I cant decide between “not so I cant decide between “not so great, I expected that’, and ‘It doesnt matter, they are all crooks’. I find both to be true.
afx114
February 18, 2009 @
11:06 AM
Need an option of “Doing the Need an option of “Doing the best they can given the circumstances”
Veritas
February 18, 2009 @
11:15 AM
Guess what he won. The Guess what he won. The taxpayers lose. Welcome to the redistribution of wealth.
as
February 18, 2009 @
11:27 AM
Although I don’t agree with Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.
All bad comes from Bush. He drilled a big deep hole during his 8 years of administration. Now we, the taxpayers are all sucked into the funnel of
the tornado Bush and Cheney created.
NotCranky
February 18, 2009 @
11:38 AM
as wrote:Although I don’t [quote=as]Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.
All bad comes from Bush. He drilled a big deep hole during his 8 years of administration. Now we, the taxpayers are all sucked into the funnel of
the tornado Bush and Cheney created.
[/quote]
Bush didn’t cause all the problems but he made things worse and fixed very little about anything, if anything at all.Can anyone name something that he improved? This may come as a shock to some to hear from me, but if he improved military pay, I would say that’s good(fair).
DataAgent
February 18, 2009 @
11:49 AM
“Can anyone name something “Can anyone name something that he improved?”
The price of real estate… if you were lucky enough to sell in 2005.
Coronita
February 18, 2009 @
12:16 PM
Bush did sign into law that Bush did sign into law that it is illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against you from the results of DNA testing that would reveal future health related issues.
Not saying I liked him, but it was a relevant law.
afx114
February 18, 2009 @
12:21 PM
I’d like to see the I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.
NotCranky
February 18, 2009 @
12:30 PM
afx114 wrote:I’d like to see [quote=afx114]I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
I would fail miserably at getting elected
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.
There would be no one to thank or appease for it.[/quote]
Arraya
February 18, 2009 @
12:37 PM
afx114 wrote:
2) Absolute [quote=afx114]
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.[/quote]
Yeah, absolute proof on a theoretical action. Ok, what is this first grade.
Right, we get it, since we can’t absolutely prove a theoretical action would be better than a real one you always win the argument. Nice
afx114
February 18, 2009 @
12:40 PM
arraya wrote:Right, we get [quote=arraya]Right, we get it, since we can’t absolutely prove a theoretical action would be better than a real one you always win the argument. Nic
[/quote]
Yet you have absolute proof that Obama’s actions will fail? Pot, meet kettle.
They were rhetorical questions, which I thought would be obvious. What is this, Kindergarden?
partypup
February 18, 2009 @
9:46 PM
afx114 wrote:I’d like to see [quote=afx114]I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.[/quote]
Obama needs to do the following:
1.
(a) Stand back and let the market actually work and stop trying to fix something that is terminally and fatally ill. The strong will rise and weak will be absorbed by them. That’s the way a free market is supposed to actually function. The idea that if we don’t *stimulate* the economy with borrowed crack the entire system will collapse assumes that the coming pain and misery can be avoided. But they cannot be avoided. They are inevitable at this point, and instead of cloaking ourselves in denial and trying to avert the inevitable, we all need to “butch up” and take the pain. The sooner we take it, the sooner we can get on with the business of recovery.
Be clear about this: with or without a gargantuan stimulus package, the U.S. economy is going to COLLAPSE, and all indications point to the fact that this watershed event will happen this year. And the global economy is going to COLLAPSE. But I would rather come out of the collapse with a sound currency (as was the case during the 1929 Depression) than pile on more debt and ensure that our grandchildren are slaves.
(b) Abolish the Fed. NOW.
(c) Return to the gold standard. NOW.
(d) Lower taxes across the board by 10% for all tax brackets.
(e) Dramatically reduce government spending and *stimulation*, and certainly by more than the amount (d) is reduced.
(e) Call for a bank holiday and require ALL banks to open their books to see who is healthy and who needs to be eaten by the healthy. That way, rather than throwing money at zombie banks, money would be given to banks that have only dug themselves into small holes instead of gifting money to banks that have dug themselves into bottomless pits (but won’t admit it).
2. Absent a journey to an alternate universe, how would you recommend that proof of success be presented?
Here’s the question you need to be asking: where is the absolute proof that what Obama IS doing will work? There is no such proof.
Where is the absolute proof that what Obama IS doing will fail? That proof is everywhere around you. Obama has clearly chosen the IMF/World Bank/Federal Reserve/Bilderberger path of endless fiat debt collection that has brought us to the brink of collapse.
