PDA

View Full Version : Help Save America



Jerry
03-23-2009, 01:17 PM
IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!!

Jerry

road kill
03-23-2009, 01:51 PM
For what??
He hasn't broken any laws.

Fix congress!!

Ken Newcomb
03-23-2009, 01:54 PM
There must be an incompetent clause somewhere.

Robert
03-23-2009, 02:12 PM
"There must be an incompetent clause somewhere."


There is...it's called BUSH

SMITTYSSGTUSMC
03-23-2009, 02:49 PM
"There must be an incompetent clause somewhere."


There is...it's called BUSH

Bush is the past, Obama is the present and he has not fixed all our problems overnight as promised.
Just sayin

Bob Gutermuth
03-23-2009, 03:38 PM
Not fixed our problems???? He has made them worse.

Losthwy
03-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Bush is the past Obama is the present and he has not fixed all our problems overnight as promised.
Just sayin
Bush is the past and that is good.
Obama is the present and that is better.
If you had been listening he has said our problems will not be fixed quickly.

road kill
03-23-2009, 03:58 PM
Bush is the past and that is good.
Obama is the present and that is better.
If you had been listening he has said our problems will not be fixed quickly.


Please explain one area that is better than one year ago.

Ken Newcomb
03-23-2009, 04:00 PM
If the great pretender, Obama, was any good at all the need to blame Bush would be behind us.

Losthwy
03-23-2009, 04:25 PM
Please explain one area that is better than one year ago.
One year ago isn't the issue is it? Please explain one area that is better than eight years ago.

Bayou Magic
03-23-2009, 04:33 PM
Bush is the past and that is good.
Obama is the present and that is better.
If you had been listening he has said our problems will not be fixed quickly.

This man hasn't unpacked yet and already he has spent this county into oblivion. In his latest overture toward Iran, he might as well have surrendered. His responses to President Pelosi’s every wish signal a bleak future for all of us. I had hoped that he would surround himself with good, competent people and indeed govern more from the middle. However, his decisions and actions so far indicate that he only wishes to push the left’s agenda at any cost. The fact that at this late date his administration finally addressed the issue that many consider to be the root of our economic problems should tell every American where his real priorities lie.

Frank Price

Losthwy
03-23-2009, 04:51 PM
This man hasn't unpacked yet and already he has spent this county into oblivion.
Some folks are funny without meaning to be. That really is amusing.

And according to that fat guy on the radio it's the "Obama Recession", which he proclaimed in his wisdom, two days after the election.

Jerry
03-23-2009, 05:57 PM
President Obama,

I need a little Bailout.

I certainly don't need Trillions, Billions, Millions or even Hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands, for that matter.

But a few hundred would allow me to go to the auction and buy a few more cows to put with my Bull which would produce more calves for me to sell and take care of my very own self!!!!!

And the sales are on Tuesdays & Thursdays so if you can get it to me prior to those days, I would be very appreciative.




Jerry

Bayou Magic
03-23-2009, 06:00 PM
Some folks are funny without meaning to be. That really is amusing.

And according to that fat guy on the radio it's the "Obama Recession", which he proclaimed in his wisdom, two days after the election.

Too bad I don't have your wisdom, Mr Anonymous. Please clarify it for me. Tell me how we are going to spend our way to prosperity and pay off our debts…without raising taxes…or maybe I missed something. Wait, I got it now…it’s not Obama’s record spending spree we are experiencing. It’s someone else’s budget and spending plan.
fp

BonMallari
03-23-2009, 08:37 PM
Lets start by quit voting for these career incumbents, Kennedy,Pelosi,Schumer, McCain,Reid,Barney Frank, Chris Dodd,Arlen Specter,...we keep voting the same guys in office and then we are stumped when they dont do what we want them to...who is really to blame, we put em there....I've said it before TERM LIMITS...I am not a fan of BHO but as soon as he was elected he was the perfect foil (read fool) for the Senate to cram this stimulus bill down our throats...

