Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The usual partisan swill on this thread. If Romney had been elected in 2008, UE would have never gone above 6%, we'd be in the black, and the Chinese would be running scared.
See, this is where ignorant college kids come in because grossing, isnt making.
I'm amused. I'm either communicating with someone who's clueless or angry, or both.
You do realize that "making" is tone in cheek. In everyday lives, "How much you make" is asking someone his/her gross. As in "I make $20 an hour as a wielder..." etc, etc. I don't know which part of the country you live in, and frankly I don't care, but everywhere I went, "making" = "grossing." You're probably not a businessman because in business, we hardly ever talk net, it's almost always gross. With deductions and all the loopholes we are entitled, people who runs businesses, our net income is never our true income.
The fact that you make such a big deal out of something so tone in cheek, and also something that doesn't have a point, I have a pretty good idea why.
And the fact that you keep calling me a college kid, when you have no idea if that's true or not, speaks volume to the other materials that you cite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
FAIL. YOU are the one who ran around crediting Obama with acts taken by Bush. Making you look bad comes naturally from just correcting you. Thats not my fault you dont know who did what.
I know TARP was started under Bush, but it seems to me that you didn't know it was continued and taken over by the Obama administration. Does TARP's Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) rings a bell? You may want to look it up before you expound more silliness.
.
Thats not at all what I said. Maybe its a comprehension issue with you because YOU said that they WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS, but thats not at all what would have happened, they would have filed BANKRUPTCY.. To pretend that bk = out of business is an ignorate lie.
Take a deep breathe, relax, I'm going to explain my point step by step, I think you'll get it this time around.
You said that a company that went thru bankruptcy can re-emerge after the process, that it's a state of the entity but the entity itself still exists after bankruptcy. My point is that not all companies is still alive and kicking after bankruptcies and I gave Lehman as an example but there are more. According to statistics, 75% of businesses that filed for bankruptcy liquidate their assets and eased to exist.
So basically the scenario you presented has a 25% chance of happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You didnt answer the question. Why? What was the net cost to society when Sears went bankrupt? Also, I ask you again, where does the government get money to pump into the economy?
I answered you question but you failed to understand it, obviously. You're comparing apples to oranges. Saying that Sears went bankrupt and the world is still ok is igorant because Sears is just one company. We're talking a scenario where many big companies fail at the same time.
.
I've been thru recessions (all of them caused by Republican presidents btw), and I would not call what happened from Sept 2008, a mere recession. That'd be like calling Yao Ming, "kinda tall."
We are recovering. Some of you may deny that Obama has anything to do with it, but we are recovering.
Btw, after all that this administration did to rescue the economy, from saving GM to saving banks to private equitying business; I found it astounding that conservatives still managed to rationalize that the economy is recovering despite Obama. Really? All the money that was injected into the economy has no effect? Really? No effect at all?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
If your point was to let the economy hit bottom naturally and then let it upticks naturally; today you'd be looking at a world where GE, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and at least over hundreds of big businesses and millions of mid to small business eased to exist.
There would be no business lending.... at all. No one to finance home loans. Credit would dry up. every businesses that uses credit on as its business operation would close down. This would become a cash only society.
In other words, the United States economy, as you know it, would collapse. And with it, the European economy as well.
Economy usually recovers naturally... when it wasn't destroyed.
Um.... Obama injected GM with capital and even ousted the mediocore CEO. How could you possibly have missed that headline?
Which economist said all the injected capital must first be removed from the economy? Certainly Keynesian never said that. Who did? I'm baffled.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Of course economy runs in cycle. "Permanent" probably wasn't a good word choice but you know what I mean, don't you? How about a recovery that has substance?
I'm fed up with the conservative's definition of "recovery." Jobless recovery. Short recovery. Even Job Loss recovery. The conservatives jump in joy over any so called "recovery."
A real recovery takes time. It always takes longer to rebuild something than to tear down something. It takes at most a month to tear down a house that took a year to build. And rebuilding that house always takes longer than the time it took to tear it down. The economy works the same way. It took the conservatives eight years to destroy this economy, so of course it's going to take long than eight years to build it back up. It's just how it works.
The Democrats' plan - enrich the middle class, fix healthcare, stricter bank regulation, invest in infrastructure, etc. Is basically the only plan that can bail us out - short of there being a WWIII to jump start the economy like last time.