Ask yourself if the following strategies have worked:
(a) the 2008 stimulus/rebate checks
(b) endless interest rate cuts by the Fed
(c) unlimited bailouts of financial institutions; and
(d) TARP
The $813 billion stimulus bill is merely step (e) on this rapidly growing list of failures.
Obama has not chosen the path of bold action.
He has simply acted as his Masters have instructed him to, and in doing so he is leading us — with oodles of charm and *hope* — down the last few steps of the path of destruction that Bush set us upon 8 years ago.
The end game is here. No need to fight it at this late date. Just duck and cover.
an
February 18, 2009 @
11:54 AM
as wrote:Although I don’t [quote=as]Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.[/quote]
That’s what Al Greenspan said in “House of Cards” and see where that got us? Everyone has a choice, including him. He just choose to “stimulate” instead.
Aecetia
February 18, 2009 @
12:07 PM
Russ, I think Bush improved Russ, I think Bush improved Iraq because they have a flat tax and we don’t. Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.
cr
February 18, 2009 @
12:20 PM
Obama will get one pass on Obama will get one pass on the “we inherited this from Bush” excuse for running this economy further into the ground before it’s on him.
The stimulus is anything but, it won’t create any jobs for at least a year, and is further waste of money we don’t have.
The truth is you can’t blame Bush for the economy, and most of you here if you are honest with yourself recognize this, but Bush talks slow and is an easy target for our countries self-inflicted pain.
The rest of the world isn’t doing too great either.
You can blame Bush for Iraq, fine (even though Congres voted to go to war), but we haven’t been attacked since.
Obama’s stimulus (and let’s call it what it is: payoff for those who got him elected) cost more than the entire Iraq war.
luxuryglow
February 19, 2009 @
1:21 PM
cooprider wrote:Obama will [quote=cooprider]Obama will get one pass on the “we inherited this from Bush” excuse for running this economy further into the ground before it’s on him.
The stimulus is anything but, it won’t create any jobs for at least a year, and is further waste of money we don’t have.
The truth is you can’t blame Bush for the economy, and most of you here if you are honest with yourself recognize this, but Bush talks slow and is an easy target for our countries self-inflicted pain.
The rest of the world isn’t doing too great either.
You can blame Bush for Iraq, fine (even though Congres voted to go to war), but we haven’t been attacked since.
Obama’s stimulus (and let’s call it what it is: payoff for those who got him elected) cost more than the entire Iraq war.[/quote]
I agree!
Coronita
February 18, 2009 @
12:43 PM
I’m actually pretty much I’m actually pretty much enjoying seeing this administration unravel much quicker than I anticipated. We can count and a more balanced government in about 2 years instead of a 4, when the congressional elections are held.
Alhtough there isn’t any correlation, it’s just funny seeing hte market dump after obama announces his/their plan these days.
Maybe this is just it. A complex ruse by both parties to build a bigger government that everyone counts on.
Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.
CA renter
February 19, 2009 @
2:47 AM
flu wrote:Nationalizing the [quote=flu]Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.[/quote]
…because private industry handled things so much better?
Coronita
February 19, 2009 @
6:57 AM
CA renter wrote:flu [quote=CA renter][quote=flu]Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.[/quote]
…because private industry handled things so much better?[/quote]
No, but private industries that fail usually go out of business….Business Darwinism.
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @
1:32 PM
I voted for Obama. I’ve been I voted for Obama. I’ve been very disappointed in his financial team. They all come out of the Fed and banking world and have that mindset that if you give the banks enough money it will solve the problem.
Someone asked what I’d do differently.
Geithner made a bit of noise about stress testing the big banks… but it’s not going to happen. Because those are his buddies and they don’t want the crap exposed. If these big banks are going to get huge infusions of money as well as low cost credit – they need to OPEN THEIR BOOKS.
This hope for housing crap is a joke… It seems to be directly designed to benefit banks who mod the non-fannie/freddie loans – if you read the whitehouse Q&A about it, it says that points/fees still apply… so the servicers will get a bonanza from this. The same servicers that wrote the original crappy loans. It truly would be much better to just let forclosures happen and let the dust (and market) settle, without intervention.
I’m tired of intervention by our government with TARP, TALF, stimulus, credit easing, etc. The banks that are too big to fail should be broken up – and let the smaller pieces fail.
I may be a liberal, socially… but I was raised with the concept of personal responsibility. That means accepting that if you made a bad decision – you deal with the consequences.