YardleyLabs
03-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Bush may be the past, but we will be paying for the damages he caused for the next decade if Obama and his successors do their jobs well. I don't know anyone who expected or promised to "fix all our problems overnight". It amazes me how most on this forum were prepared to say that Bush was not responsible for any of the bad things that happened on his watch over a period of eight years but are now willing to blame Obama for everything bad that has happened in the two months since inauguration. Personally, I have reservations about a number of the things Obama has proposed. However, I believe it will be some time before we know how well his actions so far and his proposals for the future will work. The fact that our economy is in the toilet now is the direct product of years of irresponsible governance, not the product of anything that happened since January.

Pete
03-24-2009, 12:30 AM
Lets start by quit voting for these career incumbents, Kennedy,Pelosi,Schumer, McCain,Reid,Barney Frank, Chris Dodd,Arlen Specter,...we keep voting the same guys in office and then we are stumped when they dont do what we want them to...who is really to blame, we put em there....I've said it before TERM LIMITS...I am not a fan of BHO but as soon as he was elected he was the perfect foil (read fool) for the Senate to cram this stimulus bill down our throats...
__________________
HOOK EM

I love when people say "we are the ones who voted them in"
I haven't voted for a winner in 95 percent of elections included HoR or senate except for a couple local elections here or there in about 30 years
I' proud to say that None of it is my fault.

I would only vote for someone if they could shiver when they tell a big fat lie. Or even a "sorry I royally screwed up" would do.

Pete

Captain Mike D
03-24-2009, 05:41 AM
Bush may be the past, but we will be paying for the damages HE CAUSED for the next decade if Obama and his successors do their jobs well. I don't know anyone who expected or promised to "fix all our problems overnight". It amazes me how most on this forum were prepared to say that Bush was not responsible for any of the bad things that happened on his watch over a period of eight years but are now willing to blame Obama for everything bad that has happened in the two months since inauguration. Personally, I have reservations about a number of the things Obama has proposed. However, I believe it will be some time before we know how well his actions so far and his proposals for the future will work. The fact that our economy is in the toilet now is the direct product of years of irresponsible governance, not the product of anything that happened since January.

YEP, He Should of had the black helicopters wisk Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd off to one of his secret Gulags over seas. That would have prevented those 3 from blocking legislation introduced by McCain and other Republicans that were trying to establish controls on Freddie and Fannie. ( You know-- The guys who were backing the Fair Housing laws that allowed sub prime mortages to folks who could not afford it that was introduced under Carter and strengthened under Clinton)

YardleyLabs
03-24-2009, 06:58 AM
YEP, He Should of had the black helicopters wisk Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd off to one of his secret Gulags over seas. That would have prevented those 3 from blocking legislation introduced by McCain and other Republicans that were trying to establish controls on Freddie and Fannie. ( You know-- The guys who were backing the Fair Housing laws that allowed sub prime mortages to folks who could not afford it that was introduced under Carter and strengthened under Clinton)

None of which had much to do with our economic collapse. The mortgage crisis was not brought on by new home buyers -- qualified or not -- or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our current collapse started with the unfunded Bush tax cuts, combined with massive growth in spending, primarily for an unfunded war, and an economic boom that did little or nothing to help the majority of the population.

The regulatory breakdown had nothing to do with CRA or, for that matter, mortgages issued prior to 2001. It had everything to do with high risk, unregulated investment instruments used to "spread" risks, unreasonably low interest rates, and a massive current accounts imbalance. In any event, the record on regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is pretty mixed and the Republicans only look good on conservative blogs which pick and choose the few facts they publish to reinvent history. I believe the regulatory failure belongs to both sides, but the massive growth in the deficit belonged to Bush.