.
your posts are pure rubbish. the reality is that tarp should NEVER have happened, most of the largest banks didnt need the funds they were forced to take, and the smaller banks that needed the funds should have gone bankrupt, either chapter 11 or chapter 7. in fact many of the smaller banks that took tarp money failed anyway.
as for GM, and chrysler, those companies filed for chapter 11 reorganization, and they should have been allowed to go through the process of reorganizing under the supervision of the courts. instead dear leader chairman maobama stepped in with a "prepackaged" bankruptcy, and STOLE both companies from their rightful owners, the stock and bond holders. he then added more government loans, very little of which the taxpayers will ever get back by the way as the stock price wont rise high enough to cover the loans the government made to both companies. after both companies were STOLEN by dear leader chairman maobama, a large portion was given to the UAW for their support of maobamas election campaign. fiat was given a healthy portion of chrysler just because.
and in BOTH companies, the management style has not changed what so ever, they have the same old garbage going on as before the bankruptcy.
as for lehamn brothers and other companies that went out of business, they needed to go anyway. and besides their assets were bought up by other companies. the same thing would have happened with gm and chrysler had they chosen to file chapter 7 liquidation. you can bet that someone would have bought chevrolet for instance(probably toyota), and would have gone on building chevrolets. how do i know this? roger penske was making a bid to buy saturn. the reason the deal ultimately fell through is because he couldnt make a deal to have new saturns produced. and a chinese company was trying to buy hummer from gm, and that deal ultimately fell through because the chinese government nixed the deal.
many companies file for chapter 11 reorganization, far more than liquidation by the way, and they get their finances in order and come out of bankruptcy protection stringer than when they went in.
as for the recovery times for the economy, the average recession lasts about 18 months, and when they end, the economy takes off. people are put back to work much faster and in larger numbers than we are seeing now, the gdp grows at a much higher rate, usually about 4-6% per year, rather than the feeble 1-2% we are seeing now.
as for dear leader chairman maobama, yes the economy is starting to recover despite him, not because of him. maobama is doing the very same things that FDR did while he was in office, pushing through large government spending programs, higher taxes, bad mouthing business, etc. and he prolonged the great depression. maobama is also doing huge government spending, the difference though is the FDR at least spent the money wisely on infrastructure projects, where as maobama spend the money on green energy, and paybacks for his supports on the 2008 election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
The usual partisan swill on this thread. If Romney had been elected in 2008, UE would have never gone above 6%, we'd be in the black, and the Chinese would be running scared.
Next.
maybe, maybe not. it all depends on what romney did in office regarding taxes, regulations, etc.
your posts are pure rubbish. the reality is that tarp should NEVER have happened, most of the largest banks didnt need the funds they were forced to take, and the smaller banks that needed the funds should have gone bankrupt, either chapter 11 or chapter 7. in fact many of the smaller banks that took tarp money failed anyway.
I'm not going to address TARP again because it has been debated to death already across millions of forums. All I have to say is that if you're right, then many of this nation's smartest economists, including Ben Bernanke, is wrong.
Basically in order for you to be right; our smartest, brightest, sharpest, and most knowledgeable experts would have to be wrong. What is the odds of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
as for dear leader chairman maobama, yes the economy is starting to recover despite him, not because of him. maobama is doing the very same things that FDR did while he was in office, pushing through large government spending programs, higher taxes, bad mouthing business, etc. and he prolonged the great depression. maobama is also doing huge government spending, the difference though is the FDR at least spent the money wisely on infrastructure projects, where as maobama spend the money on green energy, and paybacks for his supports on the 2008 election.
FDR is voted by conservative scholars, not liberal scholars, to be the third greatest president in our history; behind only Lincoln and Washington.
So basically you're calling Obama a greener version of FDR? I think he should put this label somewhere in his campaign.
And yeah, Obama doesn't spend money on infrastructure eh? Does high speed rail rings a bell? Apparently not.
.
I'm amused. I'm either communicating with someone who's clueless or angry, or both.
You do realize that "making" is tone in cheek. In everyday lives, "How much you make" is asking someone his/her gross. As in "I make $20 an hour as a wielder..." etc, etc. I don't know which part of the country you live in, and frankly I don't care, but everywhere I went, "making" = "grossing." You're probably not a businessman because in business, we hardly ever talk net, it's almost always gross. With deductions and all the loopholes we are entitled, people who runs businesses, our net income is never our true income.
Hey sherlock, I specifically did talk gross, not net
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
The fact that you make such a big deal out of something so tone in cheek, and also something that doesn't have a point, I have a pretty good idea why..
Haha, its you making a big deal out of things.. One second, I'm discussing gross, thus I'm not a business owner, and then the next, only business owners discuss gross..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
And the fact that you keep calling me a college kid, when you have no idea if that's true or not, speaks volume to the other materials that you cite. .
Well I guess I could have been being generous, you could still be in high school. I'm sorry, I wont give you more credit than you deserve again
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
I know TARP was started under Bush, but it seems to me that you didn't know it was continued and taken over by the Obama administration. Does TARP's Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) rings a bell? You may want to look it up before you expound more silliness. .
