[bubba99]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bubba99]
I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.[/quote]

So, by your logic, I take it that the people who supported Bush are quite happy with Obama?[/quote]

If by the people who supported Bush you mean the bankers still getting TARP and 0% interest rates, and the military complex making war materials,

YES !!!!

All the rest is just noise

[bubba99]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bubba99]
I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.[/quote]

So, by your logic, I take it that the people who supported Bush are quite happy with Obama?[/quote]

If by the people who supported Bush you mean the bankers still getting TARP and 0% interest rates, and the military complex making war materials,

YES !!!!

All the rest is just noise

[bubba99]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bubba99]
I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.[/quote]

So, by your logic, I take it that the people who supported Bush are quite happy with Obama?[/quote]

If by the people who supported Bush you mean the bankers still getting TARP and 0% interest rates, and the military complex making war materials,

YES !!!!

All the rest is just noise

[bubba99]

So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.

And the city “restored funds” for training.

Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”

And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.

[bubba99]

So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.

And the city “restored funds” for training.

Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”

And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.

[bubba99]

So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.

And the city “restored funds” for training.

Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”

And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.

[bubba99]

So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.

And the city “restored funds” for training.

Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”

And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.

[bubba99]

So if I read it correctly, the article says that the cynical ploy to get more funds by creating a policy that let someone die, was successful. Nobody got fired – not the idiot that wrote the policy, the chief that defended the policy, nor the officers that followed a visibly flawed policy.

And the city “restored funds” for training.

Time for an all volunteer fire department in Alameda, or one from the private sector that can keep up their certifications without “restored funds”

And we get to pay a 90% plus retirement to these great heros.

[bubba99]

The debate on Bush vs. Obama is an interesting one, but I think they are more alike than dis-similar.

Certainly Obama is ahead on I.Q. points, but their policies seem to be the very same.

Obama is continuing Iraq and Afganistan, and Obama added Libya

Obama kept the same Fed Chairman Bernanke.

Paulson and Geitner are the same person

Getmo looks to be still there.

Still insane levels of defense spending

Still insane levels of airport TSA secutity.

Bush tax cuts – renewed by Obama with a majority in both houses.

Obamacare is the next logical extension of Bushes Medicare drug program

I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.

[bubba99]

The debate on Bush vs. Obama is an interesting one, but I think they are more alike than dis-similar.

Certainly Obama is ahead on I.Q. points, but their policies seem to be the very same.

Obama is continuing Iraq and Afganistan, and Obama added Libya

Obama kept the same Fed Chairman Bernanke.

Paulson and Geitner are the same person

Getmo looks to be still there.

Still insane levels of defense spending

Still insane levels of airport TSA secutity.

Bush tax cuts – renewed by Obama with a majority in both houses.

Obamacare is the next logical extension of Bushes Medicare drug program

I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.

[bubba99]

The debate on Bush vs. Obama is an interesting one, but I think they are more alike than dis-similar.

Certainly Obama is ahead on I.Q. points, but their policies seem to be the very same.

Obama is continuing Iraq and Afganistan, and Obama added Libya

Obama kept the same Fed Chairman Bernanke.

Paulson and Geitner are the same person

Getmo looks to be still there.

Still insane levels of defense spending

Still insane levels of airport TSA secutity.

Bush tax cuts – renewed by Obama with a majority in both houses.

Obamacare is the next logical extension of Bushes Medicare drug program

I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.

[bubba99]

The debate on Bush vs. Obama is an interesting one, but I think they are more alike than dis-similar.

Certainly Obama is ahead on I.Q. points, but their policies seem to be the very same.

Obama is continuing Iraq and Afganistan, and Obama added Libya

Obama kept the same Fed Chairman Bernanke.

Paulson and Geitner are the same person

Getmo looks to be still there.

Still insane levels of defense spending

Still insane levels of airport TSA secutity.

Bush tax cuts – renewed by Obama with a majority in both houses.

Obamacare is the next logical extension of Bushes Medicare drug program

I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.

[bubba99]

The debate on Bush vs. Obama is an interesting one, but I think they are more alike than dis-similar.

Certainly Obama is ahead on I.Q. points, but their policies seem to be the very same.

Obama is continuing Iraq and Afganistan, and Obama added Libya

Obama kept the same Fed Chairman Bernanke.

Paulson and Geitner are the same person

Getmo looks to be still there.

Still insane levels of defense spending

Still insane levels of airport TSA secutity.

Bush tax cuts – renewed by Obama with a majority in both houses.

Obamacare is the next logical extension of Bushes Medicare drug program

I could go on, but on the big issues, nothing changed.

[bubba99]

[quote=walterwhite]in terms of what, though? i agree that in terms of making actual money, it’s a bad bet; we’re broke.

but I think it’s a pretty damn good bet that at some point int he next 30 years, the US government, although it’s just been playing with fire lately, is going to ge the hang of creating some serious inflation,a nd while you may not make any real money, it will seem smart to ahve borrowed a large amount of dollars today becauseit will beeasier to pay them off someday. I hate to say it’s a sure thing, cause no one really knows, but it sure seems that that’s waht the powers that be want…[/quote]

I have been thinking down the same lines. That sooner or later, inflation and dollar destruction will make owning assets a good thing – maybe the only thing that will prevent wealth destruction. Real rates of interest on CD’s etc are negative so savings are a real loss.

Housing is a leveraged asset play and soon it may make financial sense. Pricing is critical, but we may see the housing decline actually reverse amid the dollar decline.

[bubba99]

[quote=walterwhite]in terms of what, though? i agree that in terms of making actual money, it’s a bad bet; we’re broke.

but I think it’s a pretty damn good bet that at some point int he next 30 years, the US government, although it’s just been playing with fire lately, is going to ge the hang of creating some serious inflation,a nd while you may not make any real money, it will seem smart to ahve borrowed a large amount of dollars today becauseit will beeasier to pay them off someday. I hate to say it’s a sure thing, cause no one really knows, but it sure seems that that’s waht the powers that be want…[/quote]

I have been thinking down the same lines. That sooner or later, inflation and dollar destruction will make owning assets a good thing – maybe the only thing that will prevent wealth destruction. Real rates of interest on CD’s etc are negative so savings are a real loss.

Housing is a leveraged asset play and soon it may make financial sense. Pricing is critical, but we may see the housing decline actually reverse amid the dollar decline.

[Author]

Posts