Obama is now going to add to the deficit, which at least makes sense during a recession/depression. However, his current budget plans call for continuing large deficits even after the economy begins to grow at a hoped for 4%. That, if done, would be as stupid as what Bush did and lay the foundation for a further economic reversal a few years later. During times of growth, large deficits are insane. It makes no difference whether they result from tax cuts, spending, or both.

Captain Mike D
03-24-2009, 07:18 AM
None of which had much to do with our economic collapse. The mortgage crisis was not brought on by new home buyers -- qualified or not -- or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our current collapse started with the unfunded Bush tax cuts, combined with massive growth in spending, primarily for an unfunded war, and an economic boom that did little or nothing to help the majority of the population.

The regulatory breakdown had nothing to do with CRA or, for that matter, mortgages issued prior to 2001. It had everything to do with high risk, unregulated investment instruments used to "spread" risks, unreasonably low interest rates, and a massive current accounts imbalance. In any event, the record on regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is pretty mixed and the Republicans only look good on conservative blogs which pick and choose the few facts they publish to reinvent history. I believe the regulatory failure belongs to both sides, but the massive growth in the deficit belonged to Bush.

Obama is now going to add to the deficit, which at least makes sense during a recession/depression. However, his current budget plans call for continuing large deficits even after the economy begins to grow at a hoped for 4%. That, if done, would be as stupid as what Bush did and lay the foundation for a further economic reversal a few years later. During times of growth, large deficits are insane. It makes no difference whether they result from tax cuts, spending, or both.

BS. It has everything to do with the current mess and the Dems fought tooth and nail to allow Freddie and Fanny to continue with their bad policies even when it was apparent that their books were not in order.

It will be interesting to see your take on the Hyper-Inflation and huge interest rates that will be the norm in 2 years or so due to the massive borrowing and printing of money to finance this insane deficit spending on Obama's budget and programs. Couple that with "Cap and Trade" and other increases in EVERYONE"S taxes and we will be Impoverished nation living under a progressive socialist agenda like much of Europe.

Patrick Johndrow
03-24-2009, 08:07 AM
BS. It has everything to do with the current mess and the Dems fought tooth and nail to allow Freddie and Fanny to continue with their bad policies even when it was apparent that their books were not in order.

It will be interesting to see your take on the Hyper-Inflation and huge interest rates that will be the norm in 2 years or so due to the massive borrowing and printing of money to finance this insane deficit spending on Obama's budget and programs. Couple that with "Cap and Trade" and other increases in EVERYONE"S taxes and we will be Impoverished nation living under a progressive socialist agenda like much of Europe.

AMEN!


By the way... WTF is an "unfunded tax cut"? Only a damned liberal could come up with such a thing.

zeus3925
03-24-2009, 08:42 AM
Well those of you who pushed smaller government and relaxed oversight got just what you bargained for -- no oversight. Congress responded to your wishes. Enjoy your victory.

Captain Mike D
03-24-2009, 08:56 AM
Well those of you who pushed smaller government and relaxed oversight got just what you bargained for -- no oversight. Congress responded to your wishes. Enjoy your victory.

Here is the party of smaller government begging congress for better oversight- listen to the response from the party interested in seeing to it that everyone not only has an equal opportunity but a right to have a home even if they can't afford it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Goose
03-24-2009, 08:57 AM
Dear Leader would have us believe that we can borrow our way back to prosperity. It'll never work and he knows it and doesn't care. Did anybody see him in the 60 Minutes interview grinning like a little kid at the tough questions thrown at him by the interviewer. His hatred of this country is so obvious and he's hell bent on its destruction.

He's unqualified to govern. All he wants to do is spend time with Leno and the Hollywood elite or fill out his dopey bracket on ESPN. Hard work is too stressful so it's campaign mode 24/7. Sadly this strategy will probably work with the brain dead. They love their rock star.

Our President has more in common with Chavez and Castro than he does with me. With Dear Leader in charge this country can't be saved.

code3retrievers
03-24-2009, 09:48 AM
When did anyone want no oversite. (painting with a broad brush are we) We wanted the regulations already in place, enforced. We are a nation of laws. Those laws need to be enforced not ignored, i.e. imigration.

