the Democrats for their daily manna -- unemployment benefits, support of expansive unionization, reverse tax rates for anyone in the bottom 50% income bracket, make-work government jobs for those who can't get work elsewhere and, soon, immigration "reform" to buy still more votes.
I will take my hat off to the Democrats to a small degree: I didn't think they would be stupid enough to try to get this done via reconciliation. They will pay a heavy price for it in November. They know that. But, in the long run, they will have greatly expanded their entitlement base, thereby cementing loyal support from a larger percentage of voters in the future -- those folks who "can't," or "don't want to," and expect the State to pick up the tab. It's a pity, really.Well written, Stan you are the man, direct and intelligently spoken.
Not sure I agree on every point, but very compelling argument.
Jack
Well, with Sid gone, I'll try to fill a small portion of the gap:
Twenty years from now, I believe we'll all look back at yesterday's "vote" on health care and realize that this was the beginning of the end of a great nation.Really? That's what you consider the turning point? What about the shit that happened around 12-18 months ago? Or how about the two wars worth of Bazillions?
Say what you want about national security, but the beginning of the end was the Iraq War. That was the left hook. The upper cut was the Wall Street bailout. This shit yesterday was just a body blow. There will be a few more to come before the old champ finally falls. And fall, sadly, he will.
Hey, so speaking of boxing. Have any of you gone to see any local action? I know of a few gyms and such around, but haven't really sought out any amateur or semi pro fights. Anyone interested?
Although it appears the Senate bill will be signed into law, the fix-it package still has to clear the Senate, and the bill must survive the state challenges being planned.
That aside, I must say the events leading up to and including the vote last night have made me very pleased, proud and impressed of Pelosi, Obama and the Democratic party. Since Brown's win in January, they came back and played this thing almost perfectly, with the televised meetings, setting the facts straight and shining the light on Republican lies and fear-mongering, putting together a reconciliation package that addressed budget-related House concerns and stripped out special deals, revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers, Obama's great speech to Dems on Saturday ("... we don't just look out for ourselves... we look out for one another.") and the Executive order to address anti-abortion Dem concerns. Brilliant. Like I said before, these are very smart people. It could not have been accomplished otherwise.
Stan, without going into a point-by-point let me just say I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Your sweeping statement "where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing" sounds like another gross Republican mischaracterization (ie. lie). The vast majority of people will be paying for their insurance, not getting something for free. Especially the rich, which is as it should be. Those who cannot afford health insurance will be helped. Who knows, someday this could be you or one of your children who lost their job, and won't be faced with personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. You'll be glad of this reform then, I'm sure. And your claim that Dems do not have a sincere desire to help the uninsured is utterly obscene, but consistent with right wing cynicism. You have been drinking the Republican kool-aid.
Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise.
20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history.
I don't remember what Sydney thought about the great Chinese economic bubble - but look out below - it's going to fall.
Mr. Market is a lot smarter than any person or small group of persons.
Listening to the Chinese reports of economic growth sounds similar to the reports coming out of Russia after WWII. Fantastic growth rates, on a course to bury the West. Of course it was all phony. Propped up by inefficient government projects.
Wild Walleye
04-15-10, 13:20
I don't remember what Sydney thought about the great Chinese economic bubble - but look out below - it's going to fall.
Mr. Market is a lot smarter than any person or small group of persons.
Listening to the Chinese reports of economic growth sounds similar to the reports coming out of Russia after WWII. Fantastic growth rates, on a course to bury the West. Of course it was all phony. Propped up by inefficient government projects.The problem with accurately assessing the amount and rate of air leaving the bubble is that there are no means by which to accurately measure the data. It is exactly what you get with a gigantic mishmash of peoples under corrupt, totalitarian rule (isn't that redundant?) Where provincial cronyism is substituted for regional government.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Punter 127
04-25-10, 05:13
Here's a little copy and paste.
Real Time Economics.
Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal.
April 24, 2010, 6:00 AM ET.
Number of the Week: 103 Months to Clear Housing Inventory
By Mark Whitehouse.
103: The number of months it would take to sell off all the foreclosed homes in banks' possession, plus all the homes likely to end up there over the next couple years, at the current rate of sales.
How much should we worry about a new leg down in the housing market? If the number of foreclosed homes piling up at banks is any indication, there's ample reason for concern.
As of March, banks had an inventory of about 1.1 million foreclosed homes, up 20% from a year earlier, according to estimates from LPS Applied Analytics. Another 4.8 million mortgage holders were at least 60 days behind on their payments or in the foreclosure process, meaning their homes were well on their way to the inventory pile. That "shadow inventory" was up 30% from a year earlier.
Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, all that inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That's nearly nine years. Of course, banks could pick up the pace of sales, but the added supply of distressed homes would weigh heavily on prices — and thus boost their losses.
The government is understandably worried about the situation, and its Home Affordable Modification Program has made an impact by helping people stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. As people who enter the program catch up on their payments, the number of homeowners 60 or more days delinquent has fallen 9% over the past two months.
Now, though, the effect of modifications could be on the wane. According to Goldman Sachs, HAMP started less than 80,000 trial modifications in March, less than half the number in the peak month of October 2009. At the same time, a growing number of modifications are being canceled as borrowers prove unable to pay. By Goldman's count, about 68,000 were canceled in March.
All this means that little can stop banks' inventory of distressed homes from growing. Too many people owe too much more on their homes than they can afford. For the housing market, that could mean a long-lasting hangoverTime for more stimulus?
What pisses me off is that anyone gets a mortgage modification at all. What about the great majority of us who continue to make our mortgage payments and who don't qualify for a modification and never will? Grossly unfair. There are a lot of other ideas out there to take care of this that don't involve "selective" (discriminatory) help, but then again, that is the way of the Democrats.
Stinger
Damn it! I may have to change my position on old stinger-B*tch. All is forgiven brother. On this board you just can't afford to piss off any of the few republicans that actually post here. All is forgiven Stinger. LOL. May we begin again but in the future post about good puta and you will be loved and respected. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Flexible Forgiving Toybitch.
Wild Walleye
04-26-10, 12:27
What pisses me off is that anyone gets a mortgage modification at all. What about the great majority of us who continue to make our mortgage payments and who don't qualify for a modification and never will? Grossly unfair. There are a lot of other ideas out there to take care of this that don't involve "selective" (discriminatory) help, but then again, that is the way of the Democrats.
StingerYou are correct that many who could benefit do not qualify (for the govt sponsored program) However, as the article points out, the banks are holding a little more property than they would like. The prospect of owning more is unappealing, therefore, they will do what they can to avoid getting saddled with more. Therefore, they are likely to agree to modify loans that do not qualify.
The catch is that many banks won't talk to you (technically) until you have missed two mortgage payments. Therefore, you mess up your credit trying to get to the right people within the bank. That said, I am under the impression that one can get up to 25% principal reduction, fixed below market rate and longer amortization period (like 40 yrs) Therefore, the tradeoff for denting one's credit could be significant.
Member #4112
04-26-10, 19:10
Should an individual qualify for a reduction in principle type restructuring of their loan do they then get a bill from the IRS for the "Income" they received from that reduction similar to what happened in the 70's and 80's when folks were walking away from home loans?
Nope. The changed the law so that short-sales and mortgage adjustments on your primary residence don't generate a federal tax liability. There might be a state liability depending on the state.
Mortgage adjustments might be unfair but I'd rather see people stay in their houses and maintain them instead of the option where my property value and neighborhood decline as properties get foreclosed and sit vacant.
Excellent point Easy. Reducing foreclosures helps stabilize home prices which benefits all homeowners. Also on a more abstract note, further declines in home prices could negatively impact the federal balance sheet in a number of ways, and potentially lead to higher debt / higher taxes to service the debt. I'm thinking MBS's and support for Fannie and Freddie.
WW, I think it will be a very interesting story over the next 12 months as to what happens with the default inventories. Also I think the higher numbers of foreclosed properties is partly cancelled by the lower numbers of new home starts by builders over the past 2 years. The threat of 'flooding the market' with properties for sale may not be as bad as once predicted. If lenders significantly ramp-up modifications in the next 12 months we could see housing bounce off the floor and resume a (moderate) uptrend. This will only be helped if a good chunk of those in default, purposely defaulted in order to re-finance as you alluded to... they'll be less likely to foreclose if they don't get a modification. Unemployment is a big wildcard. Let's check back on this next year and see how it plays out.
Member #4112
04-27-10, 09:36
Since my place is paid for maybe I should get a new home loan for the max value of the property, pocket the money, skip enough payments to qualify then pay off the reduced principal and pocket the difference with no tax liabaiilty - great way to game the system at the expense of the biggest sucker in the world - The US Taxpayer! You damn well know folks are gaming this thing for all it's worth, just like they will game the "ObamaCare" health system!
Just my 2 cents
Wild Walleye
04-27-10, 10:51
Unemployment is a big wildcard. Let's check back on this next year and see how it plays out.All the other things (modification, etc) are window dressing to the main issue jobs. If people have jobs, they pay the mortgage, if they don't.
The fact that we get 'free' healthcare in six years ain't helping on the jobs front, in fact Obamacare is a jobs killer (if you increase cost of adding employees, employers will add less or reduce the number of employees) That said, the US economy will recover, in spite of the efforts of congress and administration to [destroy / resuscitate (pick one)] it. On its own strength and resiliency, the economy will improve. The rate at which jobs are added is, in my mind, the big question.
Stan Da Man
04-30-10, 14:42
Esten.
I think the only people who would have more problems with less government are the people working for the government.
These people would have to give up their 10 weeks of annual sick leave, 15 weeks of annual vacation, their daily 6 hour coffee breaks and a completely funded retirement after 3 months of work - all paid for by guess who - people with real jobs.Very true statement, and probably belongs more on this thread.
Here's another one I'll throw out to the masses:
Why do we have unionized government workers?
I understand the historical reasons for the rise of unions. Unions allowed workers, collectively, to negotiate with powerful capitalists and companies over things like wages, work safety and work conditions. There was a time when the country needed that.
Frankly, I think unions have served their purpose and do far more harm than good now.
But why do we have unionized government workers? So that they can collectively negotiate over safety, wages and work rules with who? The government? In other words, us.
This issue is the largest problem U. S. States need to grapple with. For the past 40-50 years, unions such as CALPERS, the teachers' unions, police and fire unions, have collectively negotiated with who? Other government workers, who frequently are unionized themselves, over pay and benefits packages that are now simply obscene. It is the equivalent of the wolf and fox negotiating with each other over who gets rights to the sheep and the hen house. We're the sheep and hen house. The result is defined benefit pension plans, fully funded early retirement plans that pay 20-year employees six figure salaries for life, massively underfunded retirement plans, work rules that can easily be exploited by the workers to significant financial advantage (ask any cop) and a system that will collapse under its own weight.
I'd say that the solution is easy: Some of these states should declare bankruptcy and just negotiate new contracts, like GM and Chrysler. The only problem is, states are constitutionally forbidden from filing for bankruptcy. As a consequence, these issues are the elephant in the room that no one talks about. This is because the public employee unions are so powerful that any dissent from politicians is immediately met with a huge union war chest allocated to unseating anyone with the temerity to address this obvious issue.
In the end, we're the folks footing the tab. But sooner or later -- likely sooner -- something has to give. It won't happen under the current administration, but a starting place would be to simply ban unions from representing public employees. Union necessity can be debated where the private sector is concerned, but why are they the least bit necessary for government workers?
Punter 127
05-01-10, 02:35
Unanswered Questions on the Spill.
Published: April 30, 2010
President Obama has ordered a freeze on new offshore drilling leases as well as a "thorough review" into what is almost sure to be the worst oil spill in this country's history — exceeding in size and environmental damage the calamitous Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.
There are many avenues to pursue. Here are two: the oil company's response, and Mr. Obama's. The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help, and, on Friday, both federal and state officials accused it of not moving aggressively or swiftly enough. Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.
A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the country's richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bush's hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.
Now we have another disaster in more or less the same neck of the woods, and it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving.
The timetable is damning. The blowout occurred on April 20. In short order, fire broke out on the rig, taking 11 lives, the rig collapsed and oil began leaking at a rate of 40,000 gallons a day. BP tried but failed to plug the well. Even so, BP appears to have remained confident that it could handle the situation with private resources (as did the administration) until Wednesday night, when, at a hastily called news conference, the Coast Guard quintupled its estimate of the leak to 5,000 barrels, or more than 200,000 gallons a day.
Only then did the administration move into high gear.
In addition to a series of media events designed to convey urgency — including a Rose Garden appearance by the president — the administration ordered the Air Force to help with chemical spraying of the oil slick and the Navy to help lay down oil-resistant booms. It dispatched every cabinet officer with the remotest interest in the disaster to a command center in Louisiana and set up a second command post to manage potential coastal damage in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
There are, of course, other questions to be asked. We do not know what caused the blowout or the fire, or why the valves that are supposed to shut off the oil flow in an emergency did not work.
We do not know whether there were other steps BP — and Transocean, the rig's owner and operator — could have taken to prevent the blowout, and what steps, including new technologies, that can be taken to prevent such accidents in the future.
What we do know is that we now face a huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action.Looks like Obama and the boys really stepped in it this time. The responsibility for failing to take action sooner falls directly on Obama, no matter how hard he tries to dump it on BP.
Unanswered Questions on the Spill.
Published: April 30, 2010
President Obama has ordered a freeze on new offshore drilling leases as well as a "thorough review" into what is almost sure to be the worst oil spill in this country's history — exceeding in size and environmental damage the calamitous Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.
There are many avenues to pursue. Here are two: the oil company's response, and Mr. Obama's. The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help, and, on Friday, both federal and state officials accused it of not moving aggressively or swiftly enough. Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.
A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the country's richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bush's hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.
Now we have another disaster in more or less the same neck of the woods, and it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving.
The timetable is damning. The blowout occurred on April 20. In short order, fire broke out on the rig, taking 11 lives, the rig collapsed and oil began leaking at a rate of 40,000 gallons a day. BP tried but failed to plug the well. Even so, BP appears to have remained confident that it could handle the situation with private resources (as did the administration) until Wednesday night, when, at a hastily called news conference, the Coast Guard quintupled its estimate of the leak to 5,000 barrels, or more than 200,000 gallons a day.
Only then did the administration move into high gear.
In addition to a series of media events designed to convey urgency — including a Rose Garden appearance by the president — the administration ordered the Air Force to help with chemical spraying of the oil slick and the Navy to help lay down oil-resistant booms. It dispatched every cabinet officer with the remotest interest in the disaster to a command center in Louisiana and set up a second command post to manage potential coastal damage in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
There are, of course, other questions to be asked. We do not know what caused the blowout or the fire, or why the valves that are supposed to shut off the oil flow in an emergency did not work.
We do not know whether there were other steps BP — and Transocean, the rig's owner and operator — could have taken to prevent the blowout, and what steps, including new technologies, that can be taken to prevent such accidents in the future.
What we do know is that we now face a huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action.
Looks like Obama and the boys really stepped in it this time. The responsibility for failing to take action sooner falls directly on Obama, no matter how hard he tries to dump it on BP.It's George Bush's fault!
Gato Hunter
05-01-10, 15:41
From an engineering point of view it was totally reckless of BP to not have a plan for a blow out in deep water. BP has no idea what is going on a mile under the water at this point but continue to give leak rate estimates from the low end.
This will make Valdez look small.
If you drill in deep water you will eventually spill in deep water. Murphy is a CockSucker, but will eventually find a way to win.
What could Obama do to help? The military, nor anyone else really has any clue how to close this off in a timely manner, or the equipment on site. It was never planned for or was not supposed to be possible (according to BP)
We don't have elite navy seals or subs that can go down that far, unless your Charlie Sheen in a bad movie.
This is way beyond Bush, or Obama. The root cause is trying to drill our way out of our oil fix for the past 50 years.
Of course it is Bush's fault. Haliburton was cementing the casing when all hell busted loose. No other suspect, my view of course.
It is a major fuck-up. Blow out preventer failed. Lawyers have hit the mother load.
Canitasguy
05-01-10, 17:59
We know Jackson likes to blame Obama for everything - probably including chica price inflation - but trying to pin this disaster on Obama by Jackson, conservative press reports and right-wing flacks is nothing but the Bush guys trying to run a retroactive apologia for Katrina.
The facts are that the spill was caused by shoddy work by that old standby for fuck-ups - Halliburton. And the former Halliburton CEO - Tricky Dick Cheney - in order to let Halliburton make more profit from its off-shore oil operations set the stage for the debacle that is going on in the Gulf.
BP hired Halliburton - a leading supplier of service in off-shore drilling -to be responsible for the safety of the pumping mechanisms. An 'acoustic switch' - a failsafe device that safely cuts off the flow of oil at the source in the event of an accident would have prevented this catastrophe. They cost about half a million dollars and are required in off-shore drilling platforms in most of the world. Except for the United States. Thank you Dick Cheney - who as VP pushed through looser regulation of off-shore drilling after his secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of Bush's first term.
So the catastrophe is another classic example of Bush / Cheney Era deregulation wreaking havoc on the planet.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting about the Halliburton system lacking any remote-control shut-off switch they acknowledge is used in other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
When Halliburton tried to cement the pipe last week it triggered the blast that caused the mega-spill now under way. When the rig blew up, BP lied about the extent of the potential damage. They now admit they have no back-up plan in place.
Even if Obama had donned his Superman outfit and flown down to the Gulf with a big wad of bubble-gum and dove into the ocean to cap the leak, it would have been too late.
The political blame game is actually beside the point. The point is in the future, if anyone is going to drill, baby drill, the strictest imaginable regulation to assure safety of the operations must be required and enforced.
In the meantime, BP and Halliburton have a lot to answer for, and if their answers cost so much as to put them out of business and a few of their top guys in jail, I'll say about fucking time!