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @
1:32 PM
One more thing. I think it One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.
an
February 18, 2009 @
1:44 PM
UCGal wrote:One more thing. [quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
Absolute proof that it would be far worse under McCain. 😀
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @
1:58 PM
AN wrote:UCGal wrote:One more [quote=AN][quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
Absolute proof that it would be far worse under McCain. :-D[/quote]
I don’t/can’t have proof. Just my opinion.
Casca
February 18, 2009 @
2:15 PM
Yes, facing one of the Yes, facing one of the greatest economic hurdles of history, and our choice of mounts were a couple of nags. Still one promised to make every jump, while the other admitted that he wasn’t so sure. I’d rather have the honest one.
Maybe some good will come out of all of this. Maybe the collective doofi will learn how incompetent government really is. As for the we’ve-never-seen-anything-like-this-before crowd, sure we have. It was 1917, and the savior du jour was some guy named Lenin.
CDMA ENG
February 19, 2009 @
9:55 AM
UCGal wrote:One more thing. [quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
I disagree. I think McCain would have been the republican packaging of Obama. Same policies….
Afghanstan/Iraq… Same quagmire…
Economics… Same Same…
And I am with you 100 percent UCGal about being a social democrat and a fiscal republican!
CE
jficquette
February 19, 2009 @
11:52 AM
UCGal wrote:One more thing. [quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
That’s Bull. McCain wouldn’t have come with $800 Billion in gas and mortgage money.
I can’t believe you really think that under McCain would have been worst. McCain wouldn’t have put a bunch of tax cheating creeps in important jobs as Obama did.
Obama is inept, incompetent and unprofessional. I would like to see Obama land a Jet on a carrier or spend years in POW camp like McCain.
Obama is a Joke.
John
DWCAP
February 18, 2009 @
1:43 PM
Absolute proof? Is that it Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
afx114
February 18, 2009 @
2:13 PM
DWCAP wrote:Absolute proof? [quote=DWCAP]Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
[/quote]
No. For all I know, and from what I read on here, everything Obama is doing is going to destroy the world. I have no illusions that Obama is the second coming of Lincon or that he will fix everything, but I do know that the answer is far more complicated than “no new taxes! Government is a disease!” It is also far more complicated than “tax the rich! Help for the poor!” My point is that no one has all of the answers, especially all of the armchair presidents and fed chairmen here on Pigginton. Yet everyone seems to think they are such geniuses that they can fix this whole clusterfuck with a couple anonymous posts on a messageboard on the Internets.
It is easy to sit around and point fingers and proclaim ‘miserable failure’ (Google it) about Obama after about a month in office. It is quite another thing to offer your own complex multi-faceted solution on how to fix this complex multi-faceted mess.
I truly would like to know who all the Obama haters would rather have in charge. McCain? Clinton? Ron Paul? Bill Gates? Jesus… err, I mean, Reagan? Lets have some pragmatism here. Obama is our president, and he’s doing his best to fix the problems that he inherited. People are free to believe that Obama is trying to covertly enslave us to the state. I only ask that these people take a step back from their foaming rabid Obama-is-the-downfall-of-America box and offer what they would do differently. Solutions that are more in depth than “cut my taxes!”
Me personally, I have no idea how to fix anything. I’m not an economist. I live frugally and have savings and am waiting to buy a house just like most people here. I’m here to learn. But lately all I learn here is that Obama is the second coming of Marx and that America is doomed to become a nation of Communist slaves.
If Ron Paul (or Grover Norquist, or Buddha) had won the election, would everything be fixed yet? If not, would you be lashing at their throats in the same way that you’re lashing at Obama’s?
partypup
February 18, 2009 @
9:59 PM
afx114 wrote:DWCAP [quote=afx114][quote=DWCAP]Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
[/quote]
No. For all I know, and from what I read on here, everything Obama is doing is going to destroy the world. I have no illusions that Obama is the second coming of Lincon or that he will fix everything, but I do know that the answer is far more complicated than “no new taxes! Government is a disease!” It is also far more complicated than “tax the rich! Help for the poor!” My point is that no one has all of the answers, especially all of the armchair presidents and fed chairmen here on Pigginton. Yet everyone seems to think they are such geniuses that they can fix this whole clusterfuck with a couple anonymous posts on a messageboard on the Internets.
It is easy to sit around and point fingers and proclaim ‘miserable failure’ (Google it) about Obama after about a month in office. It is quite another thing to offer your own complex multi-faceted solution on how to fix this complex multi-faceted mess.