While we are at it how about not ignore the constitution when it does not fit your polictical agenda (left and right)

Its simple, just enforce the ones we have!

YardleyLabs
03-24-2009, 09:57 AM
AMEN!


By the way... WTF is an "unfunded tax cut"? Only a damned liberal could come up with such a thing.
An unfunded tax cut is one that is not paid for with spending reduction of at least an equal value to the tax cuts proposed.

zeus3925
03-24-2009, 10:54 AM
Here is the party of smaller government begging congress for better oversight- listen to the response from the party interested in seeing to it that everyone not only has an equal opportunity but a right to have a home even if they can't afford it

If that is true, where was "W" and his efforts to put an end to it?? Missing in action!

This mess is beyond the simplistic "seeing to it that everyone not only has an equal opportunity but a right to have a home even if they can't afford it." There were a lot of financial fictions being invented while the oversight was gone.

The cry for oversight is a new found cause for the Recalcitrant party. When their buddies were in power the Recalcitrant party was not interested because they viewed oversight as an unwelcome intrusion in the markets and government bloat. Now they have "new" religion.

Pulling oversight out of the financial industry has proven disastrous at least three times: the Great Depression, the S&L failure, and the present debacle.

kjrice
03-24-2009, 11:19 AM
Some folks are funny without meaning to be. That really is amusing.

And according to that fat guy on the radio it's the "Obama Recession", which he proclaimed in his wisdom, two days after the election.
Why do you think the China flexed it's muscle before talks? It is due to the absurd amount of money being printed, which is devaluing the dollar. Do you not see that as a MAJOR problem? We are going to be paying out the arse for years on these quick fixes; furthermore, it opens holes for financial terrorism from countries like Iran that want to make the Euro the world standard.

Bklk
03-25-2009, 09:56 AM
Listen to this it will give you something to think about.

http://www.youtube.com:80/user/Funbobbasso

Terry Britton
03-31-2009, 11:29 PM
Not fixed our problems???? He has made them worse.

Exactly!!!!! He is following exactly what Chavez down south has done. Innovations are the only way to get out of a recession, and Obama is making the climate for innovations to happen impossible. He wants everyone dependent on the government. The next page out of the Chavez fascism playbook is to nationalize everything, and fire/blackball those that innovate which will be all of the engineers.

Every wonder why there are so many Venezuelan engineers in the USA?

Losthwy
03-31-2009, 11:54 PM
Every wonder why there are so many Venezuelan engineers in the USA?
Yes I have. Spent many a sleepless night wondering why everywhere I go there are Venezuelan engineers. Grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, even in the men's room at Cabela's. They are everywhere. They are almost as omnipresent as Cossack plumbers.

JDogger
04-01-2009, 12:35 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hntojuBOgo0/SU0scIL-ABI/AAAAAAAAFuo/YQo4vZ-rHdo/s400/SpaceAlien.jpg
Those damn Venezuelan engineers are everywhere. Now they are even infiltrting my pornography.

Terry Britton
04-01-2009, 12:37 AM
Yes I have. Spent many a sleepless night wondering why everywhere I go there are Venezuelan engineers. Grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, even in the men's room at Cabela's. They are everywhere. They are almost as omnipresent as Cossack plumbers.

Funny. I know of at least a dozen personally here in the Tulsa area. What they are seeing here is what Chavez did years ago. I hope history doesn't repeat itself.

sinner
04-02-2009, 05:34 PM
How about we look at 8 years ago? Clinton had just left office and Bushie was entering.
How lets look at Bushie's leaving and Obama's entering.
The picture changes does it not?

Uncle Bill
04-02-2009, 07:37 PM
Let me try to answer some of your drivel, Mr. Photog.