Amend my statement "lawyers have hit the mother load". Think we are fucked, tax payer.
off shore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02liability.html
It's George Bush's fault!Actually Jackson, you are half right. It is actually believed to have been Cheney's fault. :)
There is a device called an " Acoustic Switch " it's a failsafe that shuts the flow of oil off at the source - they cost only about half a million dollars each, and are required in off-shore drilling platforms in most of the world. Except for the United States. This was one of the new deregulations devised by Dick Cheney during his secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of Bush's first term.The Wall Street Journal (damn liberal mouth piece) has a very nice article on the subject.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
This all has to do with the deregulating of the oil industry between 2000-2008 during the Bush-Cheney Administration ( Yes the same guys knee deep in Haliburton, the ones damman explained were doing the cementing when the explosion was said to have happened. ). And just to note, out of the 39 blow outs in the Gulf of Mexico in the last 14 years, 18 of them have been at least partially caused by cementing.
A 2007 study by three U.S. Minerals Management Service officials found that cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period. That was the single largest factor, ahead of equipment failure and pipe failure..http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html
Maybe people should study the facts, before they make reactionary politically charged comments.
I personally don't care who did it right now (although deregulation during the last decade is obviously at least partially to blame) I just want to know who's gonna pay for the clean up and the BILLIONS it's going to cost our economy. All the residents in the Gulf Coasts States should be pissed as hell right now regardless of political affiliation.
Oh yeah. Almost forgot.
DRILL BABY DRILL.
This is fucking hilarious.
http://gawker.com/5528978/obama-jabs-at-biden-leno-birthers-and-more-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/01/HP/A/32352/2010+White+House+Correspondents+Dinner.aspx
Punter 127
05-03-10, 05:36
First let's look at what a BOP is. ("Blowout preventer")
A downhole device that isolates wellbore pressure and fluids in the event of an emergency or catastrophic failure of surface equipment. The control systems associated with safety valves are generally set in a fail-safe mode, such that any interruption or malfunction of the system will result in the safety valve closing to render the well safe. Downhole safety valves are fitted in almost all wells and are typically subject to rigorous local or regional legislative requirements.
Normally, hydraulic equipment controlled by engineers up on the oil rig can close the BOP. As a backup, most BOPs have automatic shutoff valves known as "Dead Man" switches that cause the BOPs to close automatically if there is loss of communication from the oil rig.
According to BP, workers attempted to activate the BOP manually from the top of the rig before they were evacuated, but nothing happened. (As the website ScienceInsider points out, the BOP should have automatically activated anyway. After the rig sank, BP and the Coast Guard resorted to using robotic submarines to try to trigger the BOP underwater, to no avail. Considering these valves are normally set up in a fail safe mode and yet they couldn't be triggered from the rig or by robotic submarines, why would any intelligent individual think an "Acoustic Switch" would have made any difference, especially considering an "Acoustic Switches" function is to send the same signal as the switch on the rig only remotely.
I see three possible causes,
1. The valves failed mechanically, which is not likely due to being redundant, but if they did then we need to talk to the valve manufacturer.
2. The valves were never really installed or improperly installed, in which case I would not want to be in the shoes of BP and Transocean, or the government agencies in charge of inspecting such things for that matter.
3. Third party intervention, sabotage or terrorism. Not impossible, most of the terrorist groups come from oil producing countries, and I suspect the have ample knowledge of oil rigs.
Maybe people should study the facts, before they make reactionary politically charged comments. This is the Obama thread and not the "what caused the oil spill thread", so maybe some people should take their own advice, and also stop the reactionary defensive spinning away from the real question, which is; Why did Obama not take any serious action for nine days?
Someone ask what could Obama do?
Well he could have taken the same action he took nine days after the spill started, and if he had he could have possibly kept the spill from reaching our shorelines!
For Obama to blame BP for his slow response is like Bush blaming God for his alleged slow response to Katrina!
Let's at least acknowledge the obvious opposite, that if we were currently in a Republican administration that had just okayed offshore drilling in America, and they had gone eight days without serious action, they'd be getting absolutely pilloried in the press.
Oh yeah. Almost forgot.
DRILL BABY DRILL.
Smh.
Retards.The "billions" you mention are going to be paid by BP, Halliburton and Transocean. Based on what happened with the Exxon Valdez, the total amount they will pay, to plaintiffs' attorneys, the government, and victims, will exceed the damage.
There is no large-scale economic alternative at present to oil as a feedstock for liquid fuels.
The only large-scale economic alternatives at present to natural gas for electricity generation are coal and nuclear. Coal is environmentally unfriendly and causes many more deaths from both production and its use than natural gas. Nuclear is off limits because of environmental loonies.
Do you drive a car? Ride in taxis or airplanes? Consume merchandise that was transported in trucks? Use natural gas in your home? Have air conditioning or heating or electric lights? Use computers? Television? Assuming you live in the US were you one of the ones bitching when gasoline hit $4.00/ gallon or when your monthly electricity / heating bill hit $500?
Hypocrite.
Canitasguy
05-04-10, 02:53
Third party intervention, sabotage or terrorism. Not impossible, most of the terrorist groups come from oil producing countries, and I suspect the have ample knowledge of oil rigs.
Why did Obama not take any serious action for nine days?
Someone ask what could Obama do? Your raising the specter of terrorism makes me worry that you know something none of the rest of us do.
Halliburton - who operated the rig under a BP contract - had its crew working on capping the pipes right before they exploded. That work was the exigent cause of the failure of the fail-safe mechanism according to all the reporting to-date.
Gee, do you think maybe the Halliburton guys were really members of an al Qaeda sleeper cell? Wow!
Hey, maybe Cheney - not Bush - was the Manchurian candidate. After all he was the prime mover for the Iraq War. Now, after almost eight years, a more powerful Iran is the most significant outcome for W's grand adventure that over the next few decades will cost US taxpayers upwards of $5 trillion before it is paid for in full. Could "Tricky Dicky" have been secretly working for those slimy Persians?
"Not impossible" as you might say!
As for you dissing the response of the Obama Administration to the evolving crisis, I am not very persuaded.
A guy with his finger on the pulse like you should have been able to back up your claim of Presidential misfeasance with a detailed chronology of the escalation of conditions, along with the steps the various federal agencies did or did not take in response to the changing circumstances.
It might be instructive to your fellow AP members if you could illuminate for us what you might have done differently if you were President!
You confuse me with the claim that Obama's late response could have kept the slick from reaching US shores if the Administration had acted sooner, while at the same time you describe the failure of the technicians using their state-of-the art technology to curtail or stop the flow of oil from the damaged wellhead. If nothing is working, nothing would have been working any earlier.
As for BP's role in the fiasco, it had a responsibility to operate the rig safely and to have plans along with personnel and equipment at the ready to deal with any accident regardless of its magnitude. It didn't.
In case you have forgotten, in our grand capitalist country, private businesses produce our energy resources. Therefore the federal government - including the Pentagon - doesn't have warehouses full of up-to-date equipment for off-shore drilling or to cap any underwater oil wells that explode.
And as far as the feds deploying resources and personnel to begin the effort to contain the slick as it spreads, I am persuaded your knowledge or experience in large-scale logistics is non-existent.
The involved agencies - including the Pentagon - didn't have thousands of excess staff sitting around or hundred of vessels sitting at docks waiting for the shit to hit the fan or acres of oil absorbing materials piled up in old sheds across Alabama. Deploying what resources they did actually took a little time, don't you think?
This latest cock-up is just another examples of how everyone insists that when corporations fuck up, the government they hate must come to the rescue - and damn the taxpayer expense. Of course, when instant solutions don't miraculously emerge, then everyone pisses about how the government can't do anything. If it weren't so important, it would almost be funny!
Given the shallow nature of your critique and your inability to fairly analyze this terrible tragedy, it seems clear to me your real reason for posting was to add another lame attack on Obama on the forum.
Sidney might be proud of you! Or to be fair to old Sid, maybe he sees this one more realistically.
Hope you do better next time.
Do you drive a car? Ride in taxis or airplanes? Consume merchandise that was transported in trucks? Use natural gas in your home? Have air conditioning or heating or electric lights? Use computers? Television? Assuming you live in the US were you one of the ones bitching when gasoline hit $4.00/ gallon or when your monthly electricity / heating bill hit $500?
Hypocrite.I think we could all meet our energy needs if we would just work together to harness the power of rainbows and unicorns.
You quote billions as though you are skeptical this whole mess won't end up costing our economy billions?
The "billions" you mention are going to be paid by BP, Halliburton and Transocean. Based on what happened with the Exxon Valdez, the total amount they will pay, to plaintiffs' attorneys, the government, and victims, will exceed the damage.Maybe you missed the point of my statement there. I was simply pointing out the stupidity of that dumb broads uneducated blanket statement that her followers repeat as a mantra. I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. No one said petrol wasn't integral to our economy. Deregulation of the oil industry is pure lunacy and we are seeing a clear example why right now.
THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT IN MY POST.
Nice try though.
Do you drive a car? Ride in taxis or airplanes? Consume merchandise that was transported in trucks? Use natural gas in your home? Have air conditioning or heating or electric lights? Use computers? Television? Assuming you live in the US were you one of the ones bitching when gasoline hit $4.00/ gallon or when your monthly electricity / heating bill hit $500?
Hypocrite.
Wild Walleye
05-04-10, 12:38
I think we could all meet our energy needs if we would just work together to harness the power of rainbows and unicorns.Will be solved by PMC technologies (personal-methane-reclamation)
I am currently trying to harness bean-power with an experimental, tiny wind turbine implanted in my ass.
Punter 127
05-05-10, 08:41
I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. Eleven men are missing and presumed dead on that oil rig and countless other people will be adversely affected by this tragedy, emotionally and financially, and it will have an impact on the entire country, but what the hell, we'll have "no off shore drilling in California."
Gloating over gains achieved from the loss of life and misfortune of others, is very low class and reveals an extreme deficiency of character! IMHO
Punter 127
05-05-10, 09:18
May 03, 2010, 12:09PM.
Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill.
If U. S. Officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.
The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.
But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.
When federal officials called, Elastec / American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.
At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U. S. Government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.
A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore. Full story,
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html
Three Presidents failed to prepare for this type oil spill. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all failed to prepare for this type of a problem, unfortunately for Mr. Obama this happened on his watch.
Not only did the Obama administration fail to prepare in advance they also waited eight days before they even tried to find a fire boom.
That's just the facts!
Wild Walleye
05-05-10, 12:18
Full story,
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html
Three Presidents failed to prepare for this type oil spill. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all failed to prepare for this type of a problem, unfortunately for Mr. Obama this happened on his watch.
Not only did the Obama administration fail to prepare in advance they also waited eight days before they even tried to find a fire boom.
That's just the facts!Is the fact that the existing procedure mandates burning the spill as quickly as possible (I believe the intent is 24-48 hrs from detection to ignition) and that further authority is not needed (I. E. They don't have to get permission to light it up) Waiting 8 days to start shopping on eBay for a fire boom, is beyond incompetence.
I suspect that Obama had operatives sabotage the rig and intentionally delayed the response in order to destroy the livelihoods of all the white people who depend on the either the oil industry or the gulf to make a living (see footnote below)
Footnote: If someone in the mainstream press wrote the above passage or a notable American pol proclaimed it, there would be a horrific backlash and he would be blackballed and / or permanently barred from holding office. However, after hurricane Katrina, the very same thing was widely stated about George Bush and accepted by the media as a reasonable point of view.
I for one don't think that the oil rig explosion was Obama's fault. However - as he likes to keep reminding the GOP he won they lost - he must bear the responsibility for the delayed / failed response. That said, it is unreasonable to expect the POTUS to personally check on every detail of every government or civilian risk mitigation program and ensure that the proper procedures and equipment are in place. What we 'should' be able to expect is that the people responsible for making sure those things were in place are dealt with severely. I would be shocked if some of the responsibility doesn't rest squarely on Congress. If that is the case, we should expect that blame will be shifted to some innocent private enterprise and that the very individuals who are responsible for the disaster will appoint themselves to be the stewards of the process for correcting the problem.
Stan Da Man
05-05-10, 13:57
I would be shocked if some of the responsibility doesn't rest squarely on Congress. If that is the case, we should expect that blame will be shifted to some innocent private enterprise and that the very individuals who are responsible for the disaster will appoint themselves to be the stewards of the process for correcting the problem.That's exactly what always happens. The recent financial mess was largely Congress's fault and caused by misguided, well-meaning, wooly-headed social legislation to promote home ownership among those who can't afford to own a home. That's the simplest way to put it. But, what happens after the mess is laid bare? Congress sets up subcommittees and subpoenas executives from private companies for various high tech lynchings.
Who holds Congress accountable? Well, that's supposed to be the public, but with Congress members' ability to entrench themselves through the two-party system, franking privileges, generous travel budgets, and the fact that its generally a millionaires' club, it just doesn't happen. This election will be a little different. After it's over, however, it will quickly be back to business as usual.
Congress already is starting to try to "cover" itself. As I understand it, there is legislation limiting oil companies' clean-up responsibility to $75 million. That may not be accurate. I just heard a quick news report about it yesterday, coupled with a story about how Congress is hastily attempting to amend this (although they may have an ex post facto problem as to BP) Still, if true, why would such a provision exist after Exon Valdez?
The real culprit here, as you point out, is the Fourth Branch. The media is supposed to be holding our elected representatives accountable. Yet the mainstream media is so utterly left leaning that it functions as little more than a de facto wing of the Democrats. Sure, there are right wing media outlets as well -- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a few magazines here and there. But the vast majority of the news media is left leaning. Their failure to hold Democrats' feet to the fire for their opposition to reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is just the latest example of the failure to fulfill their self-professed mandate (fair, balanced reporting)
This will be no different. While George Bush was President, you had the mainstream media manufacturing stories to try to smear the administration. Dan Rather is one example, but there are many others. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans gave them plenty of ammo. But, had something like the Acorn mess happened on the Republican side, there would have been a hue and cry from all facets of the mainstream media. Instead, they attempted to brush the story aside as best they could. The same thing will happen here. This administration will get a pass from ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, the New York Times, and others who masquerade as fair and balanced news outlets. Instead, they'll focus their rapt attention on those upon whom Congress attempts to shift the blame.
The recent financial mess was largely Congress's fault and caused by misguided, well-meaning, wooly-headed social legislation to promote home ownership among those who can't afford to own a home...
...but the vast majority of the news media is left leaning. Their failure to hold Democrats' feet to the fire for their opposition to reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is just the latest example of the failure to fulfill their self-professed mandate (fair, balanced reporting)Stan,
You are completely accurate and your observations are overwhelming supported by the facts, and yet I've meet dozens of leftist liberal Democrat s who will argue vehemently that none of this is true and that in fact the mortgage debacle that precipitated the current recession was entirely George Bush's fault!
Unfortunately, as we all know, sometimes talking to liberals is like talking to a wall.
Thanks,
Jackson
I didn't start this Obama hate fest thread and I didn't use this tragedy as an excuse to try and blame it on Obama, that was you. But I guess thats just high class morality at it's best on your part (yeah fucking right) I simply illustrated the ills of deregulation and yes I'm happy this tragedy won't be repeated in my home state.
You can try to spin this however you want to. You continue to fail miserably. I am very happy that California will not have any off shore oil drilling after this disaster. Deal with it.
Eleven men are missing and presumed dead on that oil rig and countless other people will be adversely affected by this tragedy, emotionally and financially, and it will have an impact on the entire country, but what the hell, we'll have "no off shore drilling in California."
Gloating over gains achieved from the loss of life and misfortune of others, is very low class and reveals an extreme deficiency of character! IMHO
If you are hurting for entertainment: Gulf oil spill. Kind of sounds like it was one of those "shit happens" deals.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92765
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92823
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=92780
When the gas lines start like they did back in the seventies, Congress will issue a permit for drilling on the White House lawn. Deep water drilling is risky, but it is the only game in town anymore for reserves.
Gato Hunter
05-05-10, 22:54
Facts are BP had a blowout. The blow out preventer failed, rig burned and sunk.
Where was BP's disaster plan? Oh wait I forgot, they said it could not happen.
Why did BP not have burn booms? They said they did not need it.
Why did BP not have an austic switch? They lobbied for them being too expensive.
BP hedged there bets that there would never be a blowout in deep water. There bet was wrong and they failed. Time to pay. Oh wait wall street did this too and they were bailed out.
This is not really political at this point. Its going to need an engineering marvel. Working at that depth (5000 feet) is more hostile than the moon.
This box they want to lower over the leaks is a joke also. If you can do math and load paths you will realize that the pressures involved are out of this world. I don't think there is a flex hose in the world that could handle the salt water and those pressures for long. It will need a big ass steel pipe holding it to the barge above.
Also BP was supposed to have another cutoff valve 200 feet under the seabed that was not cost effective either and was descoped.
We all have seen how much Exxon was on the hook for Valdez, oh wait they did not have to pay the settlement after 20 years.
I'm sorry but Oil is not the future.
This is not about Bush or Obama this is just common sense. Oh wait I can piss farther than you!
I've meet dozens of leftist liberal Democrat s who will argue vehemently that none of this is true and that in fact the mortgage debacle that precipitated the current recession was entirely George Bush's fault!I find that very hard to believe! Where do you encounter so many of these liberal Democrats?
Although I lean Democratic I don't believe it was all Bush's fault. There were many players involved. Bush himself probably had very little to do with it, though it did happen under his watch.
Maybe you missed the point of my statement there. I was simply pointing out the stupidity of that dumb broads uneducated blanket statement that her followers repeat as a mantra. I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. No one said petrol wasn't integral to our economy. Deregulation of the oil industry is pure lunacy and we are seeing a clear example why right now.
THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT IN MY POST.
Nice try though.As someone who has worked in the oil industry, I got your point. You called me and about half my friends and co-workers "retards".
I get annoyed by the "not in my backyard" mentality a lot of people have. There should be no offshore drilling in California. There should be no windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. Etc.
There's risk and environmental hazard associated with production and use of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. I've had friends lose fingers and thumbs on oil rigs. And suffer 3rd degree burns in a gas plant and spend weeks in ICU. It's OK for people in Wyoming or West Texas or Louisiana or Nigeria or the North Sea or Russia to risk their lives and their backyards so you can drive your car and heat your home. But you shouldn't have to bear any risk whatsoever. That attitude has gotten California where it is today. A place that sucks resources from other places, produces less than it consumes, and exists on the edge of bankruptcy.
