Obama lacks decorum

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=meadandale]
Sadly, it is obvious that you will do nothing of the sort.[/quote]

Mead: BINGO! This was the crux of my argument regarding Brian and his inability to understand history, facts or the difference between polemic/rhetoric and reality.

This is someone who is never, ever wrong and has a convenient catchphrase, aphorism or metaphor when backed into a corner.

When confronted with facts, he’ll either “agree to disagree” or toss out some bon mot about Republicans (his particular bete noire) having no teeth and loving Jesus and Walmart. As has been shown repeatedly, he doesn’t know how to argue and relies instead on elision, sophistry or talking points from the Saul Alinsky “Handbook for Socially Awkward Leftists”.

If this all sounds like someone else we know (living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue), its not a surprise. They are, after all, working off of the same talking points.

Brian, read Amity Shlaes’ (former SEC Chairwoman), “The Forgotten Man”, a history of the Great Depression. She’ll completely shred your position regarding FDR and the supposed benefits of his programs. Again, this is prime Leftist country, and largely because acknowledging the facts of FDR’s abysmal handling would destroy their present position in support of ever larger Big Government paternalism.

[Arraya]

FDR was a tyrant. Then again he had socialists at the bottom of the country and business leaders a the top trying to over throw him, literally. Millions starving, food shortages, intense racial fighting, etc… He did keep the country together, though. Which the war was tremendous help in that respect. It came at the right time to help him out.

If he did nothing OR some other economic policy. Well, that is not even possible to fathom. Really, your making shit up based on what you want to be true.

Obama, though, is much more like Hoover. A 787 billion dollar unspent stimulus coupled with the banking industry hooked up with an iv to the treasury does not equal a new deal.

[Arraya]

FDR was a tyrant. Then again he had socialists at the bottom of the country and business leaders a the top trying to over throw him, literally. Millions starving, food shortages, intense racial fighting, etc… He did keep the country together, though. Which the war was tremendous help in that respect. It came at the right time to help him out.

If he did nothing OR some other economic policy. Well, that is not even possible to fathom. Really, your making shit up based on what you want to be true.

Obama, though, is much more like Hoover. A 787 billion dollar unspent stimulus coupled with the banking industry hooked up with an iv to the treasury does not equal a new deal.

[Arraya]

FDR was a tyrant. Then again he had socialists at the bottom of the country and business leaders a the top trying to over throw him, literally. Millions starving, food shortages, intense racial fighting, etc… He did keep the country together, though. Which the war was tremendous help in that respect. It came at the right time to help him out.

If he did nothing OR some other economic policy. Well, that is not even possible to fathom. Really, your making shit up based on what you want to be true.

Obama, though, is much more like Hoover. A 787 billion dollar unspent stimulus coupled with the banking industry hooked up with an iv to the treasury does not equal a new deal.

[Arraya]

FDR was a tyrant. Then again he had socialists at the bottom of the country and business leaders a the top trying to over throw him, literally. Millions starving, food shortages, intense racial fighting, etc… He did keep the country together, though. Which the war was tremendous help in that respect. It came at the right time to help him out.

If he did nothing OR some other economic policy. Well, that is not even possible to fathom. Really, your making shit up based on what you want to be true.

Obama, though, is much more like Hoover. A 787 billion dollar unspent stimulus coupled with the banking industry hooked up with an iv to the treasury does not equal a new deal.

[Arraya]

FDR was a tyrant. Then again he had socialists at the bottom of the country and business leaders a the top trying to over throw him, literally. Millions starving, food shortages, intense racial fighting, etc… He did keep the country together, though. Which the war was tremendous help in that respect. It came at the right time to help him out.

If he did nothing OR some other economic policy. Well, that is not even possible to fathom. Really, your making shit up based on what you want to be true.

Obama, though, is much more like Hoover. A 787 billion dollar unspent stimulus coupled with the banking industry hooked up with an iv to the treasury does not equal a new deal.

[ucodegen]

The bank bailout just put money into the banks to recapitalize them. So rather than bailing out the banks I would rather they had been nationalized.

You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. The bank bailout will almost be completely paid back by the banks. The risk issues (currently) are AIG, FRE, FNM. I suspect the only real risk issue will be AIG.

The money on the Obama stimulus is not likely to be repaid by the recipients. You just have to hope to get it back through taxes.

The stimulus bill actually spends money into the economy to make work for the unemployed and create orders for businesses, which in turn create more jobs. Check with your economist friends.

This is arguable. There have been questionable ‘uses’ of this stimulus money as well as questionable allocation. This is why I feel better about the bank bailout where most of the money is being paid back vs. the stimulus package.

The stimulus, by increasing the deficit and debt, may cause long term problems, but it was appropriate to deal with the immediate economic downturn.

True.. the second half of using a stimulus is rarely done though. In times of plenty, government outlay has to be reduced and tax revenues increased. Unfortunately Congress, when it sees that it is getting flush with cash, likes to spend. A very good example is California’s legislature, which had huge cash inflows around 2000 from stock capital gains and towards the end of the Real Estate bubble from increases in property taxes and property sales taxes.

I’m not saying that Obama and the Democrats are perfect. But they’re much more preferable than the alternative.

Have to disagree with you here. I feel that both parties are the problem and they keep the populace arguing about fringe issues while the core goes to rot.

[ucodegen]

The bank bailout just put money into the banks to recapitalize them. So rather than bailing out the banks I would rather they had been nationalized.

You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. The bank bailout will almost be completely paid back by the banks. The risk issues (currently) are AIG, FRE, FNM. I suspect the only real risk issue will be AIG.

