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.
Considering the vetting process that's happening with Obama.... It's no wonder people are giving more credit to Bush. Even the almighty somehow managed to miss the investigations in Richardson and the future IRS swindler. And god forbid anymore notice how Blago man handled Obama and everyone else right down the line. Man handled....by a crook. They made sure everyone knew their stance....until they realized they didn't even know the course of action they could take. Ansd instead of allowing the people of Il to elect their own representives the democrats were so scared a republican might get hired they allowed a madman to appoint a senator...
Ohh wow... and we thought the night time comedy shows were going to run out of material once Bush left. If it wasn't our future it might bea little more funny.
Correction...
They did find out Geithner didn't pay his taxes so... They had him pay his taxes and hoped no one would find out it took almost a decade.
I just wanted to make it clear... the whole crystal clear transparency thing Obama was speaking of.
Let us see... $350 billion disappearing almost instantaneously with minimal affect. I would say that falls under the category of 'have not worked', wouldn't you agree?
It hasn't "disappeared" just because you don't know where it is. As for "minimal effect", you are complaining that clamping off major arterial bleeding has had minimal effect because the patient remains on the critical list. I would recommend that you reconsider the seriousness of the situation, your expectations for what an actual recovery will look like, and a seeming tendency to exclude from your analysis the course of events most likely to have ensued in the absence of intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Bailouts are the worst possible option if you hope to have economic growth in the long run. I see no reason to sacrifice long term growth for a quick gain that wouldn't only last until the elections were finished.
There is no basis, sound or otherwise, for such statements. Direct cash infusions into balance sheets that have suffered from sudden asset erosions are a rough parallel to payments against major insurance claims that you might file. Cash suddenly diverted from the normal operations of your household is replaced, giving you the chance eventually to return to normal operations. Do you claim that the long term growth of either your household or society is hampered in any way in this process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
I was against both the financial industry and auto industry bailouts that the Democrats forced down our throats.
These recent actions were forced by the brinksmanship of Republicans who were unwilling to admit and confront the seriousness of the situation in the summer of 2007, when decisive action would have had more bang for the buck and started us down what was a shorter road to recovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Our system is designed to correct itself. The beauty of capitalism is flexibility and resilience. If you leave it alone, it is self-correcting. NEVER sacrifice the long run for a quick fix!
No, there is no self-contained mechanism for correction. Left alone, markets are perfectly capable of settling into long-term equilibria that provide nothing but social devastation. The fact that they do not invariably do so does not comprise a valid defense or excusification.
"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another." —Carl Sagan (Cosmos)
In addition to presiding over the worst economy since the great depression, Carter failed to install a new government in Iran while he had the Chance. Iranians now live under a totalitarian Islamo-fascist terrorist theocracy that builds nuclear weapons, treats women as live stock, supports terrorism, executes minors, gays and non-Muslim religious converts. The results of Carter's indecision also includes the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan that killed 2 million, the Iran-Iraq war that killed 1.2 million, the Gulf war and the present war. The presidents since Carter have worked to clean up his mess.
No matter how many times you post this garbage, it remains the equivalent of Six-Thousand-Year-Old-Earth stuff.
He had better grades than Kerry at an Ivy League school. There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Bush has the former and is lacking in the latter.
>smirk his way through a farewell address, while the country has not been in such bad shape for a century<
(So far at least) Wrong several times, the most obvious being the 1930s. Others: 1981-1982. And 1975.
>to hear him talk about how America is better off today after his 8 years of spectacular failure and a trail of wreckage he leaves behind, his legacy has never been more clear:<
>Worst. President. Ever.<
Not even close. See Carter, Jimmy; Nixon, Richard; and the presidents immediately before and after Lincoln.
May this chapter of history be closed forever, and may it serve as a warning for future generations.<
Amen to that actually. Starting a quagmire war for ?what? is unforgivable.
What do you mean 2 years? Nobama promises to be even worse than Jimmy Carter. Rampant inflation, social injustices aimed at the real workers here who pay the taxes, a gay military that will have us ousted everywhere... We'll be begging for someone else in 2 months.