You specificially credited Obama with bailing out companies that were bailed out by Bush. The fact that Obama inherited a program that ALREADY bailed out companies, doesnt mean he deserves credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. You wanting to give Obama credit for a Bush accomplishment is rather sad, but typical considering Obama has so few accomplishments that you must just making things up in order to justify your support.
Take a deep breathe, relax, I'm going to explain my point step by step, I think you'll get it this time around.
You said that a company that went thru bankruptcy can re-emerge after the process, that it's a state of the entity but the entity itself still exists after bankruptcy. My point is that not all companies is still alive and kicking after bankruptcies and I gave Lehman as an example but there are more. According to statistics, 75% of businesses that filed for bankruptcy liquidate their assets and eased to exist.
So basically the scenario you presented has a 25% chance of happening.
There you go again, just making things up.. Lehman as an example, went out of business DUE TO FRAUD. Are you telling me that GM is defrauding people? The two arent even close to one another and you saying that companies would be out of business because they file bk is flat out wrong. You can sit here and try to spin it all you want, but anyone with an ounce of business knowledge wouldnt make such a silly mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
I answered you question but you failed to understand it, obviously. You're comparing apples to oranges. Saying that Sears went bankrupt and the world is still ok is igorant because Sears is just one company. We're talking a scenario where many big companies fail at the same time.
No you havent answered the question, you've avoided it like the plague. Here, we'll go slower for you
Where
does
the
government
get
money
to
stimulate
the
economy?
I'm not going to address TARP again because it has been debated to death already across millions of forums. All I have to say is that if you're right, then many of this nation's smartest economists, including Ben Bernanke, is wrong.
Basically in order for you to be right; our smartest, brightest, sharpest, and most knowledgeable experts would have to be wrong. What is the odds of that?.
The banks themself said they didnt need the money.. I'm willing to bet the banks know what their financial condition was. Tell me what makes you know their financial condition better than the CFO's who work for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
FDR is voted by conservative scholars, not liberal scholars, to be the third greatest president in our history; behind only Lincoln and Washington.
So basically you're calling Obama a greener version of FDR? I think he should put this label somewhere in his campaign. .
And he's also been called 1 of the worse by other polls..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
And yeah, Obama doesn't spend money on infrastructure eh? Does high speed rail rings a bell? Apparently not.
Hey sherlock, I specifically did talk gross, not net
And so did I. After all that explanation, I can't believe you still didn't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest;2048O4608
Haha, its you making a big deal out of things.. One second, I'm discussing gross, thus I'm not a business owner, and then the next, only business owners discuss gross..
Well I guess I could have been being generous, you could still be in high school. I'm sorry, I wont give you more credit than you deserve again
Suit yourself. It makes no difference to me. When you throw out lame personal attacks like that it says more about you than it does me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest;2O4048608
You specificially credited Obama with bailing out companies that were bailed out by Bush. The fact that Obama inherited a program that ALREADY bailed out companies, doesnt mean he deserves credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. You wanting to give Obama credit for a Bush accomplishment is rather sad, but typical considering Obama has so few accomplishments that you must just making things up in order to justify your support.
You do realize that Obama DID do something related to TARP after he took the presidency right? Right? To say that "he had absolutely nothing to do with" is simply wrong.
Using your logic, you cannot possibly blame Obama for anything relating to our economy because he didn't started this mess.
See how dumb your line of thinking is? Basically you are refuting your own argument.
That is not what he said. I just watched something with Romeny right now stating Obama as most Presidents inheriet a mess. He said he inherieted a mess.
However you left out quite a bit? he also stated, that in the 4 years of having Obama as our President, have things changed! are people's lives better off now then almost 4 years aog.
In speaking with many people he meets, so many have told him they are not better off, how come you conveiently left that part out.
He also stated, that obama has made things worse, you left that part out too.
Two days ago he stated the same thing, this is about the Country on the road to getting better, unfortunately for so many, this has not happened.
Are people working as Obama promisded they would. You seem to have left out quite a lot, but got one part right. He is right about this, Obama did promise us a better Country, that we would be better off with his leadership, in a pigs eye hell no. Too many fine Americans are out of work, and way too many foreclosures, and no ending in sight. Truthfully speaking, most people are not better off, i know college grads, that cannot even find work,and yes they are looking. Be true to yourself this time, what were we promised by Obama, Prosperity, Unity, Unemployment would be below 8% yes he said that i have tapes to prove it. Small businessess would thrive. And that the economy would grow. Just be truthful, most of us will say no. And he would not do anything without being the most bi-partisian President, yes he said that also in my tapes.
No ebay would not let me put them up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