The oil and gas industry is highly regulated in the U.S. It was never de-regulated. Until two years ago I would have argued the level of regulation was about right. Now, though, there's a good chance future natural gas production is going to be cut way back from what it could be as a result of over-regulation of hydraulic fracturing. And after the BP incident, most of the U.S. offshore and a good percentage of onshore acreage will continue to be off limits to the industry. I don't know of any country in the world that restricts where companies can drill offshore to the extent that the U.S. does. Certainly Australia, the United Kingdom and Norway are much more industry friendly in that way.
Wild Walleye
05-06-10, 01:16
This is not a critique, I just want to add a few things to what you said and continue to stir the pot.
Facts are BP had a blowout. The blow out preventer failed, rig burned and sunk.Yep. That is what happens when the shit hits the fan on a rig. Tough business.
Where was BP's disaster plan? Oh wait I forgot, they said it could not happen.All rig owners and operators have disaster plans, drills, etc. The question is did their disaster plan include a blast of this magnitude?
Why did BP not have burn booms? They said they did not need it.They weren't required to have them. There are over 4000 rigs in the Gulf, why don't any of the rest of them have fire booms? The maker that supplied the one fire boom last week only had one on hand and then contacted a number of foreign customers to see if the US Govt could borrow theirs.
Why did BP not have an austic switch? They lobbied for them being too expensive.Even if the rig had an AS, as I understand it, an AS wouldn't have worked in this case. The power of the blast was too great, damaging the 'valve' that would have been shut off. The AS is a redundancy of the transmitter to the "closing" mechanism (a really expensive remote control) not an actual redundancy of shut off valves. The AS would send the same signal sent by the rig when it went up in flames to the same damaged or destroyed valve that failed after the initial blast.
The rig in question cost more than US$700 million. The AS is about $500k. They didn't have it because it wasn't required, not because it cost too much.
BP hedged there bets that there would never be a blowout in deep water. There bet was wrong and they failed. Time to pay. Oh wait wall street did this too and they were bailed out.Yep. That is the nature of the game. Their exposure for the spill is supposedly capped at $75 million by US law, anything above that BP would have to volunteer to pay or lose in court. Wall St. Didn't have a $75 million stop order in place.
This is not really political at this point. Its going to need an engineering marvel. Working at that depth (5000 feet) is more hostile than the moon.
This box they want to lower over the leaks is a joke also. If you can do math and load paths you will realize that the pressures involved are out of this world. I don't think there is a flex hose in the world that could handle the salt water and those pressures for long. It will need a big ass steel pipe holding it to the barge above.When we meet for a beer, I will draw you a picture of the solution and tell you how it works (really, it is proprietary)
We all have seen how much Exxon was on the hook for Valdez, oh wait they did not have to pay the settlement after 20 years.Yes and yes.
I'm sorry but Oil is not the future.Reality says otherwise.
This is not about Bush or Obama this is just common sense.Now those are two names not normally mentioned in the same sentence with that concept.
Oh wait I can piss farther than you!I didn't think you were watching. If I knew you were, I would have made sure I was aiming down wind, breathed rhythmically and pushed harder! I like to make a good first impression.
Alternate answer to this one "longer device doesn't need to shoot as far to hit the target."
Nuevo Espanol
05-06-10, 15:15
8 minutes of clips from 2004 hearing on Regulation of Freddie & Fannie Mae.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
Don't stop there. You investigate further and decide who is innocent.
Don't blindly cling to stereotypes you are feed daily.
Best wishes to all.
Nuevo
Stan Da Man
05-06-10, 19:48
8 minutes of clips from 2004 hearing on Regulation of Freddie & Fannie Mae.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
Don't stop there. You investigate further and decide who is innocent.
Don't blindly cling to stereotypes you are feed daily.
Best wishes to all.
NuevoEXACTLY! That clip should be required viewing for anyone who thinks the government can efficiently run or regulate anything, or that social legislation doesn't come with negative and costly consequences. Anyone who thinks that the housing mess -- or the last two years of economic malaise -- should be laid at George Bush's feet ought to be forced to watch that video before uttering a syllable.
God help us now that these people have seen fit to stick their noses into health care. Phew! Is this going to be a mess? [Yes, that's rhetorical.]
Gato Hunter
05-07-10, 01:18
Mister Walleye,
I get into BA in 3 weeks. I look forward to that beer and your napkin sketches if your in town.
Cheers
Wild Walleye
05-07-10, 13:26
Mister Walleye,
I get into BA in 3 weeks. I look forward to that beer and your napkin sketches if your in town.
CheersAlthough I may need the napkins to wipe the drool off my chin.
Gato Hunter
05-10-10, 23:43
Oh my the way how is that box working out BP?
Wild Walleye
05-11-10, 02:18
Oh my the way how is that box working out BP?A 100 ton box made of steel and concrete to perform lowering it miles into the ocean trying to land it on the head of a pin.
That's why they need my solution.
Wild Walleye
05-11-10, 03:04
Or perhaps it is about filing every business transaction with the IRS so that they can tax you to death. The "health care law" requires every business to file a 1099 for every transaction (or series of transactions with the same vendor) totaling $600 or more. That means, if you use $600 of gas from Mobile during the year, you have to get their tin and file a 1099. New laptop? 1099. Landscaper cutting lawn at office? 1099. Home Depot for office improvements? 1099. 3 trips to the same amp for relief from biz stress? 1099.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/
As one who had a significant short position in the equities markets thinking that the so called ''economic recovery'' was a hoax - I am more and more impressed with Obama. He must be doing something right.
As far as the Health Care legislation goes - we had to do something. Health care in the United States is a hoax. We could spend every cent of our GNP on health care and it would not extend anybodies life expectancy by even one day.
It is time we drew a line in the sand. Cut health care expenditures in half which would be in line with other countries. Tell the whiners to take their silly ass colds and sprained ankles down the street to perchance find somebody who gives a shit.
For crying out loud, Cubans, who might spend 25 cents a year on health care, have a longer life expectancy that we do in the United States.
Wild Walleye
05-12-10, 13:08
I am afraid I have lost you.
Please don't take this as criticism (we are all bathed in this propaganda daily from birth) As pointed out by some of my friends here, I have too much time on my hands and I am bored. However, I do not consider my efforts to share my perspective as either proselytizing or a waste of time, rather, it is more of a service to the community.
As one who had a significant short position in the stock exchanges with this idea the so called ''economic recovery'' was a hoax - I am more and more impressed with Obama. He must be doing something right.The recovery is in spite of the govt (and all their job-killing legislation) not because of it. It is a tribute to the free market (for now) American economy that it can come back in the face of new crushing taxes, regulation and incentives for people not to go back to work. The stock market is a leading economic indicator, however, the broader question for the recovery is jobs, which this administration and congress seem intent to destroy. This is truth, not hyperbole (apologies to you libs for using big words)
Before you jump up and claim I want a regulation-free economy, "let me be clear" there is a need for basic regulation and strict enforcement of the laws. That said, many industries in the US face incredible (in many cases unnecessary) regulatory hurdles that their foreign competitors do not. If you add regulation, you add cost. If you raise taxes, you raise cost. The administration and congress have added numerous disincentives for US companies to add employees. So instead of adding a new employee at point "x" in the recovery, companies will wait until point "why" or maybe point "z" so as to be able to rationalize that extra cost of adding that employee. Many companies will chose not to add that employee.
When the economy goes to sh*t, companies (particularly publicly traded ones or those with debt) will immediately look to shed variable costs (I. E. Those costs that can be changed in the near-term as opposed to fixed costs like long-term leases, etc) in order to maintain profitability (good thing) and competitiveness (another good thing) Normally, the biggest variable cost is payroll. What is often lost in the media is that large and small companies need to make profits to stay alive. Further, companies with debt need to comply with the covenants (a series of rules and measures that are aimed at ensuring the safety of the lenders money) associated with the debt. Often, debt covenants will include ratios of debt service to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) free cash flow or other measure of profitability. If you are not in compliance with the covenants, there are penalties (like late charges on your credit cards) which make the debt more expensive (or even make all the principal and interest due immediately) and further impact the company at a time of economic turmoil. Therefore, many times management has little if any choice to swing the axe.
So this is how it works:
1) economy goes to hell in a hand basket.
2) companies shed huge amounts of workers (drastically reducing costs)
3) companies chug along with smaller workforce and realize greater profitability.
4) improved profitability attracts investors.
5) more buyers of stock (increased demand) in the face of finite supply drives the price of stock up.
6) good stock performance makes everyone feel good. Management thinks "why f*ck up a good thing by adding to head count?" - company keeps chugging with lower headcount, profitability continues to improve.
7) improved profitability attracts more investors.
8) more buyers of stock (increased demand) in the face of finite supply drives the price of stock up.
9) at the point when it becomes clear that growth is inhibited by not adding to head count, management will start to hire.
10) increased costs eat into profit margins, profitability plateaus or slightly declines (margin not necessarily in nominal numbers)
11) lower trajectory of profitability brings fewer buyers to the stock.
12) fewer buyers and perhaps a few sellers, in the face of finite supply, the stock trades sideways or in a band.
As far as the Health Care legislation goes - we had to do something.Why? Is destroying it better than working with an imperfect solution?
It is time we drew a line in the sand. Cut health care expenditures in half which would be in line with other countries.Why? If we allow the free market to reign and allow companies to profit in this sector, we can continue to have the best health care in the world and we can spend more of GDP on health care than other countries because we chose to do so. The amount of GDP spent on health care is a BS statistic which is totally meaningless. We spend more of GDP on defense than anyone else. Should we stop that too?
Tell the whiners to take their silly ass colds and sprained ankles down the street to perchance find somebody who gives a shit.I quite agree, if I am paying for their health care. If they are paying out of their own pockets, let them go, they are helping the economy recovery.
For crying out loud, Cubans, who might spend 25 cents a year on health care, have a longer life expectancy that we do in the United States.This really hurts. I know that you are not a hopeless liberal. Don't fall for the propaganda. Health care in Cuba is woefully inadequate. Comparing the US life expectancy numbers to most other countries is apples to oranges. In the US, we count every live birth no matter the circumstances (say born at 24 weeks gestation) When that baby doesn't make it (I. E. Death at 0 years old) that screws up the statistics. I don't hear anyone proposing that we ban neonatal care in order to increase our life expectancy.
Member #4112
05-12-10, 14:36
I can attest to the reduction in staff to curtail costs. Every and I do mean every one of my clients is or have laid off from 10% to 50% of their workforce to lower costs. They are also cutting 401k company contributions; reducing, shifting cost to the employee or totally cutting healthcare coverage due to recent hikes in coverage costs ahead of ObamaCare; and are actively seeking every dime they can save in operational costs.
Here in Houston, things are about to get a lot worse with the shifting of the military truck manufacturing contract from Texas (a red state) to Ohio (a blue state) and the killing off a major portion of NASA and shifting work from Texas (a red state) to Florida (a blue state) The market going up and down is not affecting jobs here unless it is to just reinforce management's tactic to hunker down and wait and see.
Even my international clients I sub for are cutting back and consolidating which has bitten me in the butt personally!
As a side line, Greece is first in line, next is Portugal then Spain. Their populations are rioting because there is nothing left to sustain their "social program spending" but they want it and don't care. We maybe next, just look at all the protests over Arizona's immigration law and they only want to enforce the laws that are on the Federal books at the state level since the Feds won't. - Give me mine and screw everyone else is how all these folks think.
Wild Walleye
05-12-10, 15:04
shifting of the military truck manufacturing contract from Texas (a red state) to Ohio (a blue state) and the killing off a major portion of NasaIf you are in a red state, you ain't gettin' nuttin. Look at the response to the flooding in Tennessee and looming potential disaster on the coast of AL. At least with Katrina, the problems with response were human error. Here, there aren't responses because the constituents are not members of an Obama constituency.
and shifting work from Texas (a red state) to Florida (a blue state)Gotta buy them votes in this swing state. "Shoot we might even embrace Crist (that's Charlie not Jesus)"
The market going up and down is not affecting jobs here unless it is to just reinforce management's tactic to hunker down and wait and see.Not unless the NYSE opens a new exchange in TX.
Even my international clients I sub for are cutting back and consolidating which has bitten me in the butt personally! Tell me about it. I gotta stop wearing these pork-chop underpants.
As a side line, Greece is first in line, next is Portugal then Spain.Then California, then the USA.
Their populations are riotingA small portion of the population is rioting. These miscreants are primarily govt, union layabouts (in the US think SEIU) who are pissed that they might actually have to work for a living and that what they get paid might be relative to the work that they do.
just look at all the protests over Arizona's immigration law and they only want to enforce the laws that are on the Federal books at the state level since the Feds won'tI find it hilarious that all these brilliant media types (including Obama) came out hard against AZ's law and vowed to repeal it (because 'everyone' is against it) or that it was unconstitutional. I doubt one of them read the law. If they read it, then they were lying in their public comments. That said, I was laughing when the group organizing the ballot referendum against the law called it quits, the other day. Apparently, there isn't much interest among AZ voters to lift a finger to obstruct the rule of law (which this law seeks to reinstate)
There is nothing racist or anti-anything (other than anti-lawbreaker) about protecting the sovereignty of the US.
Miami Bob: I thank WW everyday. He has offered me sage advice and particularly good inside info on the ladies. My comments were directed publicly to WW in jest and to motivate him to be more proactive in getting his ass to BsAs for some good times.
I do disagree with his politics but I have many friends who share his beliefs that I have a spirited discourse with almost constantly in fun and to enlighten them as to their misguide perception of reality. Jajaja.
Member #4112
05-12-10, 18:33
I agree that only a small number of the folks are rioting in Greece and those are the ones feeling the pinch but they do get a lot of publicity, don't they. Last poll I saw on immigration reform was 70+% favor the Az law and lets face it most of those folks out protesting it and waving the Mexican flags are illegals - and as with Greece they get one heck of a lot of press from the main stream media so they appear as more than they are but it is funny the media seems to miss all the violence.
One question - where the hell is ICE at these demonstrations? Could get a good start on the new program right there!
Wild Walleye
05-12-10, 18:42
I agree that only a small number of the folks are rioting in Greece and those are the ones feeling the pinch but they do get a lot of publicity don't they. Last poll I saw on immigration reform was 70+% favor the Az law and lets face it most of those folks out protesting it and waving the Mexican flags are illegals - and as with Greece they get one heck of a lot of press from the main stream media so they appear as more than they are but it is funny the media seems to miss all the violence.
One question - where the hell is ICE at these demonstrations? Could get a good start on the new program right there!In the little styrofoam coolers the protesters bring with them
Wild Walleye
05-13-10, 10:36
Here are three more examples of the erosion of personal freedom under Obama's move towards dictatorship.
As I previously mentioned, all corporate expenditures greater than $600 will require filing a 1099.
Also, the financial regulation bill (being pushed in the Senate by the criminal Chris Dodd) includes these two new agencies:
•The Office of Financial Research. This supposedly would predict risk in the system by collecting massive amounts of new financial data, such as patterns of credit card use.
•The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It would collect data, especially on consumer transactions.
If anyone doubts that this administration and congress want to control everything about your life, this should help to remove those doubts.
"As I previously mentioned, all corporate expenditures greater than $600 will require filing a 1099."
They already do.
"•The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It would collect data, especially on consumer transactions."
The stores already have this data, that's why they want you to have a "Safeway" card so they can track your purchases and control what coupons you receive on the back of your receipt. Companies pay big money for this kind of targeted marketing. The same data is just being used by the government for a different reason. If you don't want to be tracked, pay cash. Anonymity of purchases went out the door a long time ago.
As an aside, collecting information is not inherently good or evil, it is how the data is used that is good or evil. I certainly don't trust the government to do anything but find more creative ways to tax me. However, in the right hands it can be used to do great things.
Sysco234
Canitasguy
05-13-10, 17:08
I find rants by WW and his anti-Obama buds rather ironic.
For some reason, the only activities beyond mongering with an easy conscience that they seem to feel strongly should be protected from inappropriate government interference are ones that relate to commerce - or money to use the cruder term.
The freedom to cheat, steal and dissemble when making a buck or keeping it from taxation must be protected at all costs. Not so much the freedom of speech, the press, free assembly or telecommunicating without unlawful ease-dropping.
I don't remember much in the way of expressed outrage about the erosion of personal freedoms under Bush.
Remember when W's lawyers claimed the President - under the unified executive mis-interpretation of the Constitution theory - could secretly tap peoples' phones, intercept their internet communications, kidnap and imprison forever foreigners and citizens in secret prisons without access to lawyers or any right to trial - not after court reviewed evidence of alleged involvement in terrorism, but with no review at all - under the "You Can Trust Us" War on Terror theory. Was this something that outraged people - other than us wussy liberals?
Similarly, is there outrage about eroding freedoms from these people now that Arizona will require anyone who is out on their street to have documentary proof of their citizenship with them at all times and be subject to arbitrary questioning by police on the vaguest "reasonable suspicion" about their citizenship status.
"Show Me Your Papers" has replaced "God Enriches" as the Arizona state motto to the consternation of the uber-Christian capitalist crowd!
Now - according to the WW crew - only one God of freedom exists who must be kept free from interference - the God of the Holy Buck!
The reality that the unfettered freedom of individual and corporate capitalists in the complex, computerized world of international finance poses a real, present and continuous threat to the viability of the world economy and the economic well-being of everyone on the planet is irrelevant.
Only the God of the Holy Buck is sacrosanct.
The "I've Got Mine and Everyone Else Can Go Fuck Themselves" elements of society are well represented here at AP - but a few of us ain't buying what they are selling!
Stan Da Man
05-13-10, 21:18
"As I previously mentioned, all corporate expenditures greater than $600 will require filing a 1099."
They already do.
Sysco234Absolutely not. You don't send 1099s to Inc.'s right now, which are the vast, vast majority of transactions. WW's report, if correct, will exponentially increase the number of 1099s.
Absolutely not. You don't send 1099s to Inc.'s right now, which are the vast, vast majority of transactions. WW's report, if correct, will exponentially increase the number of 1099s.I was thinking of partnerships, my bad. After some research there are some circumstances where you need to give one to corporations if it's for legal, medical, or healthcare purposes.