None of which had much to do with our economic collapse. The mortgage crisis was not brought on by new home buyers -- qualified or not -- or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

--------------------------------


I love it when you get all Princetonian! Put your high-priced education to work explaining how Bush should have overcome your yahoos in the congress...or don't your see this as a "good enough" try?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

--------------------------------------


Our current collapse started with the unfunded Bush tax cuts, combined with massive growth in spending, primarily for an unfunded war, and an economic boom that did little or nothing to help the majority of the population.

---------------------------------------------

I suspect you were railing against subduing Hussein, like your messiah was doing...and about as loudly eh? Have you told any of the families that were the real losers of 9/11, about your stand against fighting Hussein?

------------------------------------


The regulatory breakdown had nothing to do with CRA or, for that matter, mortgages issued prior to 2001. It had everything to do with high risk, unregulated investment instruments used to "spread" risks, unreasonably low interest rates, and a massive current accounts imbalance. In any event, the record on regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is pretty mixed and the Republicans only look good on conservative blogs which pick and choose the few facts they publish to reinvent history.

------------------------------------------

Hmmm, might be a revelation to Fox News that they are only a conservative 'blog'. Guess they were lying eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

--------------------------------------


I believe the regulatory failure belongs to both sides, but the massive growth in the deficit belonged to Bush.

Obama is now going to add to the deficit, which at least makes sense during a recession/depression.

--------------------------------

YOU KNOW THAT TO BE A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD! That only extends the misery. But you and your socialistic believers will continue supporting that bad idea, until this nation goes completely under with no hope of ever getting back to a real America, as was envisioned by those that sacrificed their blood, sweat, and tears to keep this nation one of liberty, freedom, and following the Constitution.

------------------------------


However, his current budget plans call for continuing large deficits even after the economy begins to grow at a hoped for 4%. That, if done, would be as stupid as what Bush did and lay the foundation for a further economic reversal a few years later. During times of growth, large deficits are insane. It makes no difference whether they result from tax cuts, spending, or both.
---------------------------------
And you, along with your minions, will no doubt explain that to him eh? You can do all the braying you want, but your leadership isn't interested in doing anything American. They are too invested in making this nation into a complete socialistic country, despite all the history that's so easily found to show it hasn't ever worked before. But that's not the point is it? You democrats think it wasn't the right people that were in charge that caused it to fail. Trust me, you are so far from having the right people in charge now, my guess is Christ Himself couldn't bail you out.

UB

--------------------------------

Uncle Bill
04-02-2009, 08:10 PM
Just an aside, concerning your statement about adding to the deficit, Jeff,..."which at least makes sense during a recession/depression." Here's a 'slightly' differing view. I'm not sure who to believe???


*** The closer you look, the more you realize that government meddling in the economy is a fraud. Just look at Geithner's new hedge fund, for example. It's such a scam that a Nobel prize winning economist - Joseph Stiglitz - refers to it as "robbery of the American people." The fund is a public/private partnership' that buys toxic assets from the banks. Its goal is to help the banks...and give investors (and the government) a chance to make some money. But it doesn't help the banks if the fund buys assets for what they are worth; the banks merely exchange one asset for another of equal value.

The banks only benefit if the fund buys them for MORE than they are worth. On the other hand, the fund only benefits if it buys them for LESS than they are worth. In practice, the fund will pay more than it should...otherwise the banks won't participate. But the fund is structured so that the losses will not fall on investors and the government equally. Instead, the public will get the losses...while the investors get a profit.

What's a mother to do? It seems so tacky to go against the proposals of the devine administration, but then I have my doubts they hold the values expressed by the founding fathers in the same light as I do.