I truly would like to know who all the Obama haters would rather have in charge. McCain? Clinton? Ron Paul? Bill Gates? Jesus… err, I mean, Reagan? Lets have some pragmatism here. Obama is our president, and he’s doing his best to fix the problems that he inherited. People are free to believe that Obama is trying to covertly enslave us to the state. I only ask that these people take a step back from their foaming rabid Obama-is-the-downfall-of-America box and offer what they would do differently. Solutions that are more in depth than “cut my taxes!”
Me personally, I have no idea how to fix anything. I’m not an economist. I live frugally and have savings and am waiting to buy a house just like most people here. I’m here to learn. But lately all I learn here is that Obama is the second coming of Marx and that America is doomed to become a nation of Communist slaves.
If Ron Paul (or Grover Norquist, or Buddha) had won the election, would everything be fixed yet? If not, would you be lashing at their throats in the same way that you’re lashing at Obama’s?[/quote]
Afx, the criticism of Obama goes much deeper than his (and Geithner’s – has anyone noticed that he has goblin ears?) amateur handling of the economic crisis. This is but a symptom of what appears to be a larger problem with Obama now taking shape before our eyes.
It is the insane and unreasonable expectations raised by Obama throughout his campaign — even as the tell-tale signs of depression were appearing all around us — that evoke such bitterness from his critics.
Had Obama been honest enough to say (a) that most of the jobs that have left this country will NEVER return (McCain acknowledged this) , (b) the oceans weren’t going to *heal* simply because he won the North carolina primary, and in fact our oceans are likely to be sicker than ever due to climate change beyond Obama’s control (c) he was simply going to hire the same group of goons and crooks from the Fed and Wall Street to *fix* the very economic crisis that they created; (d) his cabinet was going to be peppered with lobbyists, Clinton re-treads and tax cheats, and (e) he merely intended to siphon troops from a bogus war in Iraq into another bogus war in Afghanistan (a conflict that cost the Russians tens of thousands of soldiers over a decade), I don’t think people would be this angry and disappointed.
Because they wouldn’t have VOTED for him.
The only thing this guy can *fix* is a Chicago election.
That’s why we despise Obama.
CostaMesa
February 18, 2009 @
10:09 PM
Welcome to the Grumpy Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:
partypup
February 18, 2009 @
10:25 PM
CostaMesa wrote:Welcome to [quote=CostaMesa]Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:[/quote]
Uh…I’ve been a Democrat for 23 years. I didn’t turn independent until last year.
How does that square with your poorly-thought out and applied epithet?
Arraya
February 18, 2009 @
10:38 PM
partypup wrote:CostaMesa [quote=partypup][quote=CostaMesa]Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:[/quote]
Uh…I’ve been a Democrat for 23 years. I didn’t turn independent until last year.
How does that square with your poorly-thought out and applied epithet?
[/quote]
Exactly, people are SO brainwashed…
partypup
February 18, 2009 @
9:47 PM
I see that “He/they are doing I see that “He/they are doing great” has actually garnered 2 votes.
I think Breeze must have voted twice 😉
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 @
10:11 PM
I want to vote for 3 & 5. I I want to vote for 3 & 5. I am terribly disappointed, but I knew he would suck before he was elected.
The sad thing is that they are all crooks. Witness the Kabuki theater taking place in Sacramento. They are all corrupt and no longer represent the people. They only represent special interests.
The Turtle
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @
12:55 AM
Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are pretty much ass-clowns these days.
Things are going from bad to worse. Our financial institutions are massively insolvent and our broader economy is badly out of balance. It’s an enormous (and dangerous) problem and it will take a decade to unwind.
BTW, when did Obama take office? Couple of weeks ago?
No doubt in my mind McCain would have been worse. You want proof positive? Phil Gramm in Treasury. GOP are not to be taken seriously these days. Sorry bunch of sad-sack, used-up ass-clowns.
UCGal, I agree with you. Wish I could say otherwise but I’m not impressed with Obama’s economics team so far, mainly because of Geithner. He’s an insider, a tax cheat, and more of the same. And Sumners is a Carly Fiorina-style Harvard reject. We need some ‘talent’ in there.
However, I don’t know what I would do otherwise. This is a massive disaster. First stabilize, then try to inflate and debase the systemic imbalances. Hope it unwinds peaceably over the long-term. The risks are on the downside and it’s absolutely scary when you get your mind around what CAN happen.
Anybody else catch word that the $1/2T money-market withdrawals last September were Chinese? Makes you think, huh? (Or maybe it doesn’t.)