That said, it's all about the taxes. Tax revenue is down, rather then cut spending, the gov't figures out expensive ways to account for revenue they think isn't being reported.
Sysco
I haven't researched the three examples Walleye listed, but if he sees them as a negative, I am almost certain they are things that will benefit the average American and offset the transfer of wealth to the rich.
This thread has so suffered since ol' Sidney went south. As far as the hopeless liberals goes! Keep it real dude for once. Many americans are waiting till Novemeber till the scales change BIG Time! Sadly, nothing will advance until Abomonation is castrated. But we'll just have to ride out the two year impotence period till some serious leadership returns to the whitehouse. A neutered Obamanation is better than an impowered lunitic attempting to destroy the ameriacn dream IMHO! Tick. Tick. Tick. America will reset the clock in November and get itself back on the right track. Sometimes, doing nothing wrong is better than doing everything wrong! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Ps. This is an opinion that both moderate republicans and independents in america now share. Most independents in the US that voted for Obamination now regret their decision BIG TIME! Hell hath no fury like an independent spurned! LOL. Just wait till Novemeber! LOL!
Wild Walleye
05-14-10, 12:21
You had me at hello.
This thread has so suffered since ol' Sidney went south. As far as the hopeless liberals goes! Keep it real dude for once. Many americans are waiting till Novemeber till the scales change BIG Time! Sadly, nothing will advance until Abomonation is castrated. But we'll just have to ride out the two year impotence period till some serious leadership returns to the whitehouse. A neutered Obamanation is better than an impowered lunitic attempting to destroy the ameriacn dream IMHO! Tick. Tick. Tick. America will reset the clock in November and get itself back on the right track. Sometimes, doing nothing wrong is better than doing everything wrong! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. This is an opinion that both moderate republicans and independents in america now share. Most independents in the US that voted for Obamination now regret their decision BIG TIME! Hell hath no fury like an independent spurned! LOL. Just wait till Novemeber! LOL!Esten, you are spot on. All tools necessary to control the people and transfer wealth to those who didn't earn. Viva la revulsion!
Sysco & Stan: re:1099s, the amount of additional paper pushing will cost companies billions in compliance. However, we'd be lucky if that was the only repercussion or if that were the intent of the regulation. This is an attempt by the government to force companies to provide the IRS with all of the information necessary to recreate your income statement (P & L) on their own computers (to be done en masse by software which will produce inaccurate results) which they will then compare against your tax returns. If the variance is big enough, knock, knock.
Member #4112
05-14-10, 14:38
As far as the Form 1099 issue, even though I have all my clients on competent accounting systems and assisted in their implementation, WW and TM are right about the costs associated with tracking all vendor transactions over $600, not to mention the forms cost (even if you print them on plain paper. Add the cost of accounting and reconciliation of all your reports to the Form 1096 to the initial preparation of the individual 1099's and you have a real time killer and that translates into more record keeping costs. No matter how advanced and complex our management and accounting information systems become, which should reduce record keeping and reporting costs, the good old IRS / Congress keeps coming up with new requirements to be sure the time it takes to comply never decreases but always increases.
Canitasguy
05-15-10, 20:19
Many americans are waiting till November till the scales change BIG Time! America will reset the clock in November and get itself back on the right track.
Ps. This is an opinion that both moderate republicans and independents in america now share. Just wait till Novemeber! LOL!Guess what Toyfella. Things maybe ain't what they seem or the way the corporate American press foretells of a Republican resurgence. Odds are increasing that just ain't gonna happen.
Yea - incumbents either D or R got tsouris (Yiddish for problems) - but as Obama said the people aren't gonna give the keys back to the crew that ran the car into the ditch.
Here's the skinny:
The most recent AP polls show advantage D is acomin'.
Obama's popularity is up as people see he and his team get up in the morning and go to work trying to improve things while his opponents throw mud and gum up the works.
As of today, more Americans want Democrats to control Congress in 2011 and 2012 than want Republicans. With 45% for the D's and 40% for the Rs - resulting from an 8% drift away from the R's among moderates and independents in just one month.
"Obamanomics" seems to be working as the economy is inarguably on the mend. Job growth is slowly improving, homes are selling, retail is up and the markets (despite the insanity of last week's 15 minute crash) are volatile, but trending positive.
BP has turned "drill, baby drill" into "spill baby spill" so the R's won't have energy issues working for them in November. Their shilling for Wall Street is another albatross. Obama's anti-terror policies are working as well as W's without all the nasty stuff included. The wars are on a slow walk to Obama's credit and advantage. Odds are the Rs will go over the top on immigration to shore up their base and that will turn off fair-minded independents. The Tea Party is a double-edged sword that may draw just as much R as D blood.
Only a third of those surveyed by AP want their own lawmakers re-elected. The anti-incumbent mood say, in essence, a pox on both their houses - D and R.
Sitting members from both parties are vulnerable, but it is far from a given that Rs will oust sitting Ds and vice versa. D's may replace defeated D's and defeated R's may be replaced by other R's.
One key looking to November is married women are turning away from the R's. Young people and rural voters also see the Ds as a better bet. The D's numbers will get even stronger as Latinos and other minorities watch the R's trashing them and seemingly claiming that the American dream should be for whites only.
Of course, November is a long way off and we do live in interesting times.
This thread has so suffered since ol' Sidney went south. As far as the hopeless liberals goes! Keep it real dude for once. Many americans are waiting till Novemeber till the scales change BIG Time! Sadly, nothing will advance until Abomonation is castrated. But we'll just have to ride out the two year impotence period till some serious leadership returns to the whitehouse. A neutered Obamanation is better than an impowered lunitic attempting to destroy the ameriacn dream IMHO! Tick. Tick. Tick. America will reset the clock in November and get itself back on the right track. Sometimes, doing nothing wrong is better than doing everything wrong! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. This is an opinion that both moderate republicans and independents in america now share. Most independents in the US that voted for Obamination now regret their decision BIG TIME! Hell hath no fury like an independent spurned! LOL. Just wait till Novemeber! LOL!Maybe so, but I don't recall there being too many happy people around X'mas in 2008. Oh, you just forgot!
Yes. In 2008 we had a liberal house and senate f**cking up every positive initiative that the republicans put forward. Guesse ya forgot? You clowns have had the ball without interferrence for the past year and a half and what do you have to show for it? Thankfully, every decade or so the liberals get a chance with the "ball" and remind all of america why you should stay on the bench when it comes to running the country. November can't come too soon and you will only have yourselves to blame! What an opportunity lost! Shame on you all for pushing your "social agenga" on the rest of us and NOT dealing with the issues at hand like jobs and the economy. If ya had any sense at all you would have focussed on these issues, been successful and then during your second term you could have converted the Good Ol' USA to the socialist state your so covet! November is just around the corner, and never forget what the Toymann told ya all. "You will only have yourself to blame". LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
View this video from the T. V. Series FrontLine.
Bush left Obama with no choice, either spend our way out of this Recession or we'd all go broke.
Now you Republican "Bushie" MotherFuckers watch this and learn something. Obama had no choice it had to be this way.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
CockSuckers.
Exon
Either spend our way out of this Recession or we'd all go broke.ROTFLMAF!
Exon, did you even think about what you wrote?
"Spend our way out of a recession", or "we'd all go broke".
So, if we're in a recession, the answer is to borrow money we don't have and can't afford to pay back, and then throw it out the window, so we can avoid being in a position where we didn't have any money?
It's funny, but at the same time it's also sad that you actually believe this.
Thanks,
Jackson
ROTFLMAF!
Exon, did you even think about what you wrote?
"Spend our way out of a recession", or "we'd all go broke".
So, if we're in a recession, the answer is to borrow money we don't have and can't afford to pay back, and then throw it out the window, so we can avoid being in a position where we didn't have any money?
It's funny, but at the same time it's also sad that you actually believe this.
Thanks,
JacksonYep,.
Essentially thats exactly what he has to do El Jeffie, he has no choice.
Watch the Video and you'll learn something.
Exon
Yep,
Essentially thats exactly what he has to do El Jeffie, he has no choice.
Watch the Video and you'll learn something.
ExonExon,
You can find a video on the internet to prove or disapprove any point.
Here's my point: If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan", our economy would be stronger today. The fact is that the American economy is an incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine, and thus is will always right itself if left alone to flourish. Unfortunately, our economy must now right itself while dragging the drogue chute of the Stimulus Plan's debt.
Nevertheless, thanks to the fortitude of the American entrepreneur and the productivity of the American worker, the US Economy will inevitably recover, upon which the liberals will congratulate themselves while admiring the "Obama Economic Miracle".
The point here is that the economic recovery will be delayed because of the stimulus borrowing, and that if we hadn't borrowed the 820 billion, the economy would have been better today.
Thanks,
Jackson
Canitasguy
05-16-10, 21:53
You clowns have had the ball without interferrence for the past year and a half and what do you have to show for it? I fear you need remedial studies in a number of areas including economics, government and politics.
Although, you assuredly know a thing, two or ten about chica selection, relations, enjoyment and mongering, your fact-free and error filled comments indicate that you know Jack shit about basic economics, politics and government in general.
To start with, among the things the American people have to show for the past 14 months of Obama's policies is the beginning of an economic recovery, as acknowledged by virtually every sentient economist and documented with every salient economic statistic. (Even El Alamo admits this!
Remember when that eloquent economist-in-chief George W. Bush said: "This sucker could go down"? Well thanks to Obama, the Ds, and Ben Bernanke among others, the sucker is breathing new life.
To wit:
1. Rather than negative GDP growth, we have positive growth.
2. Rather than losing half a million jobs a month as we did just as W left Dodge, we are adding tens of thousands of new jobs every week.
3. Housing and retail are turning around.
4. Financial markets, though volatile, are way up since W went back to Houston.
The numbers - should you care to do a little research - are all available and all point to the fact that as the TARP stabilized the financial system, the stimulus spending primed the pump and kept the economy from going into cardiac arrest. There is a long way to go and because the economy is like a person who has been in a serious crash, it will need a long time to heal even with the best medicine and the most intelligent care.
Please spare us the false claims of Ds jamming laws down the public's throat. When 60 Senators and 218 members of Congress, who represent the will of the people by definition and constitutional mandate, vote to pass a law, its called democracy. You know - that system we send our young men and women to fight for in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your claim the Obama and the Ds have operated without any "interference" since 1/2009 is uninformed - being kind in my description.
To better educate yourself, I recommend you go online and read about how the US Senate actually operates. Look up the terms cloture and filibuster. Read how even a threatened filibuster can thwart an up or down vote on anything.
Check on the incidence of use of these procedures by minority parties pre and post Obama. Then you will "get" how the Rs use "interference" to keep Obama and the Ds from moving the ball down the field.
Since Obama took office the Senate Rs have made a habit of abusing both the cloture and filibuster rules to oppose almost all of his initiatives and cripple the appointment processes. Rather than following past traditions where these obstructive measures were used sparingly on critical legislation, in 2009 and this year the Rs are using them indiscriminately.
It might be better if you left the analysis of the big picture to better informed others - but if for whatever reason you need to vent and offer us all your fact-free ideological rants, hey, shout it out.
But, best you make plans for going on a brain-numbing bender the day after elections in November as crying in your beer may be your ultimate fate.
If things go D, then looking ahead - with continued economic growth, government revenues will increase, safety net spending will diminish and the deficits will begin to fall. Then the conservative naysayers will spend gazillians cleaning the egg off their faces and ties, further stimulating growth.
Finally, after a huge 2012 victory, the O man will continue to lead us to a better world from 2013 to 2017!
Exon,
You can find a video on the internet to prove or disapprove any point.
Here's my point: If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan", our economy would be stronger today. The fact is that the American economy is an incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine, and thus is will always right itself if left alone to flourish. Unfortunately, our economy must now right itself while dragging the drogue chute of the Stimulus Plan's debt.
Nevertheless, thanks to the fortitude of the American entrepreneur and the productivity of the American worker, the US Economy will inevitably recover, upon which the liberals will congratulate themselves while admiring the "Obama Economic Miracle".
The point here is that the economic recovery will be delayed because of the stimulus borrowing, and that if we hadn't borrowed the 820 billion, the economy would have been better today.
Thanks,
JacksonTo prove how wrong you are "Jeffie", watch this FrontLine video "The Meltdown". Its a synopsis and time table of why Hank Paulson, a "Bushie" had to do what was done and Obama had to follow threw with their decisions.
It shows how close we came in September of 2008.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Exon
I am not sure how close we came to a meltdown in 2008. We were relying on assessments from financial institutions who wanted bailout money I. E. Free money. Financial institutions may not have been impartial evaluators of the situation.
The issue now is sovereign debt. The debt is insurmountable. I see no solution except to pay it back with funny money I. E. Devalued money. The world doesn't have enough real money to service that debt which, unfortuneately, is increasing by leaps and bounds everyday.
Watch those two video's especially the last one, "The Meltdown", Henry Paulson a "Bushie", decides to let Lemond Brothers fail and all Hell breaks loose. The largest stock market one day sell off in history, over 500 points, the entire financial system locked up and there was no credit.
It was the beginning of the end of the American standard of living as we had come to know it. Something much worse that Argentina experienced in 2001 and 2002.
Obama's hands are tied because of Bush's policy's, he has no choice but to keep spending to stabilize the economy. If not were still in danger of collapse.
Exon
Wild Walleye
05-17-10, 12:39
There are three different things being bantered about here. The first two are related, in that they were supposed to sure-up the banking system via 'bail out' moneys (federal coffer spending and Fed money) actions (Bear to JP Morgan, etc) and in-actions (Lehman Bros) and the other is the Keynesian stimulus actions and moneys.
The first two were actions taken during the crisis in an attempt to stem the damage that was unfolding and build or establish some sort of confindence in the markets. The Fed and Congress pissed away trillions, in large part because they didn't know what they were doing. If the plan was to do away with the "too big to fail" precedent, they should not have selectively bailed out institutions. The precedent was certainly destroyed when Lehman was tossed overboard. At that point, all of the previous efforts were for naught (from a citizen's POV)
It is easy to confuse TARP and the stimulus because they both are ridiculous slush funds engineered to allow the pay-master to buy constituencies and pay off constituents. Although TARP was sold as a means to sure up the financial sector, that isn't the purpose for which it has been used. TARP, or the Trouble Asset Relief Program, has done nothing for the trouble assets for which it was named (no surprises here)
The stimulus package (with some $200mm going to ACORN) was nothing more than a political slush fund, stolen from the tax payers. Keynesian stimulus doesn't work, this has been proven over and over. The economic effect of an artificially created make-work program is less than $0.25 per dollar spent where as a job created by the private sector has an effect of greater than $1.25.
I for one think that "too big to fail" should have been kept intact through the Fed's primary mission is to act as the lender of last resort. That doesn't mean that sweetheart deals should have been cooked up for those that are close to the govt (JP Morgan, Merrill, Goldman) and that those out of favor with the govt (Lehman) should be cast adrift. The precedent was previously effective in backing up the financial sector in times of turmoil. The effect of letting Lehman go down was 100X worse than what any of the govt pinheads expected because it destroyed the psychological integrity of all counter-party agreements and thus the economy stopped for approximately 3 weeks and suffered long-term damage (most of which was inflicted by the congress in the wake of the debacle through TARP, Stimulus and healthcare reform)
The crisis was building for a long time. The govt could have stepped in 'early' and provided credit enhancements (a form of insurance) to all of the toxic assets ($2 trillion) via a fund of a $500 billion dollars (or less) which would have represented 25% of all toxic assets. This would enable the private sector to continue to trade these assets with a better sense that the expected returns would be commensurate with the underlying risk. While that is a bail out, it is certainly a much smaller number than the combine Fed and Congress spending of trillions. It would have still been more efficient for the govt to buy 100% of the TAs and put them in the fireplace.
Canitasguy
05-17-10, 14:35
The stimulus package (with some $200mm going to ACORN) was nothing more than a political slush fund.
The Fed's primary mission is to act as the lender of last resort.Zero - yes zero - dollars of stimulus funds went to ACORN. That is a myth that was floated into the right wing media by Fox News. It has zero basis in fact.
The Fed is NOT the lender of last resort. That's like saying Goldman Sachs is an investment advisor for individuals and institutions.
Here is the official mission statement of the Fed:
"The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.
"Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:
1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.
3. Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U. S. Government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system."
WW, you have every right to criticize and complain about the TARP and the stimulus, but try to be more accurate and rely less on discredited claims from politically motivated sources like Fox, Drudge, etc.
Stan Da Man
05-17-10, 15:04
I'm a bit skeptical about the "convenient truth" that Obama's hands were tied. Things may have been worse -- or much better -- without the massive bailouts they deployed. We just don't know.
Before everyone jumps on me for the temerity to suggest that the bailouts may not have been necessary, just pause and consider what all the so-called experts were telling us just two years ago. It's a different context, but still very instructive.
Just two years ago, we were going to see a massive death toll from the new flu pandemic. It was going to spread rapidly and it was going to have a significant effect on a group that normally was not particularly susceptible to death by influenza -- healthy people in the 20-40 age range. The CDC, the World Health Organization, and the entire scientific community were unanimous in their predictions: It was going to be very big and it was going to be very bad. As a result, trillions were spent on vaccines because these experts couldn't be wrong.
What happened? The vaccines didn't get rolled out in time in Argentina and South America, but the flu turned out to be much milder than the "usual" flu. The vaccines got delayed in the U. S. And elsewhere, and by then the public had become skeptical so many chose not to get vaccinated at all. The result: The annual flu-related death toll was much less than what we expect from a "normal" flu season. The same experience was had everywhere else. There was no pandemic. The so-called experts were just plain wrong.
What's the point? At least predictions about pandemics and the dangers of a new flu virus are based on science, yet they were still dead wrong. Predictions about economic catastrophe if this or that occurred are not based on science. Economics is called the "dismal science," but that is at best a partial misnomer. The "dismal" may be apt, but the "science" certainly is not. For every economist who will stand up and say that "Cause X" will lead to "Effect why," there is another who will dispute it. Both will support their theories with convincing evidence. Those who want to be persuaded by one group will be so persuaded, and the rest will follow the opposite path. Keynesian economic theories have been shown not to work, except when they do. There are no hard and fast rules in economics beyond supply and demand, and even those rules are open to interpretation and outside influences that can temporarily suspend these laws.