History will eradicate the ridiculous, inane stupidity of the people who've posted their absurdities on this forum and on lunatic liberal blogs. We'll see how boisterous they are when their unemployment benefits run out next year.
You will have to go back further, to Carter. As momonkey outlined above.
It would be hard to be further off base than <momonkey> is with his Carter-related quackery. However, if one wanted to trace back to the roots and seeds of al Qaeda, that process would indeed lead to Brzezinksi, whose decision after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it was to back the insurgency of the religious mujahadeen that would eventually become both the Taliban and al Qaeda, rather than the insurgency of the secular-based forces that would eventually become the Northern Alliance.
In his defense, it may not have been unreasonable for Brzezinski to have assumed, given his strictly anti-Soviet mindset, that exporting anti-Soviet activity into the Republics lying just to the north of Afghanistan would have been an easier task given a religious, rather than a merely nationalist, basis for the insurgency, but having once sat down at the table with these bands of religious fanatics, it eventually became very difficult to get up again gracefully from that table, and certainly down the road, Reagan and Bush-1 were not at all able to accomplish it, and the processes that ultimately led to 9/11 were moved yet another step forward as the result.
It hasn't "disappeared" just because you don't know where it is. As for "minimal effect", you are complaining that clamping off major arterial bleeding has had minimal effect because the patient remains on the critical list. I would recommend that you reconsider the seriousness of the situation, your expectations for what an actual recovery will look like, and a seeming tendency to exclude from your analysis the course of events most likely to have ensued in the absence of intervention.
There is no basis, sound or otherwise, for such statements. Direct cash infusions into balance sheets that have suffered from sudden asset erosions are a rough parallel to payments against major insurance claims that you might file. Cash suddenly diverted from the normal operations of your household is replaced, giving you the chance eventually to return to normal operations. Do you claim that the long term growth of either your household or society is hampered in any way in this process?
These recent actions were forced by the brinksmanship of Republicans who were unwilling to admit and confront the seriousness of the situation in the summer of 2007, when decisive action would have had more bang for the buck and started us down what was a shorter road to recovery.
No, there is no self-contained mechanism for correction. Left alone, markets are perfectly capable of settling into long-term equilibria that provide nothing but social devastation. The fact that they do not invariably do so does not comprise a valid defense or excusification.
Your claims couldn't be more wrong. The Big 3 Bailout has NOTHING to do with the actions of Republicans politicians. It has everything to do with the corporate management and their bloated union contracts. The TARP started from the decline in housing prices that the Brokerage firms chose to securitize b/c they wanted more and more profits. They CHOSE to make these risky bets and should pay the price for being wrong.
We're in this mess b/c we borrowed and spent money we don't have to buy things we don't make. Not only did we burn through Trillions of Dollars, but we have NOTHING to show for it. We did not even borrow for the sake of production; it was borrowed for CONSUMPTION! Obama wants to inject more borrowing and consumption into an economy that has been ruined by an excess of both. It's like an alcoholic trying to sober up by going to a bar!
You can count down the days (and nanoseconds) until Obama is sworn in, but there's little to be excited about.
What do you mean 2 years? Nobama promises to be even worse than Jimmy Carter. Rampant inflation, social injustices aimed at the real workers here who pay the taxes, a gay military that will have us ousted everywhere... We'll be begging for someone else in 2 months.
History will eradicate the ridiculous, inane stupidity of the people who've posted their absurdities on this forum and on lunatic liberal blogs. We'll see how boisterous they are when their unemployment benefits run out next year.
Maybe they ought to go get their GEDs now.
While much of what you say is True, I think you should keep one thing in mind. Prager once said it well in explaining how Lefties have no interest in fixing the economy or living in a nation (or state) where the economy is thriving. Their aim is justice, equality, tough regulations (including those on the environment), etc. Taking steps to ensure these things is (almost) always a recipe for DESTROYING the economy. If you don't believe me, look at California, New York, New Jersey and Michigan.
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.