UB

YardleyLabs
04-02-2009, 09:42 PM
I'll take your post in pieces:

I said: None of which had much to do with our economic collapse. The mortgage crisis was not brought on by new home buyers -- qualified or not -- or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

--------------------------------


You replied: I love it when you get all Princetonian! Put your high-priced education to work explaining how Bush should have overcome your yahoos in the congress...or don't your see this as a "good enough" try?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

My response:
There are several issues at play here:
The political influence of Fannie/Freddie (which was bipartisan)
The growth of the sub-prime market
The role of Fannie/Freddie in the sub-prime market
The actual role of the sub-prime market in the collapse.In looking at each of these, it is important to keep timing in mind. Beginning in 2003/2004, and peaking in 2005 and 2006, almost every mortgage in America was refinanced because of interest rate reductions. Until about 2001, Fannie/Freddie had dominated the sub-prime market while private banks and investment banks looked on with envy at the large spreads between the cost of funds and the return on these mortgages despite default rates much higher than were experienced with customary mortgages. Between 2004 and 2006, Fannie/Freddie went from owning 48% of sub-prime mortgages to owning 24%, partly in reaction to the tighter regulatory controls placed on them following accounting problems in 2004-05. Who picked up the balance? Was it community banks responding to the requirements of the CRA? No.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.(source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html)
Fannie/Freddie played a role in the secondary market for low income loans. However, these were a tiny fraction of the overall mortgage market and have not played a significant part in the general financial collpase which has been associated more with the mortgage industry as a whole.

--------------------------------------

I said:
Our current collapse started with the unfunded Bush tax cuts, combined with massive growth in spending, primarily for an unfunded war, and an economic boom that did little or nothing to help the majority of the population.

---------------------------------------------
You replied:
I suspect you were railing against subduing Hussein, like your messiah was doing...and about as loudly eh? Have you told any of the families that were the real losers of 9/11, about your stand against fighting Hussein?

My response:
Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion of the economy, but yes, I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning because Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the US, the war against Iraq was supplied by drawing resources away from the battle in Afghanistan against the Taliban, which had everything to do with the attacks, and the entire invasion appeared from the beginning to have been planned by crackheads. Happily, my father died two days before we invaded Iraq. However, in his honor and consistent with his desires, we served only French wine at his memorial service because the French were right about GWB and his insane plans of war. I spent much of my working career in the shadows of the WTC. I was there when they filmed King Kong. I watched the "Big Ships" sail into the harbor for the Bicentennial from the 56th floor. I had meetings there on a regular basis, and I knew many people working there including members of my own family. I am happy that none of my friends was killed even though several were in the buildings when they were hit. How many people did you know that were there?


------------------------------------

The regulatory breakdown had nothing to do with CRA or, for that matter, mortgages issued prior to 2001. It had everything to do with high risk, unregulated investment instruments used to "spread" risks, unreasonably low interest rates, and a massive current accounts imbalance. In any event, the record on regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is pretty mixed and the Republicans only look good on conservative blogs which pick and choose the few facts they publish to reinvent history.

------------------------------------------

Hmmm, might be a revelation to Fox News that they are only a conservative 'blog'. Guess they were lying eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

My response:
See before. Fox is doing what it normally does -- selectively report all the news that fits with their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between the commentators on Fox and the conservative blog posts that you usually post here without even a pretense of fact checking. The places that needed greater regulation were the private investment banks and mortgage banks. That regulation was uniformly opposed by the administration, which took credit in 2004/2005 for the rapid growth in home ownership by lower income families.

--------------------------------------

I said:
I believe the regulatory failure belongs to both sides, but the massive growth in the deficit belonged to Bush.

Obama is now going to add to the deficit, which at least makes sense during a recession/depression.

--------------------------------
You said:
YOU KNOW THAT TO BE A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD! That only extends the misery. But you and your socialistic believers will continue supporting that bad idea, until this nation goes completely under with no hope of ever getting back to a real America, as was envisioned by those that sacrificed their blood, sweat, and tears to keep this nation one of liberty, freedom, and following the Constitution.