As but one example of what happens without a bailout, look at CIT. Folks were predicting another Lehman-like disaster for small businesses if CIT was allowed to go under. Even Sid here was predicting economic catastrophe if it didn't get bailed out, and he advocated for a bailout. No bailout happened. The company's creditors were eventually forced to step up, and even after that, the company had to file bankruptcy. But, as it turned out, there was no catastrophe. The economy began its recovery at almost the precise moment that CIT filed its bankruptcy petition, and CIT is now emerging from an orderly bankruptcy. Small businesses were no worse off pre- or post-CIT bankruptcy. It is still difficult to get credit -- just as you'd expect in a recession, especially one based on lax lending standards -- but not more so after CIT was "allowed" to fail.
So, that's a long way of saying that Obama will claim his hands were tied. Of course he will. But, we always knew he would try to justify his actions after-the-fact. Whether it bears any relation to the truth is a whole different story. Just my two cents. And, for the record, I certainly don't trust much of what Bush had to say about these things, and he certainly bears much of the blame for starting the bailout-mania. But, blaming him for a bad economy is a bit of a stretch, especially when it was the housing market and Democrat policies that led to the malaise.
Wild Walleye
05-17-10, 15:46
By putting his personal agenda ahead of the nation's. No ifs, ands or buts.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I am for bail outs. I was for maintaining "too big to fail" for the benefit of the nation. This entails wiping out the equity holders of rescued institutions and restructuring the debt (cram down) and staying alive.
Just two years ago, we were going to see a massive death toll from the new flu pandemic. It was going to spread rapidly and it was going to have a significant effect on a group that normally was not particularly susceptible to death by influenza -- healthy people in the 20-40 age range.Didn't some one once say:
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. "
As but one example of what happens without a bailout, look at CIT.Excellent example of what should be done and not done. I was not a proponent of bail outs. My belief is that TBTF is to give substance and support to the traditional banking industry and its underlying depositors.
So, that's a long way of saying that Obama will claim his hands were tied. Of course he will. But, we always knew he would try to justify his actions after-the-fact.He will claim that his hands were tied ad nauseum while continuing to blame the "mess he inherited" up until the point that he claims full responsibility for any recovery (regardless of the fact that any recovery is in spite of his policies not as a result of them)
If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan"The Recovery Act (stimulus) approved $787 billion, comprised of a combination of tax cuts and spending. Only $229 billion has been spent as of May 2010.
$229 billion is significantly lower than the $820 billion you wrote, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Obama had very little to do with the economic downturn. Hoping and praying and conjecturing and repeating it's his fault over and over won't make it true.
The real culprit is the private sector.
First, the financial & real estate sectors exercised poor risk management and inflated a highly leveraged real estate bubble until it burst. In the aftermath, the financial sector cut off lending and corporate america laid off millions to maintain and increase profits.
Sure there is some blame that can be assigned to government as well. But the lion's share of blame is with the private sector.
Here is the general rule:
The more the private sector phucks up and fails us, the more government intervention is needed.
If the private sector worked for society as wonderfully as many on the right claim it does, we wouldn't need as much government, which the right so bitterly complains about.
Canitasguy
05-18-10, 02:18
If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan", our economy would be stronger today. The fact is that the American economy is an incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine, and thus it will always right itself.
Thanks to the fortitude of the American entrepreneur and the productivity of the American worker, the US Economy will inevitably recover.
Thanks,
JacksonJackson, with all due respect, there is no way to prove your claim that "if we hadn't borrowed the $820 billion, the economy would have been better today."
Claims of this nature are merely individual opinion or more accurately articles of faith. Although it is conceivably true, it cannot be proven, and just as easily, it may be absolutely wrong. Stan the Man is right when he says "We just don't know." And economic history does not support the claim.
It is no accident that virtually every government across the globe – whether led by a conservative or a progressive – chose to pump government funds into their economies in late 2008 and early 2009 to take up the slack as $50 trillion in global asset values evaporated. Not one global leader was willing to let the sick patient heal itself. The Jackson / Christian Science-derived "Let It Be" recovery approach was a non-starter from Berlin to Buenos Aires.
Throughout modern economic history, governments have intervened whenever their economies were thrust into a tailspin and asset values collapsed causing individuals and companies to be unable to sustain a stable level of spending. They acted in order to reverse the collapse. In instances when they didn't intervene, things got worse – usually much worse. When they injected financial support, things usually got no worse, typically got better, often much better. Government borrowing goes back to Roman times and has been instrumental in the growth of industrial capitalism.
I have no idea if you (or Wild Walleye and other AP member stimulus skeptics) studied college economics using Paul Samuelson's core text that was in vogue for decades. If you had you would understand, if not accept, the Keynes theory and the history of deficit spending.
If you tracked the role of stimulus spending in economic recoveries in country after country over the past eighty years, you would not find much support for your thesis that it is bad policy per se. The evidence is just not there.
When a kid hits up his Dad for a loan to buy his fiancee a diamond and promises to pay it back a few months after the wedding, when he expects he will be getting a raise from his employer, that is deficit spending. When a company sells bonds to individual investors to pay for expansion, they are borrowing money against future revenues and that is deficit spending. When a family takes out a mortgage to buy a home, that is deficit spending.
When governments engage in deficit spending, they share with the kid who hit up Dad, the corporate bond issuers and the mortgagee, the same obligation to eventually repay the debt. Lenders need to have confidence in the eventual ability of borrowers to repay or they hold on to their moolah.
If the kid gets the raise and pays back Dad, the firm's expansion plans pay off so the bond holders get their dividends and principle, and the mortgagee stays current on the loan, a win-win is the result.
If a government uses borrowed funds to successfully help grow its economy and thereby is able to raise sufficient revenues to cover operating and capital costs and manage on-going longer term finances in ways that sustain investor confidence, a win-win can be the result.
History shows that deficit spending is unavoidable at different times in nations' lives – during war for example. It has also shown that deficits can be reduced and eliminated – even deep ones – through growth and adjusting spending and taxes!
In reality, there are no hide-bound rules about national debt management other than not to fuck things up by longterm fiscal mismanagement. That is what Argentina did and Greece has done more recently. El Alamo's worry about the explosion in sovereign dept has merit, but his claim that government imposed inflation is how it will be addressed is not a foregone conclusion. Sovereign debt management is less a function of economics than of political will of leaders and citizens to act responsibly.
There is no magic debt to GDP measure or any other statistic. In finance things are fungible. We even have global loan sharks who buy wobbly debt if the interest rate is high enough!
For conservatives, the rub is that they always assume their taxes will be raised to pay down any government debt. Again, history shows that is not necessarily true. During the Clinton years, the nation's deficit was paid off as a strong economy provided sufficient revenues to cover expenses and pay down debt, even after tax rates had been reduced across the board.
As to the speed of the current US recovery, consider this. If the Obama-led economy produces jobs at the pace of the past four months over the next eight months, in the first full calendar year of Obama's presidency, it will have created more jobs than it did over the entire eight years of W's reign!
During W's eight years as President, including six when the Rs controlled all of government, the great US economic machine you extol as a monster wealth-generator produced its weakest performance in seven decades. GDP grew at the slowest pace since Truman's post WW II years. Jobs increased a whopping 2%. While, incomes grew slower than in any presidency since the 1960s (other than that of Bush senior) The Clinton surplus became a $1.7 trillion deficit. Of course, all of this was before the economy cratered on W's watch.
If there is one lesson we all should have learned during the run-up to the current crisis, the bumpy management of its initial turmoil and the vagaries of how individual and collective economies have weathered the storms, it is that things related to global finance and economic fortunes are pretty fucking complicated. For example, huge deficits notwithstanding, the US dollar remains the currency of choice across the globe, while the global appetite for US treasuries remains strong. Clearly the markets are not overly fearful of US longterm fiscal vulnerability!
We are all in the soup because the "incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine" - the US economy – that you praise, over the past thirty years generated trillions of dollars of illusionary, rather than real wealth, as individuals, businesses and all levels of government gorged themselves on debt. That gorging was directed, aided, abetted with malice aforethought by the international financial wizards.
Between 1970 and 2009, financial sector profits went from 20% percent of total corporate profits to 40%.
Wall Street and the shadow banking system's role morphed from supplier of capital to productive sectors of the economy into a leech-like appendage which sucked value from the overall economy. It created more and more ways to get people to go further into debt and distributed enormous profits to a small number of mostly undeserving individuals. Those changes fundamentally altered the nature of the US economy and not to the benefit of most of its citizens.
The easy and cheap credit created asset bubbles in real estate and equities and it inflated the costs of essentials including health care and education and non-essentials like travel and luxury goods.
Debt-addicted Americans were living La Vida Loca. Then the whole thing collapsed – in ways that were very, very predictable. (The same sequence occurred in the UK, Ireland, Spain and many other nations.
The destruction of $50 trillion dollars of global "wealth" in a few months in late 2008 will mean that the future standard-of-living for hundreds of millions of the poor and middle-class people around will be well below what they anticipated. In the words of Henry David Thoreau, many people, whose immediate losses are being exacerbated by disappearing work options, will face "lives of quiet desperation."
For the foreseeable future millions won't have access to credit and be able to borrow their way back to fun times and any sense of personal economic well-being – or to be the engine of consumer-driven economic growth.
Bleeding the economy and the price structure down to realistic and sustainable levels is a painful and slow process that can only be cushioned by government policies.
Economic anger and anxiety will make politics as volatile as the financial markets for a long-time as people with diminished prospects have to find someway to express their anger.
Hang on cause the bumpy ride ain't getting much smoother for a long time.
I agree with your kudos to the US business owner and working stiffs on the factory floor, but the great US economic success was built on more than just entrepreneurs and labor.
How about the genius of America's inventors; the learning provided by its educators; the great structures built by its engineers; the core infrastructure that governments have put in place without which modern society couldn't function; the civic order enforced by its law enforcement; the national security provided by its young troops; the confidence of foreign and domestic investors who will fund in its economic future; the natural resources provided by good fortune; and the optimism and inspiration provided by trail blazers and role models in sports, the arts, the military and yes politics - including Barack Obama.
Now I hope that didn't give you a migraine!
As far as I know the US Government, going back to the Carter Administration and maybe before, pushed legislation which amounted to forcing financial institutions to adopt fiscally irresponsible lending practices.
The Administrations of Carter and Clinton accused financial institutions of 'red lining'. Carter and Clinton alleged that mortgages were harder to obtain in certain neighborhoods i.e. neighborhoods that the banks 'red-lined' or designated as high risk zones for mortgages.
The concept of 'red lining' had certain racial and political overtones because many of the 'red lined' zones were predominantly black or inhabited by other Democratic leaning voting blocks.
To most rational people 'red lining' did not have racial or policial overtones. 'Red-lining' merely amounted to prudent lending practices.
Carter and Clinton prevailed. Banks were forced into irresponsible lending practices by the Federal Government and today we have a mess on our hands gracias a Big Brother.
The private section resisted the irresponsible regulations of Barney Franks and friends. Unfortuneately, those irresponsible regulations, which solely and directly caused the financial mess we are in today, were forced down the throats of the private sector by guess who? - the correct answer is - our number one problem - the government.
First, the financial & real estate sectors exercised poor risk management At the behest of the government, who required these sectors to provide very risky loans to "disadvantaged" people and neighborhoods.
and inflated a highly leveraged real estate bubbleWith the collusion of the government, operating through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; quangos set up to "insure" these risky loans, funded by the Federal government, run by people whose qualifications ran to "who you know" rather than "what you know".
until it burst. In the aftermath, the financial sector cut off lending Because the federally-mandated loans left them broke as well, without money to lend.
Sure there is some blame that can be assigned to government as well. But the lion's share of blame is with the private sector. Largely because it's the government who's doing the blaming, aided and abetted by a "liberal tame press" whose qualifications run to "who you know" rather than "what you know".
Here is the general rule: The more the private sector phucks up and fails us, the more government intervention is needed. And the corollary: The more the government intervenes, the more the private sector and the people get phucked over by the intervention.
If the private sector worked for society as wonderfully as many on the right claim it does, we wouldn't need as much government, which the right so bitterly complains about.But when the government puts the private sector into a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, as was happening underneath this situation, then government and the press get to sit back "outside of the blame" and sharpshoot to their hearts' content.
Just my two pesos' worth; would have been two cents' worth, but for the power of the government's printing press.
And Cheap CockSuckers Too.
Exon
Wild Walleye
05-18-10, 11:58
The Recovery Act (stimulus) approved $787 billion, comprised of a combination of tax cuts and spending. Only $229 billion has been spent as of May 2010.
$229 billion is significantly lower than the $820 billion you wrote, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.If you believe that this money is not as good as spent, I have a bridge for you (not the shovel-ready kind) The fact of the matter is that the remaining balance is a slush fund that will be spent on things that have nothing to do with helping the economy (all of which was obvious in the original legislation)
You bring up an excellent point, although I am sure you don't realize it. The 'stimulus' package was complete bullsh-t from the start, it hasn't been implemented (I. E. Those funds have not gone into the economy) and therefore has had absolutely nothing to do with any recovery (if there is one)
On the contrary, the 'spending' (I. E. Printing and taking $787B of the taxpayers' money and earmarking it to give to FOBs) does the exact opposite of stimulating the economy, by deflating the value of every American's dollars, increasing the national debt burden (upon which interest must be paid) and creating a disincentive to invest in businesses (I. E. The things that create jobs) by increasing taxation and regulation.
Anyhow, thanks for pointing out how phony the 'stimulus' package was and is.
As far as I know the US Government, going back to the Carter Administration and maybe before, pushed legislation which amounted to forcing financial institutions to adopt fiscally irresponsible lending practices.
The Administrations of Carter and Clinton accused financial institutions of 'red lining'. Carter and Clinton alleged that mortgages were harder to obtain in certain neighborhoods I. E. Neighborhoods that the banks 'red-lined' or designated as high risk zones for mortgages.
The concept of 'red lining' had certain racial and political overtones because many of the 'red lined' zones were predominantly black or inhabited by other Democratic leaning voting blocks.
To most rational people 'red lining' did not have racial or policial overtones. 'Red-lining' merely amounted to prudent lending practices.
Carter and Clinton prevailed. Banks were forced into irresponsible lending practices by the Federal Government and today we have a mess on our hands gracias a Big Brother.
The private section resisted the irresponsible regulations of Barney Franks and friends. Unfortuneately, those irresponsible regulations, which solely and directly resulted in the financial mess we are in today, were forced down the throats of the private sector by guess who? - the correct answer is - our number one problem - the government.It's George Bush's fault!
Esten, arguing for government intervention because of private sector faults is what is wrong in general with people on the left who think the government needs to be involved (to intervene) to save the day. There is no real understanding at how things come to be, and the fuck-ups the government makes are compunded when people rush in and say "now we need more government involvement!"
The fact is, most big problems, including the credit crisis, are usually the fault of the government in not following rules it has set out (allowing favored businesses, industries to get around the rules) or making new rules to tell the market place how to act.
If progressive administrations had not ordered the banking industry to create these risky loans, they would not have existed to begin with. The market would never have allowed it to happen. Did the financial industry make things worse? Yeah, but the govt didn't look very closely at what was happening and actually enforce the laws / regulations on the books after they created the potential problem.
The government fucks up most things when it tries to tell people and the market place what to do. People on the left just can't imagine that we don't all need to be controlled "for our own good."
You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?
Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?
A bit hard to believe.
You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?
Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?
A bit hard to believe.You were the very last in line for brains.
Exon
Direct commentary from Yahoo.
"This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: Old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind, and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new frontrunner.
In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary, in favor of an unwanted rival, Rep. Joe Sestak, who had neither major union nor White House support. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.
Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier, who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin."
Sucks to be a liberal right now! Just remember who told ya how things will change later this year! It's just a matter of time till all ya liberal b*tchs start pointing the finger at your great messiah. The "Obamantion". LOL. One thing about liberals! They offend easily and point the finger faster than anyone I know! LOL! From my perspective, really can't wait till the blood-letting really starts in November! Should be something to watch! I'll be back in BA in early October and can't wait to see the tone of this thread change. Stop pointing the finger at past presidents liberal-b*tchs. Only a fool would look at the past year and a half with an eye that beholds the liberals have'in made even one solid move. "Spend our way out of a recession"! IALOTFLMAO! Keep it real fellas. It's just time to own up to the fact that the liberals couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Way too much social agenda to pursue! LOL!
Words to live by all.
If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO HEART!
If you are still a liberal in your thirties then you have NO BRAIN!
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. To all you liberal b*tchs out there. Stay in denial! It will make the next 6 month much more tolerable for ya all. LOL!
Direct commentary from Yahoo.
"This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: Old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind, and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new frontrunner.
In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary, in favor of an unwanted rival, Rep. Joe Sestak, who had neither major union nor White House support. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.
Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier, who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin."
Sucks to be a liberal right now! Just remember who told ya how things will change later this year! It's just a matter of time till all ya liberal be*tchs start pointing the finger at your great messiah. The "Obamantion". LOL. One thing about liberals! They offend easily and point the finger faster than anyone I know! LOL! From my perspective, really can't wait till the blood-letting really starts in November! Should be something to watch! I'll be back in BA in early October and can't wait to see the tone of this thread change. Stop pointing the finger at past presidents liberal-be*tchs. Only a fool would look at the past year and a half with an eye that beholds the liberals have'in made even one solid move. "Spend our way out of a recession"! IALOTFLMAO! Keep it real fellas. It's just time to own up to the fact that the liberals couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Way too much social agenda to pursue! LOL!
Words to live by all.
If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO HEART!
If you are still a liberal in your thirties then you have NO BRAIN!
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. To all you liberal be*tchs out there. Stay in denial! It will make the next 6 month much more tolerable for ya all. LOL!Not that I am a liberal, but your taunting style reminds me of being in some small town bars. You know what I mean!
If ya can't have a little fun on the political thread now that ol'Sids gone, who's gonna bait and offend the liberals. LOL. They offend so easily don't ya know and this damn board is just full of them. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. And I am from a small town don't ya know! LOL!