The money on the Obama stimulus is not likely to be repaid by the recipients. You just have to hope to get it back through taxes.

The stimulus bill actually spends money into the economy to make work for the unemployed and create orders for businesses, which in turn create more jobs. Check with your economist friends.

This is arguable. There have been questionable ‘uses’ of this stimulus money as well as questionable allocation. This is why I feel better about the bank bailout where most of the money is being paid back vs. the stimulus package.

The stimulus, by increasing the deficit and debt, may cause long term problems, but it was appropriate to deal with the immediate economic downturn.

True.. the second half of using a stimulus is rarely done though. In times of plenty, government outlay has to be reduced and tax revenues increased. Unfortunately Congress, when it sees that it is getting flush with cash, likes to spend. A very good example is California’s legislature, which had huge cash inflows around 2000 from stock capital gains and towards the end of the Real Estate bubble from increases in property taxes and property sales taxes.

I’m not saying that Obama and the Democrats are perfect. But they’re much more preferable than the alternative.

Have to disagree with you here. I feel that both parties are the problem and they keep the populace arguing about fringe issues while the core goes to rot.

[ucodegen]

The bank bailout just put money into the banks to recapitalize them. So rather than bailing out the banks I would rather they had been nationalized.

You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. The bank bailout will almost be completely paid back by the banks. The risk issues (currently) are AIG, FRE, FNM. I suspect the only real risk issue will be AIG.

The money on the Obama stimulus is not likely to be repaid by the recipients. You just have to hope to get it back through taxes.

The stimulus bill actually spends money into the economy to make work for the unemployed and create orders for businesses, which in turn create more jobs. Check with your economist friends.

This is arguable. There have been questionable ‘uses’ of this stimulus money as well as questionable allocation. This is why I feel better about the bank bailout where most of the money is being paid back vs. the stimulus package.

The stimulus, by increasing the deficit and debt, may cause long term problems, but it was appropriate to deal with the immediate economic downturn.

True.. the second half of using a stimulus is rarely done though. In times of plenty, government outlay has to be reduced and tax revenues increased. Unfortunately Congress, when it sees that it is getting flush with cash, likes to spend. A very good example is California’s legislature, which had huge cash inflows around 2000 from stock capital gains and towards the end of the Real Estate bubble from increases in property taxes and property sales taxes.

I’m not saying that Obama and the Democrats are perfect. But they’re much more preferable than the alternative.

Have to disagree with you here. I feel that both parties are the problem and they keep the populace arguing about fringe issues while the core goes to rot.

[ucodegen]

The bank bailout just put money into the banks to recapitalize them. So rather than bailing out the banks I would rather they had been nationalized.

You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. The bank bailout will almost be completely paid back by the banks. The risk issues (currently) are AIG, FRE, FNM. I suspect the only real risk issue will be AIG.

The money on the Obama stimulus is not likely to be repaid by the recipients. You just have to hope to get it back through taxes.

The stimulus bill actually spends money into the economy to make work for the unemployed and create orders for businesses, which in turn create more jobs. Check with your economist friends.

This is arguable. There have been questionable ‘uses’ of this stimulus money as well as questionable allocation. This is why I feel better about the bank bailout where most of the money is being paid back vs. the stimulus package.

The stimulus, by increasing the deficit and debt, may cause long term problems, but it was appropriate to deal with the immediate economic downturn.

True.. the second half of using a stimulus is rarely done though. In times of plenty, government outlay has to be reduced and tax revenues increased. Unfortunately Congress, when it sees that it is getting flush with cash, likes to spend. A very good example is California’s legislature, which had huge cash inflows around 2000 from stock capital gains and towards the end of the Real Estate bubble from increases in property taxes and property sales taxes.

I’m not saying that Obama and the Democrats are perfect. But they’re much more preferable than the alternative.

Have to disagree with you here. I feel that both parties are the problem and they keep the populace arguing about fringe issues while the core goes to rot.

[ucodegen]

The bank bailout just put money into the banks to recapitalize them. So rather than bailing out the banks I would rather they had been nationalized.

You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. The bank bailout will almost be completely paid back by the banks. The risk issues (currently) are AIG, FRE, FNM. I suspect the only real risk issue will be AIG.

The money on the Obama stimulus is not likely to be repaid by the recipients. You just have to hope to get it back through taxes.

The stimulus bill actually spends money into the economy to make work for the unemployed and create orders for businesses, which in turn create more jobs. Check with your economist friends.

This is arguable. There have been questionable ‘uses’ of this stimulus money as well as questionable allocation. This is why I feel better about the bank bailout where most of the money is being paid back vs. the stimulus package.

The stimulus, by increasing the deficit and debt, may cause long term problems, but it was appropriate to deal with the immediate economic downturn.

True.. the second half of using a stimulus is rarely done though. In times of plenty, government outlay has to be reduced and tax revenues increased. Unfortunately Congress, when it sees that it is getting flush with cash, likes to spend. A very good example is California’s legislature, which had huge cash inflows around 2000 from stock capital gains and towards the end of the Real Estate bubble from increases in property taxes and property sales taxes.

I’m not saying that Obama and the Democrats are perfect. But they’re much more preferable than the alternative.

Have to disagree with you here. I feel that both parties are the problem and they keep the populace arguing about fringe issues while the core goes to rot.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. [/quote]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

Too late now.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. [/quote]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

Too late now.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. [/quote]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

Too late now.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. [/quote]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

Too late now.

[Author]

Posts