My reply:
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is no question that GWB and a Republican controlled Congress were primarily responsible for a doubling of our national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. When the Democrats gained control of Congress, the rate of growth actually declined. However, the tax cits and an unfunded war were the causes of the deficit growth. I have posted graphs of the growth several times. The numbers actually came from the Heritage Foundation and the Bush White House. So no, I do not know that to be a complete falsehood. I know it to be a fact. With respect to the "value" of deficits in a period on economic contraction, that has been the argument used consistently by Republicans under Reagan and Bush for passing recurring tax cuts that resulted in massive increases in our deficits.

------------------------------

I said:
However, his current budget plans call for continuing large deficits even after the economy begins to grow at a hoped for 4%. That, if done, would be as stupid as what Bush did and lay the foundation for a further economic reversal a few years later. During times of growth, large deficits are insane. It makes no difference whether they result from tax cuts, spending, or both.
---------------------------------
You replied (?):
And you, along with your minions, will no doubt explain that to him eh? You can do all the braying you want, but your leadership isn't interested in doing anything American. They are too invested in making this nation into a complete socialistic country, despite all the history that's so easily found to show it hasn't ever worked before. But that's not the point is it? You democrats think it wasn't the right people that were in charge that caused it to fail. Trust me, you are so far from having the right people in charge now, my guess is Christ Himself couldn't bail you out.

My reply(?):
I can't think of any appropriate response to hysterical whining with no basis in fact. If I have any minions, I am not aware of them. I express my reservations about Obama's budget proposals openly but have not yet been invited for a meeting in the white house. I am not a socialist (a fact that I've mentioned before), but I am definitely to the left of Attila the Hun, which in your eyes seems to be the same thing.

YardleyLabs
04-02-2009, 09:53 PM
Just an aside, concerning your statement about adding to the deficit, Jeff,..."which at least makes sense during a recession/depression." Here's a 'slightly' differing view. I'm not sure who to believe???


*** The closer you look, the more you realize that government meddling in the economy is a fraud. Just look at Geithner's new hedge fund, for example. It's such a scam that a Nobel prize winning economist - Joseph Stiglitz - refers to it as "robbery of the American people." The fund is a public/private partnership' that buys toxic assets from the banks. Its goal is to help the banks...and give investors (and the government) a chance to make some money. But it doesn't help the banks if the fund buys assets for what they are worth; the banks merely exchange one asset for another of equal value.

The banks only benefit if the fund buys them for MORE than they are worth. On the other hand, the fund only benefits if it buys them for LESS than they are worth. In practice, the fund will pay more than it should...otherwise the banks won't participate. But the fund is structured so that the losses will not fall on investors and the government equally. Instead, the public will get the losses...while the investors get a profit.

What's a mother to do? It seems so tacky to go against the proposals of the devine administration, but then I have my doubts they hold the values expressed by the founding fathers in the same light as I do.

UB
I share some of Stiglitz's reservations about the manner in which banks will be protected from the toxic assets on their books. Stiglitz assumes, in his analysis (see his Op-Ed piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?em) that the only way for the banks to benefit from such a move is to purchase the assets at more than their market value.

As I understand it, the plan is actually to purchase the "toxic" assets at their market value. What the banks get in return is liquidity where now they have an asset that is unmarketable. Over time, the tax payer may profit since part of the low valuation placed on the assets now is tied to their illiquidity rather than to questions about whether or not they will be repaid over time.

In addition, given the manner in which the assets are structured currently, there is no one in a position to renegotiate loan terms even if those loan terms would provide a total value exceeding the current value of the mortgage. This is producing irrational foreclosures in some cases -- that is, foreclosures that will yield less money than holding onto the loan under revised terms simply because there is no way to handle the renegotiation.

Terry Britton
04-03-2009, 12:09 AM
IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!!

Jerry

It is scary when I feel much more qualified to run this country, and kick start the economy than our current adminstration!!!!!

Innovations are what broke the past major recessions. This administration is putting things in motion that will hinder Innovations for years much like Chavez has done down south.

Stalin had economists killed that showed that innovations were the best way to break these downward economic cycles.