Wild Walleye
05-19-10, 11:36
Not that I am a liberal, but your taunting style reminds me of being in some small town bars. You know what I mean!1. He admits to having been in flyover country.
1. He admits to having been in flyover country.What the hell does that mean? I go wherever pussies are pulsating.
Right now, I am writing from the Star Princess crusing in the Baltic Sea, and then on to Bangkok and the riots and demonstrations.
It's George Bush's fault!Keep repeating, over and over, until the second Wednesday in November 2012.
Frankly, it'll probably go on a lot longer than that. The Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover until at least 1980, when nobody who voted for him was still alive.
You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?
Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?
A bit hard to believe.Didn't say they COULDN'T develop risk management plans. But since when is the government in the business of telling companies that they HAVE to take risks?
Also, why didn't the government do its job and work within the framework that existed as well to make sure that shit didn't happen?
My point was that the first thing liberals do is start telling us how we need MORE government to take care of the last thing that the government screwed up or helped screw up in one fashion or another.
1) The government shouldn't tell companies that they have to take risks they wouldn't normally take.
2) When you DO tell companies to take risks, don't just ignore what they're doing.
3) No matter 1 & 2 - if you already have a framework in place, ENFORCE IT and ensure that you don't let crooks fuck things up worse.
We don't need more government and more regulations.
You were the very last in line for brains.Exon, I'm sorry I'm such a dumb MotherFucker.
Wild Walleye
05-20-10, 00:42
What the hell does that mean? I go wherever pussies are pulsating.No self-respecting, knee-jerk, coastal liberal would admit knowledge of or experience in "fly over country." Therefore, you're ok.
Right now, I am writing from the Star Princess crusing in the Baltic Sea, and then on to Bangkok and the riots and demonstrations.Could you pick me up some licorice at the CentralWorld Mall?
Exon, I'm sorry I'm such a dumb MotherFucker.Its Ok, I was wrong once myself,.
Course when the facts came out, it turned out I was right after all.
Exon.
No self-respecting, knee-jerk, coastal liberal would admit knowledge of or experience in "fly over country." Therefore, you're ok.
Could you pick me up some licorice at the CentralWorld Mall?I am not going to break curfew for you, but if you come over, we can go together, and also see some fishbowls.
Greetings Everyone,
Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.
They apparently believe that they have the right to trespass and protest at the bank executive's personal residence because they believe it's not their member's fault that they can't pay their mortgages, not withstanding that they asked for the mortgage in the first place, agreed to and executed the mortgage documents, and then they took the bank's money.
They also apparently believe that as union members they are entitled to some sort ot special exemption not available ot the rest of us.
This reminds me of union politics here in Argentina.
Thanks,
Jackson
BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?
Wild Walleye
05-20-10, 17:22
While these tools are available to all politicians, the Left has perfected the arts of fear-mongering and playing on emotions in order to overcome reason and the rule of law.
Anybody who has entered into a mortgage knows that there must be something different about it than any other debt obligation one has entered into in their personal lives. The enormous amount of paper work and nauseating details about the land and the house (I. E. The asset or collateral)
Nobody entering into a mortgage, who can read and has read the documentation can deny knowing that the house is the collateral to a 'secured' loan. That is to say that the loan is secured by the house. If the borrower doesn't pay, the lender has the right, through a tried and true process to reclaim that asset and sell it in order to satisfy the loan.
A foreclosure process can only begin after you failed to make payments and a certain period of time ("cure period" and local statutes) Seizing and auctioning the house can only take place after the lender has completed foreclosure process and a judge issues and order. The foreclosure process in most states takes about 12-18 months from the first missed payment until the point where the bank can auction that home. In some states, such as Texas, it can be much shorter. There are many, many facets of this process tipped in the favor of the borrower and in most cases the borrower is able to keep the home. Historically, only about 5% of homeowners against whom a foreclosure process has been initiated cannot keep the home (if they want it)
Today, banks are doing things never heard of before in order to keep the home owner in the house and get them back on track paying the mortgage. This includes many banks (including BofA) agreeing to reduce the principal balance owed on the property. That means the bank is saying "ok you owed us $500k on the house, we'll knock 15% off of that to get things back in line, so now you owe us $425K." That is a non-taxable gift of $75K. I have heard of banks that are also willing to extend the term of the loan to 40 years and fix it at 4%. This is amazingly good for people that have found themselves on hard times.
The SEIU is a criminal organization that should be facing multiple RICO charges for organized violence and intimidation. Their protests are always politically motivated as is this one. I would be curious to see real evidence of SEIU members actually being foreclosed on and evicted.
They are trying to intimidate lenders who are doing more than ever to help and play on the emotions of people who afraid of this happening to them.
Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.
They also apparently believe that as union members they are entitled to some sort ot special exemption not available ot the rest of us.
BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?Good thought about a delicate issue Jackson, reminds me of several latin american countries in the 80's and 90's including Mexico's Tequila effect back in '95. Here we had people who were paying mortgages they couldn't afford at variable rates up to 85% a year. Some of them joined and formed an organization called "El Barzón", these guys turned a "social" cause into a political mess.
It wasn't unusual that they would intimidate lenders, entering their houses, break into judges' houses in daylight and destroy the property, close the courthouses by force, etc.
Banks were forced to negotiate with lots of people, some in good faith, others, well. However, the point I wish to comment is, as you said, What happened to personal responsibility? Specially in the US, years ago, when I went to your country, most people were hardworking, hard savers, some even penny pinching, but able to make a good and decent living even If their resources were limited. Now, it seems people are willing to live today and pay in installments (if they pay at all, considering the foreclosures, and the possible coming credit card debacle in the US as well as in UK and of course my country)
I can understand people who want to live beyond their means, after all, anybody who has been a student can attest to that, however, using violence to justify not paying. Gimme a break!
You know guys, I hope you don't consider this as lack of respect but lately the US reminds me too much of my country, not just for the economic mess but also the political one. Very sad, I hope we are not seeing the start of America's decline, because we would miss many good things we know in this world which we give for granted.
Exon BTW, I absolutely agree with you that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama they all had to do what they did, or things would have been worse, quite possibly significantly worse. Some may say things would have turned out fine without the bailout, but no responsible leader would have taken a wild gamble like that.
I remember the day Bush came on TV and said sternly "Congress must act". I respected him at that moment for doing the right thing.
But since when is the government in the business of telling companies that they HAVE to take risks?I'd like to know the answer to that question myself. And another - why did the banks stop making risky loans? Did the regulations change? Or did the banks make that decision themselves. If the banks made that decision, they were never FORCED in the first place. It appears your argument falls apart here.
The subprime market was all about profit, pure and simple. Nothing wrong with pursuing profits, but with increased risk should come better risk management.
And then there's an even more relevant contributor to the crisis: the shadow banking system. Investors made highly leveraged bets linked to the US real estate market, which they should have known was in a bubble and due for a correction. The crisis was arguably mostly about a run on the shadow banking system.
Lehman was pretty much the main reason the bailout happened. Could someone explain how the government was responsible for Lehman's demise?
Face it, the financial sector phucked up. It was like the "Wild West". Yes the government allowed them to with inadequate regulation and oversight, and for that they share the blame. But to downplay the actions of the private sector and blame it mainly on the government is just a giant cop-out. And laughable. Fortunately, most Americans recognize the role the financial industry played in the economic downturn and the need for financial reform.
Exon BTW, I absolutely agree with you that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama they all had to do what they did, or things would have been worse, quite possibly significantly worse. Some may say things would have turned out fine without the bailout, but no responsible leader would have taken a wild gamble like that.
I remember the day Bush came on TV and said sternly "Congress must act". I respected him at that moment for doing the right thing.See Esten,
I take back everything I said!
Welcome Back from the "Dark Side".
Exon
Canitasguy
05-21-10, 03:40
So far 2010 has been a pretty good year for Obama. The is the President who gets up in the morning and goes to work solving the nation's problems while his opponents rant and rave and the Republicans try every trick in the book to block him and yet fail to do so!
Half the American people consistently give him favorable job approval ratings. Those numbers are amazing given the fact that the economy is still in tough shape and the sixteen months of unending blubbering and baldfaced lies coming from his adversaries.
Both Clinton and Reagan who faced nothing like we do now were in worse shape as far as public support at this time in their first terms. W, of course, in the post 9/11 period was supported by patriotic citizens until he screwed the pooch.
The public respects Obama's calm, confident, reasoned approach to issues. They know how we got in the mess and don't buy the bullshit attempts to shift the blame by the 35% of people stuck with Bush even as the barn was burning down.
Tuesday's election results gave no sign of a Republican resurgence in November. They lost a seat they should have won in Pennsylvania. The day he won, the Tea Party guy from Kentucky stepped on his own dick, implying he thought restaurant owners maybe should be free to refuse to serve blacks. (Yea the Tea Party isn't racist!
Of course the whole world may well be fucked no matter what the US Fed and the Obama economic team does because the entire world went debt crazy for thirty years and the bills are still coming due.
And no Walleye, Alamo and Jackson our perilous circumstances have nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Freddie, Fannie, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or Acorn - but have a shit load to do with an international financial system - encouraged by the conservative free market theologians and politicians around the world who were on the take one way or another - that threw fiduciary responsibility out the window and turned international markets into casinos where the house marked the cards and loaded the dice.
During the recent real estate bubble not all banks followed the governments advice and wrote fiscally irresponsible mortgages based on the government's idea that banks have a social obligation to put everybody, regardless of their ability to pay, into homes.
The banks that did not follow the governments advice are the fiscally solid banks that are now buying the toxic banks the FDIC is closing each week.
And the new government regulations, simply put, are an admission by the government that the government was wrong I. E. an admission that banks do not have a social obligation to put put everybody, regardless of their ability pay, into homes.
And, of course, the most egregious violator of sound lending practices was the government itself i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who had a couple of political clowns as CEO´s who were found to have the mathmatical skills of a 7 year old (they couldn't even count to ten, and addition, subtraction, division or multiplication were light years beyond their grasp)
Good summary from USA Today:
"The historic legislation is an emphatic response to Wall Street practices that fueled the housing bubble and a historic economic downturn. Financial firms packaged questionable mortgages into complex securities that plunged in value as housing prices fell, nearly bankrupting the firms, freezing credit markets and forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out."
abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-guts-financial-reform/story?id=10706839
Good to see Scott Brown representing his state by voting with Dems. Not surprisingly, some people were posting on Brown's Facebook page calling him a "pig" and saying his days in DC will soon be over.
Do Repubs really think their opposition to this bill and their success in killing some parts of it are going to help them in November? I can easily see their apparent protection of Wall Street hurting them.
The resolution of the House and Senate bills will be interesting to watch as the lobbying continues.
The 'stimulus' package was complete bullsh-t from the start, it hasn't been implemented (I. E. Those funds have not gone into the economy) and therefore has had absolutely nothing to do with any recovery (if there is one)Walleye I'm curious. Why post such obvious misinformation? There are many things you could blow smoke about that would be difficult to verify, but the stimulus spending is not one of them. There are tons of articles, reports and first hand accounts (myself included) that attest that stimulus money is being spent.
So again I ask, why the deliberate misinformation?
Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.
BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?"Personal responsibility? Whuzzat? You gotta be kidding, right?"
For many people in the USA, from union hacks to legislators, "responsibility" has been reduced to a euphemism for "blame"; and of course, the people who use it that way do not, do not, DO NOT blame themselves. Especially when there's someone in the neighborhood, with enough business acumen and personal responsibility to run a bank, to "hold responsible."
These bums see it as "His bank gots all the money, they must have stole it from us, he must have stole it from us. It's our money that bought him that big fancy house and all. We oughta lynch him and take the money, it should be ours."
Here is a March 2010 article which outlines the TARP expenditures to date. 65% of this money went to AIG and the Auto manufacturers. The total to date is $109 Billion.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21694/report_on_the_troubled_asset_relief_program_march_2010.html
Here is another article in Dec 2009 that tries to summarize the whole plan. Lots of money allocated, a lot of it not spent. And, if you weren't a large corporation in need, you saw a very small percentage of the $700 Billion. Tons of "commitments" and "pledges," next to nothing actually spent on individuals citizens.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/12/10/2009-12-10_where_has_the_us_bailout_money_actually_gone_.html?page=1
If there are other facts out there please provide links.
Sysco
It never seizes to amaze me just how "Dumb" and "Cheap" you Monger CockSuckers really are! "Rude & Stupid" too.
The problem goes back 30 years to Ronald Regain and his deregulation the government controls. The subprime toxic mortgage melt down was just the final straw that broke the camels back in 2008.
Here's the real reason, "Derivatives", a 500 "Trillion Dollar" market thats gone on "Unchecked & Unregulated" for 30 years all over the world.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Words of Wisdom.
By.
Exon
Good summary from USA Today:
"The historic legislation is an emphatic response to Wall Street practices that fueled the housing bubble and a historic economic downturn. Financial firms packaged questionable mortgages into complex securities that plunged in value as housing prices fell, nearly bankrupting the firms, freezing credit markets and forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out."
Abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-guts-financial-reform/story? Id=10706839
Good to see Scott Brown representing his state by voting with Dems. Not surprisingly, some people were posting on Brown's Facebook page calling him a "pig" and saying his days in DC will soon be over.
Do Repubs really think their opposition to this bill and their success in killing some parts of it are going to help them in November? I can easily see their apparent protection of Wall Street hurting them.
The resolution of the House and Senate bills will be interesting to watch as the lobbying continues.This bill is a piece of shit. It does nothing to address the problem - TBTF. Instead of encouraging prudent risk taking without involving government largess, it institutionalizes bailouts for all time. The big megabanks are cackling. The taxpayers are the ones who lose.
About 15% of this bill is useful. 70% is downright terrible, and the balance makes no difference.
This bill is a piece of shit. It does nothing to address the problem - TBTF. Instead of encouraging prudent risk taking without involving government largess, it institutionalizes bailouts for all time. The big megabanks are cackling. The taxpayers are the ones who lose.
About 15% of this bill is useful. 70% is downright terrible, and the balance makes no difference.Its all about "Derivatives" if anyone takes the time to watch the Frontline video I posted below.
Any dough here it is in todays news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100523/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul_loopholes_1
Exon
It never seizes to amaze me just how "Dumb" and "Cheap" you Monger CockSuckers really are! "Rude & Stupid" too.
The problem goes back 30 years to Ronald Regain and his deregulation the government controls. The subprime toxic mortgage melt down was just the final straw that broke the camels back in 2008.
Here's the real reason, "Derivatives", a 500 "Trillion Dollar" market thats gone on "Unchecked & Unregulated" for 30 years all over the world.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Words of Wisdom.
By.
ExonIt's Ronald Regain's fault!
I knew it!
At least I'm not one of those "Dumb" and "Cheap" Monger CockSuckers that can't spell.
Good summary from USA Today:
"The historic legislation is an emphatic response to Wall Street practices that fueled the housing bubble and a historic economic downturn. Financial firms packaged questionable mortgages into complex securities that plunged in value as housing prices fell, nearly bankrupting the firms, freezing credit markets and forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out."
Abcnews. Go. Com / Politics / senate-guts-financial-reform / story? Id=10706839
Good to see Scott Brown representing his state by voting with Dems. Not surprisingly, some people were posting on Brown's Facebook page calling him a "pig" and saying his days in DC will soon be over.
Do Repubs really think their opposition to this bill and their success in killing some parts of it are going to help them in November? I can easily see their apparent protection of Wall Street hurting them.
The resolution of the House and Senate bills will be interesting to watch as the lobbying continues.Why does the bill specifically exclude Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two single largest perpetrators of the country's mortgage debacle, from it's regulatory reforms?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks,
Jackson
It's Ronald Regain's fault!
I knew it!
At least I'm not one of those "Dumb" and "Cheap" Monger CockSuckers that can't spell.Of course it is, now no more Masturbating!
Exon
I thought the mortgage mess was the result of borrowers taking no personal responsibility for the loans received through deceitful brokers using manipulated appraisals and fraudulent loan documentation to funnel the loans to financial institutions that didn't care about any of these things because they could securitize the loans and sell them to unsuspecting buyers using credit rating agencies whose actual allegiance was to the seller rather than the buyer of the security. All of which seemed to work surprisingly well until the latest in a long line of housing bubbles burst, foreclosures leaped, the buyers of the securities, realizing that the credit ratings were crap, switched from mortgage-backed securities to government bonds thus limiting mortgage lending in the US to loans that were either extremely high quality or government guaranteed through programs like VA / FHA.
The subsequent slowing of the real estate market meant that everybody that made money in an active real estate market (including less obvious businesses like people selling software to builders) took a huge hit with a equally huge knock-on effect to the entire US economy, e. G. If real estate brokers were not making money, they were not buying new Cadillacs so GM's sales dropped and they idled factories so laid-off workers stopped eating out so much so restaurants failed and restaurant managers stopped buying new houses.
My guess is that Congress felt they did enough with Freddie / Fannie in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in June 2008 and didn't feel further action was needed. What do you think didn't get fixed that needs immediate fixing?
Wild Walleye
05-23-10, 20:38
Derivatives are just symptoms of the disease, in fact in the case of the meltdown, they actually sprung up to fight the disease (risk)
Derivatives are a natural manifestation in a free market and are useful. These instruments do not exist primarily for wild-eyed speculation. They are most often tools for reducing risk. The media likes to blame things that they don't understand for occurrences that they can't explain, hoping that the audience won't figure out that they are full of sh-t. There are few, if any, members of the media that could understand what they are let alone what role they play in the markets or what role they may have played in the financial meltdown.
Derivatives can take many forms from simple to extremely complex. The financial industry looks for and hires rocket scientist (or the students that otherwise would have become rocket scientists) to help design and construct derivative products.
Contrary to what many sources (media) say, the origins of derivative are in reducing risk. Hedging. Finding a way to maintain income and / or upside potential while simultaneously reducing risk. Sounds simple enough. However, in a truly efficient market, it is next to impossible. There are no risk-less arbitrage opportunities in a liquid, efficient market. Therefore, many derivatives are highly complex and involve a number or different types of securities, tactics and strategies in order to create the desired response to market developments. Derivatives make it possible to isolate the type of risk (e. G. Interest-only or principal only) If your business has high exposure to a particular type of risk, you may want to purchase a product that would behave in a way that is counter to that risk.
Very few financial institutions take huge, naked (un-hedged) speculative positions. Even amongst hedge funds (another group the media likes to blame because they don't really know what they are or what they do) there are not as many 'cowboys' as one might think from the way the media portrays it.
Hedging products designed to make money when markets fall, usually do just that. However, if markets are flat or go up, the purchaser of those products loses money. You never hear the media complaining that investors lost money because the markets went up.
The beginning and the end of this most recent meltdown is the mistreatment of risk caused by government intervention, in the forms of Fannie & Freddie and by forcing financial institutions to make risky loans that did not promise appropriate returns as compensation for taking that risk.
Efficient markets correlate risk and return. The government created all of the profit opportunities that are being blamed on speculators, hedge funds and derivates. The govt created them by making inefficiencies in the markets.
Therefore, the banks wanted to unload them as fast as possible. To whom did they unload the risky mortgages? Fannie and Freddie - two quasi-governmental groups that would buy almost anything. Therefore, the original issuing bank was able to make its fees on originating the loan, keep what it wanted and sell the rest to F & F. This market dynamic (F & F there to buy every mortgage without question) was not a free market, nor was it efficient. If there was a buyer for dog sh-t that was always offering US$5 for every dog-pile you brought them, you could eat off the streets of Bs As. However, the owner of all that pooh might find that at some point they had too much.
For issuers that also were owners of these loans, they needed protection, ergo credit-default swaps.
Why does the bill specifically exclude Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two single largest perpetrators of the country's mortgage debacle, from it's regulatory reforms? Inquiring minds want to know.What Easy Go said.
I see the bill as addressing lending at the front end of the system, which determines what gets to the rest of the system. The better credit quality of the loans originated, the better credit quality of loans sold to the secondary mortgage market. And of course the bill tackles some key issues related to the shadow banking system. How effectively we'll see, but I can understand how these issues may have been considered more pressing. They have said Fannie/Freddie will be a priority next year.
Here's a good article:
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Member #4112
05-26-10, 12:19
Two of the major culprits in the home loan debacle were Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. With the Democrats pushing for lower thresholds for lending and using Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to accomplish this, as well as forcing other lenders to do the same, people who could not afford homes began qualifying for them under the new guidelines. As the thresholds kept going down more financially challenged (is that PC enough for your?) home buyers qualified and then ultimately were unable to make their mortgage payments, which is where the downward spiral began that sank the economy.
Any legislation regulating this market which leaves Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae out is like rounding up the monkeys but leaving the 900 pound gorilla free. Perhaps it has something to do with the Democrats keeping control of these two very politically beneficial entities.
Why are the taxpayers / government involved in the home loan business in the first place? I don't recall anything in the Constitution which would empower the Feds to do this. Cut Fannie and Freddie loose and let the sink or swim with the rest of the market and not depend on taxpayer dollars to support liberal political ideology.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I believe the whole idea with the structure of Fannie / Freddie was to keep the government out of the mortgage business while providing liquidity. Fannie was established in 1938 and the mortgage market seemed to work pretty well until the last ten years so I'd say it has been pretty successful.
The problems seem to have all happened from 2000-2008 so I'm not sure how Democrat influence or "liberal political ideology" is the root cause. Expanded home ownership has been embraced by both parties for many, many years. Remember President Bush's "ownership society"? I happen to agree that, in general, we all benefit when more people have skin in the game (owners) rather than are just passing through (renters) but it's hardly a belief that's unique to either liberals or conservatives.
Lots of people in the last 10 years bought houses that they could barely (or not) afford based on a shared delusion that prices would always go up and the economy would continue to do well. When prices collapsed and unemployment went to 10% , many of these people could no longer afford their mortgage payments and we will be dealing with that problem quite a few more years. If you owe $300K on a house worth $200K and don't have a job, things are not going to work out well for anyone. We all shared in the root causes and we all get to share in the pain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html
Stan Da Man
05-26-10, 17:45
I believe the whole idea with the structure of Fannie / Freddie was to keep the government out of the mortgage business while providing liquidity. Fannie was established in 1938 and the mortgage market seemed to work pretty well until the last ten years so I'd say it has been pretty successful.
The problems seem to have all happened from 2000-2008 so I'm not sure how Democrat influence or "liberal political ideology" is the root cause. Expanded home ownership has been embraced by both parties for many, many years. Remember President Bush's "ownership society"? I happen to agree that, in general, we all benefit when more people have skin in the game (owners) rather than are just passing through (renters) but it's hardly a belief that's unique to either liberals or conservatives.
Lots of people in the last 10 years bought houses that they could barely (or not) afford based on a shared delusion that prices would always go up and the economy would continue to do well. When prices collapsed and unemployment went to 10% , many of these people could no longer afford their mortgage payments and we will be dealing with that problem quite a few more years. If you owe $300K on a house worth $200K and don't have a job, things are not going to work out well for anyone. We all shared in the root causes and we all get to share in the pain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.htmlThe problem with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac is that the Dems decided, about a decade ago, to politicize these supposedly private or quasi-private entities to push their political agenda. You are quite right that George Bush, the Republicans and Democrats alike wanted to promote an "ownership society" -- a laudable goal. But, about 5 years ago, the Republicans tried very hard to overlay both Fannie and Freddie with some additional scrutiny and accountability. They were concerned that these entities' practices were potentially unsound.
At the hearings, the hue and cry from the Democrats was palpable. Don't take my word for it. Someone in this thread posted a link to a 15-minute YouTube summary of some of the actual proceedings. Democrats absolutely put their foot down. They called it "racist" to try to rein in Fannie and Freddy (Maxine Waters) In part this was because these two entities are huge Democrat campaign contributors. In part, it's because Democrats use these two entities much like they're using health care legislation -- to create a dependency class that depends on their party for favors.
So, that's why Democrats get more blame for the Freddie and Fannie debacle that contributed greatly to the financial malaise. Republicans tried to fix it. Democrats would have no part of it, and they controlled Congress. So, now they own it. The fact that they still won't fix these entities is quite telling indeed. Also telling is how Obama claims that Wall Street has the Republicans in their pocket, when Wall Street gave contributions to Dems over Republicans on nearly a 2-1 basis last election. Yet, the complicit media lets them get away with lies like this.
Canitasguy
05-26-10, 18:05
Miami Bob,
It's not a stimulus package. It's a liberal pork fantasy bill masquerading as a stimulus bill.
Thanks,
JacksonThis quote from el Jefe from back in 2009 apparently needs to be retracted!
Today, the Congressional Budget Office, which is widely considered to be an authoritative, non-partisan source of objective economic analysis issued its report on the stimulus plan's impact on the economy.
Its got lots of bad news!
At least for John McCain and Jackson and everyone suffering from Obama derangement syndrome.
For Obama and the American people it actually has pretty good news.
Here is a link to the executive summary of the CBO findings:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967
The key points are:
1. The stimulus put as many as 2.8 million people to work in the first three months of this year -- and raised GDP by as much as 4.2%.
2. The stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.5% in the first quarter.
If anyone remembers when the package was passed it specifically made the point that it was designed to provide immediate relief to individuals and businesses who were suffering from the abrupt dislocation of the general economy caused by the global financial crisis and to stimulate future overall economic growth in the mid and long term.
It was divided broadly into three sections of almost equal worth.
* The first component was tax cuts (36% of the total package) which included one of the largest across the board cuts in individual taxes in history - worth $145 billion - and $17 billion in tax relief for small businesses who were being devastated by the rapid fall-off in consumer demand.
* Second (about 25% of the total) was a series of elements aimed at assuring the basic "safety net" for individuals, companies, states and localities already in place was adequately funded. This included extension of unemployment benefits; expanded eligibility for food stamps for middle class families falling back into poverty; and aid to states facing budget shortfalls as tax revenues began to fall dramatically and medicaid liabilities increased.
* The third component (about 39% of the total) was for infrastructure projects including rebuilding highways, bridges, schools, mass transit facilities, and creating more renewable energy. This component was never sold as an immediate palliative.
Of course, the package could have been structured differently, but what is now beyond dispute is that just as TARP was effective in keeping the international financial system from self-destructing, the stimulus has been effective in halting the slide of the general economy and changing its direction towards growth.
Unfortunately, for many contributors to this page, opinion replaces analysis, points of view substitute for facts, and ad hominem diatribes replace critical argument. Much of what is written about the economic matters represent the ideology of the writer, rather than any expertise in macro-economic theory or reality. In addition, the animus toward Obama - the root of which remains a bit of a mystery - colors (pardon the word chosen) the criticisms of Administration policies. It's pretty sad.
Fortunately, the CBO has done a public service today and the naysayers here and elsewhere can carp, but they have zero credibility as compared to knowledgeable, professional, unbiased experts who provide fact-based analysis.
The campaign contribution numbers for 1989-2008 by Freddie / Fannie show a 57/43 split between Democrats and Republican which sounds like the equal opportunity bribery that is fairly typical for big companies.
Still waiting to hear what still needs to be fixed with Fannie / Freddie today. Can they go back to whatever worked from 1938 until the nefarious Bill Clinton subverted them in a way that the Republicans could not fix even when they were in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress?
Still waiting to hear what still needs to be fixed with Fannie / Freddie today.Hi Easy Go,
That's an easy question to answer:
Fannie / Freddie should only be allowed to purchase home mortgages that strictly conform to the historical creditworthiness standards, to wit:
- Loan amount may not exceed 80% LTV.
- Monthly loan payments may not exceed 33% of the borrower's income.
- Borrower cannot have any unpaid debts or prior foreclosures in the past 7 years, nor any bankruptcy in the past 10 years.
Let private investors risk their own money to lend to the risky borrowers.
With the advent of mortgage securitization in the late 70's, I think we've long since outlived the need for Fannie / Freddie anyway.
Personally, I think we need to wrestle these financial beasts from the grip of the politicians and remove their potential liability from the Government's (that's us!) balance sheet.
Thanks,
Jackson
Stan Da Man
05-26-10, 20:10
The campaign contribution numbers for 1989-2008 by Freddie / Fannie show a 57/43 split between Democrats and Republican which sounds like the equal opportunity bribery that is fairly typical for big companies.
Still waiting to hear what still needs to be fixed with Fannie / Freddie today. Can they go back to whatever worked from 1938 until the nefarious Bill Clinton subverted them in a way that the Republicans could not fix even when they were in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress?Not quite sure how you can suggest that 57/43 is an "equal opportunity for bribery." Those companies that are trying to bribe make sure they get a 50-50 split, or something pretty close. For Fannie and Freddie, which were huge contributors, 57/43 is a huge difference -- one that shows what and who they were trying to buy with their money. When you look at the salaries of the folks at the top that the Democrats were trying to protect, you understand why.
That's not to suggest that folks in public companies weren't making more. But, folks in public companies don't have a Congressional charter, and didn't do the favors for Dems that the folks at Fannie and Freddie did. There were exceptions -- e. G. Countrywide -- which had the "Friends of Angelo" program that provided outsized benefits to Democrats in even greater disparity than the Fannie / Freddie contribution split. Guess who didn't want those records subpoenaed? Yep. Any wonder why?
And, Democrats also refused to investigate the "influence" put on Freddie and Fannie (by themselves) to force these supposedly public entities to buy the crap that Countrywide was packaging up and selling. What are Friends for?
So, in terms of fixing Fannie and Freddie:
1. Prevent these entities from making any political contributions to anyone as long as they receive public backing and / or guarantees, whether implicit or implicit. This means no contributions unless Congress explicitly states that it will not provide any funding for these entities.
2. Stop funding these entities. If they can't make it, they go bankrupt. If they can compete, let them -- but with no federal guarantees or support.
3. End all requirements that they must purchase any variety of repackaged loans from banks. If they're going to be private, they must have the right to set the terms for what they purchase. In other words, they need to be able to specify that they don't want loan packages that include a disproportionate number of loans to "historically disadvantaged borrowers," also known as subprime loans -- or any such loans.
4. End the quota system applied to private lenders whereby they are forced to make loans to "historicallly disadvantaged borrowers" in exchange for getting access to the Fannie / Freddie secondary market for such loans.
So, there you go. Think Dems have any interest in turning off the Fannie / Freddie contribution spigot?
I'm sure you think I'm still stacking the deck -- Fannie and Freddie couldn't have had that much to do with the housing crisis, and it wasn't the Dems fault, anyway. Here are facts from Wikipedia:
"In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[106] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[107] From 2002 to 2006, as the U. S. Subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U. S. Mortgage market.[108] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[109] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense."
Those are staggering numbers and did more than anything else to cause the housing crisis, including providing false incentives to private lenders to make these loans. Again, you can blame Republicans. But, before you do, go back and review the Youtube video someone posted earlier in this chain, or do a little reading about Republican efforts to put a stop to this mess. An example from one of the hearings:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
I am no fan of George Bush. But, he did try to keep these entities in check, in both 2003 and 2005. Both times, he was defeated by the Democrats. A phrase repeated many times at those hearings by Democrats, especially Maxine Waters, was "it ain't broke, so why are you trying to fix it?" Now, it turns out she and her husband were asking for special favors from their own California lender. Surprise, surprise, but the media brushed that one under the rug very quickly when she claimed the inquiry was racially motivated.
So, Dems own this mess. They aren't exclusively responsible, but they did more than Republicans to cause it -- or at least, to refuse to prevent it. It's their problem. Any effort by Barack Obama and the Dems to blame Republicans must be put in context -- they refused to review these problems when others were raising, and they still refuse to fix them now. If we had an even-handed media, they'd be forced to live with the consequences.
The argument over which political party is more to blame is a red herring.
The main culprits are the private sector players in the mortgage and financial industries who acted through fraud, greed and poor risk management.
The weight being put on a Dem / Fannie / Freddie component of the crisis in right wing talking points is consistent with their perennial attempts to portray government as the problem.
Wild Walleye
05-27-10, 10:52
The main culprits are the private sector players in the mortgage and financial industries who acted through fraud, greed and poor risk management.Says who? Fraud is still illegal, in cases where there is credible proof, I would anticipate prosecution. Grasping onto conspiracy theories woven from whole cloth to paint tens of thousands of honest Americans as criminals is Kafkaesque.
I would think that if there was any real evidence of widespread, collusive fraud, congress would be broadcasting it daily (so as to divert attention from themselves) That is, unless do so would bring more focus on themselves, like the friends of Angelo.
The American people as a whole don't always get it right (Jimmy Carter, Disco, pet rocks, Obama) but given time they figure it out. A clear plurality of the the US believes Congress is to blame for the mortgage industry crisis, correctly so. While the average American may harbor some ill-defined bias against Wall St. (thanks to the left) they are not falling for the left's "hey, look over there at those greedy bankers, it's all their fault!"
The weight being put on a Dem / Fannie / Freddie component of the crisis in right wing talking points is consistent with their perennial attempts to portray government as the problem.Esten, don't you have a bus to catch to go terrorize some rich banker's kid?
I'll try this once more, watch the Frontline video.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Or at least watch the prologue, the first two minute's.
Exon
The main culprits are the private sector players in the mortgage and financial industries who acted through fraud, greed and poor risk management.Hey Esten,
You forgot to list one other major group of culprits:
Greedy Homebuyers!
Without greedy homebuyers with dollar signs for eyeballs, salivating at the prospect to "making a killing" in a perversely overheated real estate market, none of the other players would have made a dime.
I know it's not politically correct to acknowledge their culpability, but there it is.
Thanks,
Jackson
Plenty of villains and victims so I don't see any reason to give stupid buyers a free pass.
However, I won't blame "greedy buyers" as our system has the hope of outsized returns, aka "greed", as a fundamental cornerstone. "Greedy and smart" is fine, "greedy and stupid" is not. Fortunately, the market is generally good over the long-term at rewarding "greedy and smart" while punishing "greedy and stupid".
As far as Fannie / Freddie goes, looking at their actions over the last 10 years, it seems clear that the guys at the top fall into the "greedy and stupid" category. Perhaps it was political pressure. Or perhaps it was that their primary business (prime lending) wasn't producing the kind of financial returns that the investors needed for the big guys to keep their big-bucks jobs and subprime lending seemed to be the answer. Personally, I'd bet on greed.
Canitasguy
05-28-10, 03:12
So tell me guys, who are the villains in the drug trade? The users or the dealers?
For Esten and me its the greedy, corrupt dealers. They produce and sell the product. No product - no buyers - no drug traffic.
For Jackson and the right leaning AP members' - its got to be the irresponsible, self-centered lowlife users. The dealers are just good old capitalist businessmen trying to make a buck supplying a product with a ready market.
Of course, they likely also fault useless government for its inability to fight an effective war on drugs.
In reality, everyone is to blame. Users, dealers, and ineffective police forces.
I might go further and hypothesize that governments don't want the war on drugs to end. Like our other wars, its a great business. It pumps billions of dollars and profits into the companies that provide the products used in the war who funnel some of the money back to the supportive politicians with campaign funds. It also feeds the budgets and staffing of law enforcement agencies and the meme of Presidents, governors and mayors that they are "tough on crime." And it keeps people scared about a perceived threat that in reality impacts a relatively small segment of the population, while the spotlight is kept off more destructive things that are really fucking up the planet and the future.
The on-going debate on the subprime mortgage debacle is now being driven by bogus claims by conservative defenders of financial deregulation and free market ideology trying to make the case that irresponsible mortgagees and liberal government policies were the sole cause. The debate is reminiscent of the successful shifting the blame for losing the Vietnam War away from Nixon who actually lost the war after seven ineffective years as Commander-In-Chief and pin the loss on Democrats. I always assumed Tricky Dick's Secret Plan to win the war was so secret he never found out what it was!
Serious (meaning non-ideological) economists are pretty much in agreement that the causes of the global financial meltdown were many, complex, inter-related and primarily driven by faulty theory about the behavior of markets and business practices derived from the bogus consensus made inherent dangers posed by the technology of instantaneous market movements.
One example of forces that brought on the debacle that had nothing to do with greedy minority mortgagees and Freddie or Freddie were hyperactive in Fort Lauderdale and Vegas (among numerous upscale areas) between 2000 and 2008 when the volume of speculative high-rise condo projects popped up like daisies with absurd asking prices and no demographic basis for believing there would be enough people to buy the units as the projects were completed. The Community Reinvestment Act and Acorn had nothing to do with the phenomenon either.
What went on the Florida and Arizona went on across the UK, Spain and Puerto Madero and far beyond.
It was all about speculation. But unlike previous real estate bubbles, the speculators were able to spread their risks around the globe as absurd financial instruments were used to "securitize" the borrowing to build Potemkin villages. An eventual disaster was inevitable.
There are dozens of serious books already in stores that destroy the simplistic drivel written by intelligent people on this sight. I can only ascribe ideological blindness as to why so many circular and unsupported claims are made on these pages over and over again.
Wild Walleye
05-28-10, 11:45
"that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
Attribution: GG 1987, Teldar Paper sharholders' meeting
"that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
Attribution: GG 1987, Teldar Paper sharholders' meetingAnd what about "lust", my dear friend? Since you are on the pulpit.
And what about "lust", my dear friend? Since you are on the pulpit.Lust was pretty good, too. But that was in the Clinton administration.
This administration is about "spreading the wealth." Robbing the productive rich to pay off the boys in the 'hood.
I would think that if there was any real evidence of widespread, collusive fraud,Not necessarily widespread or collusive. But there was enough of it in both the mortgage and financial industries.
A clear plurality of the the US believes Congress is to blame for the mortgage industry crisis,Do you have a reference for that? A Fox News poll in early May found that by a 41-31 percent margin, more people blame Wall Street for its bad financial practices than blame Congress for its bad oversight. Which is why there is a clear plurality in favor of financial reform.
Keep trying though.
I'll try this once more, watch the Frontline video.I watched the first half, excellent video. The first meeting of Brooksley Born and Greenspan was interesting. It appears Greenspan basically told her he wasn't too concerned about regulating fraud because the market would take care of it. LOL! That might be OK if Wall Street was not linked to Main Street, but that is not the case.
You forgot to list one other major group of culprits: Greedy Homebuyers!They are on the list too! Although the ones with poor credit were enabled by others. And let's not forget "predatory lending"!
This administration is about "spreading the wealth." Robbing the productive rich to pay off the boys in the 'hood.It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich. Income inequality in the US has risen to obscene proportions.
Here is some good reading:
www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back
Paul Buchheit, from DePaul University, revealed, "From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%." Robert Freeman added, "Between 2002 and 2006, it was even worse: an astounding three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%."
Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record.
It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich. Income inequality in the US has risen to obscene proportions.'spreading the wealth' might sound like a good idea to some. However, in the real world 'spreading the wealth' is taking from those willing to work to give to those unwilling to work.
Hell has three gates: lust, anger and greed.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/200138-financial-reform-it-s-greed-stupid
Wild Walleye
05-31-10, 15:21
It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich.Whereas most of us revere the founding documents of this great nation, Esten is showing us once again that the Constitution and related documents are an inconvenience to the left.
What's wrong with spreading the wealth? To start with, it is illegal. Since the Constitution bars it, that should be the end of story, no need to get into the moral and ethical implications. That said, our govt continues to illegally seize trillions of dollars of private assets from its citizens. When will it stop?
Wild Walleye
05-31-10, 16:25
As I noted last July:
"That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound."
I pointed out, almost a year ago, that Obama had over reached and that he was going to be hit with a significant backlash, generated by his own actions. The majority of Americans are against him, not in the sense that they favor someone else, they oppose the man and his agenda.
Add to that the suspected criminal activity involved in the Sestak affair and the related cover-up and this administration is coming to a close, if not literally, at least legislatively.
In the Sestak affair, the WH has already admitted to offering something of value to Sestak as an inducement to get out of the race. That is against the law. Deliciously coincidental is that statute was signed into law by none other than President BJ Clinton. The explanation is so full of holes that there is little doubt it could with stand the light of day. Even if the original act was legal, the lying and cover up were not. We will see if there will be any follow up at Justice or in Congress. If both houses turn over in Nov. I expect that BOH will be impeached during the next Congress. If he thought retaining control of Congress was important for his policy agenda, that pales in comparison for his need to maintain the Congress in order to remain POTUS.
As to the canard that the "unpaid" nature of the position that was allegedly offered. Regardless of whether or not the position came with a salary, it is highly prestigious and valuable, otherwise any of us could get it and no one would be impressed by it. If it had no value, why would they bother offering it in exchange for giving up a potential US senate seat? Further, I doubt that was the position offered because there was no way Sestak could take it. As a sitting member of Congress, he was disqualified from holding that position as Clinton, Sestak and BHO presumably would have already known. I can envision the cover-up blunder as it unfolded. Somewhere pointy-headed WH staffers were whipping up the cover story when one of them blurts out "hey, wait a minute. What if the position was unpaid? Then it would have no value!" Maybe that would work in a moot court but it ain't gonna fly here. The problem with having too many inexperienced people on your team is that you lack the institutional knowledge that experience brings.
I suspect that we will find out many unsavory aspects of this situation such as 1) a different position (perhaps in the cabinet) was offered, 2) it was a direct quid pro quo, 3) Clinton, Sestak and Gibbs have all lied about it (Obama has said nothing on the record about it so as to avoid lying publicly) and 4) that there has been massive impropriety between the WH and Justice.
If true, and only time will tell if that is the case, the resulting fallout would likely include Gibbs' and Holder's jobs (and perhaps criminal charges) as well as articles of impeachment against BHO. Depending on the quality of evidence, gaining conviction in the Senate, even if the opposition party controls it, will be difficult. With or without conviction, I don't see Obama resigning in order to mitigate damage to the office. I forsee him clinging bitterly to "his" office, the one rightfully "his" no matter the charges against him.
There is a rocky road ahead.
Canitasguy
05-31-10, 17:42
There is a rocky road ahead.Walleye. You are as expert in law as you are in economics and my guess is you haven't read too deeply in US Constitutional history either.
The only "rocky road" ahead for Obama, Clinton, Sestak and Gibbs might come if they all stop off at a DC area Ben and Jerry's for some good old liberal ice cream.
The Clinton / Sestak conversation about the Pennsylvania Senate race was legal politics as usual. It mirrored how Ike tried to get Earl Warren not to run in 1959 and Reagan offered Hyakawa a job to keep him off the ballot in 1983.
Do you ever do your homework or is it just more fun to spout off with no basis other than your fantasy life?
Wild Walleye
06-01-10, 13:13
Any and all efforts to actually get at the truth will be branded as racist.
There will be an attempt to link birthers and the Tea Party movement to those seeking the truth in the Sestak matter, besmirching all of the opposition at once, painting them all as racists trying to stop our historic leader.
By the way, I am not a proponent of using impeachment for political disagreements, nor am I proposing impeaching BHO. Rather, I am sharing my thoughts about behavior and the WH story related to the Sestak matter which I find wholly unbelievable and my expectation of things to come given different variables. Without a thorough, independent investigation, we will not know if the law was in fact broken. However, there is more than reasonable, circumstantial evidence that neither the WH nor Justice has been truthful thus far and in the case of Justice, clearly they have not been impartial representatives of the people in this matter.
What's wrong with spreading the wealth? To start with, it is illegal. Since the Constitution bars it, that should be the end of story, no need to get into the moral and ethical implications. The wealth redistribution discussion is mainly about taxation and spending, which are clearly provided for in the Constitution. And a few other things such as regulation of minimum wage and benefits. There are plenty of legal means to redistribute wealth, so once again, this is just plain misinformation.
As far as Sestak, I think Fox News must have covered it a hundred times over the long weekend, while other networks were more balanced. It is funny how much the right is trying to milk this story. I think most people see it as a non-story getting hyped for political purposes, which won't help Republicans much and might hurt them. Efforts to "get at the truth" won't be branded as racist (how do you come up with that) merely political posturing and a waste of time.
While Republicans have been busy trying to portray Obama and Dems unfavorably, they have been doing the exact same thing to themselves as well. They need to proceed carefully to do well in November and they know it. The lines of attack by the right are easy to guess, but the left has plenty to work with as well. It's all in the execution. If Dems execute well, they will retain control of Congress.
Member #4112
06-02-10, 12:22
Yes, Fox covered the Sestek story pretty well and only now has the "main stream media" even begun to cover it. Do you really believe the "main stream media" would have given Bush a pass for so long on a similar issue?
In the BP debacle Obama was quick to state if laws were broken the wrong doers will be brought to justice. What about his own "wrong doing"? According to the statute (if you take the time to read it) even Obama's explanation of the event is a violation. Where is the rush to justice on this one?
I am sure you remember the Cambridge incident with the police office and Obama's buddy, "the police acted stupidly" thing. The Great One had time to have a much publicized "Beer Summit". Now comes the governor of Arizona who wishes to speak to the Great One but he snubs her telling her there are "scheduling conflicts". After the heat from the public starts he "suddenly" finds the time to meet over Arizona's new immigration law.
You make the call:
With BP, we'll put the bums in jail!
With the Sestek job offer, oh it's really nothing even though our own story shows it is a violation.
With Obama's friends, sure we got time for a photo op and a Beer Summit.
With a sitting governor, naw we just can't make time for you – well maybe now the heat is on.
What great governance? Obama promised CHANGE – well he just CHANGED the PROMISE that's all.
Wild Walleye
06-02-10, 14:58
The wealth redistribution discussion is mainly about taxation and spending, which are clearly provided for in the Constitution. And a few other things such as regulation of minimum wage and benefits. There are plenty of legal means to redistribute wealth, so once again, this is just plain misinformation.I realize that to Obama and his followers like yourself, the Constitution, its Amendments, particularly those included in The Bill of Rights, and related Founding Documents are viewed as flawed documents that act as obstructions to the left's efforts to force its ideals on the nation. However, for now at least, they are still in effect, although the left continues to attempt to destroy them through judicial fiat.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which is contained within the Bill of Rights, states the following, regarding the govt taking from individuals: ". Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Private property includes the fruits of one's labor.
Your golden child himself stated that the left has not been successful in adding the power for the government redistribution, via judicial fiat, to the Constitution, yet (he's still hopeful) Cloaked in a discussion ostensibly (perhaps deceptively) about additional, extra-constitutional rights created via civil rights litigation, he lauded the movement for creating certain rights, not envisioned by the founders and goes on to lament the fact that the most liberal Supreme Court in US history did not create similar extra-constitutional rights enabling governmental redistribution of wealth (in order to allow the left to correct history's injustices as they see fit)
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."
As far as Sestak, I think Fox News must have covered it a hundred times over the long weekend, while other networks were more balanced. It is funny how much the right is trying to milk this story. I think most people see it as a non-story getting hyped for political purposes, which won't help Republicans much and might hurt them. Efforts to "get at the truth" won't be branded as racist (how do you come up with that) merely political posturing and a waste of time.Perhaps we should step back and objectively determine what the correct course of action should be in the case where a sitting member of congress and the WH have independently confirmed that a quid pro quo arrangement was proffered, which offer may have been illegal.
Should we:
A. Determine if was the law broken and if so, take appropriate measures, or.
B. Institute a policy of selective enforcement of federal laws in favor of enabling the executive branch to operate with impunity within and beyond the law.
I have not viewed Fox or any other TV news program in sometime. The only TV I have watched in the last week or so consisted of 24, sports and The Hurt Locker. However, I would be willing to bet that rather than Fox over playing it, it is being deliberately buried by the main stream media which have given Obama a pass on everything he has screwed up so far. I saw a stat somewhere to that effect that I will try to relocate. If this had happened under Bush, there would already be a Special Counsel on the job.
Just to add more stench to tip the BS meter, another inconsistency to their stories is that Sestak's statement indicated that his contact with Clinton on the offer came on one occasion only, and lasted no more than 60 seconds. However, Bauer's memo notes "efforts" — plural — that transpired in June and July of 2009. Unless that 60-second conversation took place at 11:59:30 PM on June 30th, 2009, it appears that Sestak may not be telling the entire truth about the offer and his consideration of it.
While Republicans have been busy trying to portray Obama and Dems unfavorably, they have been doing the exact same thing to themselves as well. They need to proceed carefully to do well in November and they know it. The lines of attack by the right are easy to guess, but the left has plenty to work with as well. It's all in the execution. If Dems execute well, they will retain control of Congress.This is the same carnard the left always flaunts out there. "By telling everyone how bad I am, you are making yourself look bad." If this is true, how do you explain Gallup's latest poll find the reverse to be true?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx
Further, if your premise it true, then politicians would never be able to point out the wrong doing of their opponents. Boy, I bet Nixon wished his opponents subscribed to that principal way back when.
You also incorrectly ascribe Obama's dreadful poll numbers to the efforts of Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.
Esten, while I am sure that you think I am a right-wing loon, I can assure you that I am not nor am I in lock step with the Republican Party. I am a conservative that believes in smaller govt, greater personal responsibility and the rule of law. I am not alone.
While I am passionate about our country and certainly have no shortage of opinions on what is best for it, I can be and usually am quite objective on matters of politics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.Even the most bleeding-heart liberals have to agree with this statement. YOU had the ball, heading toward the basket for an uncontested DUNK. Damn, missed the rim all-together. Hate it when that happens. You only have your elected leadership to blame red dogs. Period, end of story. IALOTFLMAO.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. May I bring your attention to my post of many months ago forcasting this very chain of events. It's all over but the crying in November red dogs.
Clarevoyant Toymann.
Wild Walleye
06-02-10, 16:12
While Obama being Obama has taken his approval ratings from mythical to abysmal, the administration if floating trial balloons advocating even more extreme leftism via the left's peanut gallery.
Robert Reich, hand-selected member of Obama's transition team, has stated that Obama should take over BP through a forced receivership. That is, a trusted member of the Obama inner circle is proposing that the President steal $116.65B of value from the shareholders (I. E. Owners) of BP. Not to mention placing into jeopardy the provenance of BP's $6.84B in cash and its $32.2B in debt. The fact that Reich says this should be 'temporary' is merely window dressing in an attempt to make the idea seam less vile.
What a great idea. So, Obama takes it over at the expense of the shareholders and creditors. While the 11 people killed by the explosion may have been shareholders by coincidence (via mutual funds or employee stock purchase programs) the shareholders have zero culpability in the spill. Then Obama decides that the damage of the spill is so great, its cost can never be calculated, therefore, the US can't return the company to its shareholders.
This is not Reich shooting from the hip. This is part of a concerted effort to test the waters to see what he should do next because he has no idea what to do.
I realize that to Obama and his followers like yourself, the Constitution, its Amendments, particularly those included in The Bill of Rights, and related Founding Documents are viewed as flawed documents that act as obstructions to the left's efforts to force its ideals on the nation.I'm not a follower. And it seems to me some parts of the Constitution are an inconvenience to you. I just pointed out to you that taxation and spending have a legal basis in the Constitution. But, instead of trying to refute that (which you can't) you bring up seizure of private property and some ancient Obama quote. Since taxation and spending can and do redistribute wealth, your assertion that redistribution of wealth is illegal is inaccurate. Maybe you can write the Supreme Court and try to convince them the Taxing and Spending Clause is unconstitutional? LMAO
This is the same carnard the left always flaunts out there. "By telling everyone how bad I am, you are making yourself look bad." If this is true, how do you explain Gallup's latest poll find the reverse to be true?The poll you refer to is about current voting preference. I was talking about how favorably the parties are viewed. This is a metric tracked by Gallup. The latest June 1 poll has a 36% favorable score for the Republican Party and a 43% favorable score for the Democratic Party.
Now, the discrepancy between voting preference and favorable ratings is interesting. I have no doubt the voting numbers are significantly influenced by emotion, rather than a belief that Republicans have superior solutions.
Further, if your premise it true, then politicians would never be able to point out the wrong doing of their opponents. Boy, I bet Nixon wished his opponents subscribed to that principal way back when.Another Walleye-ism. Criticism and pointing out wrong-doing is important, but how it is done is important as well.
You also incorrectly ascribe Obama's dreadful poll numbers to the efforts of Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's numbers are in the toilet because Obama through his own words, actions and in-actions has proven himself to be an arrogant, incompetent ideologue incapable and unwilling to lead this country, while remaining bent on reshaping it, according to his own personal vision, against the will of the people.Actually I was more pointing out that Republicans have been making themselves look bad, which is reflected in the Gallup favorable view polls. Your characterization of Obama above is a good example, I believe most intelligent people would see this as an over-the-top distortion rather than an objective statement of fact.
Given that Obama inherited the worst recession since the Depression, his approval rating (now 46%) is not so terrible. He does need to work to get it back up though.
Esten, while I am sure that you think I am a right-wing loon, I can assure you that I am not nor am I in lock step with the Republican Party. I am a conservative that believes in smaller govt, greater personal responsibility and the rule of law. I am not alone.Without resorting to names or labels, I'll say you have made it difficult for me to take you seriously.
While I am passionate about our country and certainly have no shortage of opinions on what is best for it, I can be and usually am quite objective on matters of politics.You have made too many inaccurate statements and distortions to be considered objective. Your passion for the country is commendable but your biases are clear...
Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.
How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL!). Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!
Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!
Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".
Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.
How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL! Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!
Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!
Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".
Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. ToymannSounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.
Sounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.Too funny blackshirt. Good one. Monger On Dude. Toymann.
Ps. This thread could stand a bit more levity!
Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.... :)
Wild Walleye
06-07-10, 11:59
Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)Esten would need also need to:
- export his prius (purchased in part with cash for clunkers dough that he got for ditching his 1972 Volvo - although he was able to save the greenpeace and Dukakis '88 stickers)
- find a new home in a country where compact fluorescent bulbs (despite being laden with mercury, a toxic element being eliminated from as many products as possible - except compact fluorescent bulbs)
- Chose a place with excellent free health care, extensive well fare, strict workplace regulation, income redistribution and all the other trappings of a leftist-marxist utopia.
On second thought, Esten should stay right where he is.
Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)Just when I thought I had seen it all. Good one Esten. Monger on Dude. Toymann
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.