Economy was always the end-game. The world will be different in 25 years and if you think Iraq is the big ‘battlefield’, you’re a fool. If you don’t see that our country is massively at risk, you’re a fool. We are absolutely in a mess that’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Turning Obama into some sort of bogeyman is not helpful. GOP should shut the fuck up and start participating in a constructive bi-partisan outcome because that’s the best we can hope for right now.
One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.
rnen
February 19, 2009 @
7:06 AM
gandalf wrote:Pretty funny. [quote=gandalf]Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are pretty much ass-clowns these days.
Things are going from bad to worse. Our financial institutions are massively insolvent and our broader economy is badly out of balance. It’s an enormous (and dangerous) problem and it will take a decade to unwind.
BTW, when did Obama take office? Couple of weeks ago?
No doubt in my mind McCain would have been worse. You want proof positive? Phil Gramm in Treasury. GOP are not to be taken seriously these days. Sorry bunch of sad-sack, used-up ass-clowns.
UCGal, I agree with you. Wish I could say otherwise but I’m not impressed with Obama’s economics team so far, mainly because of Geithner. He’s an insider, a tax cheat, and more of the same. And Sumners is a Carly Fiorina-style Harvard reject. We need some ‘talent’ in there.
However, I don’t know what I would do otherwise. This is a massive disaster. First stabilize, then try to inflate and debase the systemic imbalances. Hope it unwinds peaceably over the long-term. The risks are on the downside and it’s absolutely scary when you get your mind around what CAN happen.
Anybody else catch word that the $1/2T money-market withdrawals last September were Chinese? Makes you think, huh? (Or maybe it doesn’t.)
Economy was always the end-game. The world will be different in 25 years and if you think Iraq is the big ‘battlefield’, you’re a fool. If you don’t see that our country is massively at risk, you’re a fool. We are absolutely in a mess that’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Turning Obama into some sort of bogeyman is not helpful. GOP should shut the fuck up and start participating in a constructive bi-partisan outcome because that’s the best we can hope for right now.
One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.[/quote]
I find it amusing that when a persons party of choice is in power NOW is the time for the GOP to shut the fuck up! I don’t care which party is in power… the GOP has a RESPONSIBILITY to be CRITICAL and SUPPORTIVE when they feel it is the best interest of the country. What is the freaking point of having more than one party otherwise?
In your mind,(as well as mine and a ton of others) Bush was a dismal failure… did you “shut the fuck up ” and support him?
Ummm, ya, I thought not.
NotCranky
February 19, 2009 @
7:45 AM
In the house 246 dems voted In the house 246 dems voted for the stimulus bill and all 176 Republicans voted against. It can’t be that good and that bad for Americans at the same time?Yes, know they vote in blocks. This show however, that very few people set the agenda and our representatives just follow. I don’t think a no vote is much different than a yes vote anyway. It shows the repective constiutents “see I voted the way you elected me:, that’s all. The agenda passes all the time.
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @
9:18 AM
Actually, rnen, if you think Actually, rnen, if you think back to the beginning of Bush’s term, he had quite an opportunity to get started in his term. The honeymoon period was extended after 9/11, high approval ratings and so forth, and you can count me in with the crowd that approved.
It was only in 2003 that the hyper-partisan agenda and tactics that characterized Bush’s presidency started to emerge for the general public, as well as gross incompetence and dishonesty.
My comments are not about suppressing dissent. What the GOP is doing right now 30-some odd days into a Democratic preaidency is not patriotic dissent, it’s a calculated political maneuver and most of the public sees it for what it is. That’s the issue for me. Rush ‘dickhead’ Limbaugh said it himself, “He hopes Obama fails.”
If we get 4-years down the road and Obama failed, we’re some deep shit. Most everybody realizes this. The independent, moderate middle couldn’t give a shit about GOP versus Dems.
rnen
February 19, 2009 @
10:41 AM
gandalf wrote:Actually, rnen, [quote=gandalf]Actually, rnen, if you think back to the beginning of Bush’s term, he had quite an opportunity to get started in his term. The honeymoon period was extended after 9/11, high approval ratings and so forth, and you can count me in with the crowd that approved.
It was only in 2003 that the hyper-partisan agenda and tactics that characterized Bush’s presidency started to emerge for the general public, as well as gross incompetence and dishonesty.
My comments are not about suppressing dissent. What the GOP is doing right now 30-some odd days into a Democratic preaidency is not patriotic dissent, it’s a calculated political maneuver and most of the public sees it for what it is. That’s the issue for me. Rush ‘dickhead’ Limbaugh said it himself, “He hopes Obama fails.”
If we get 4-years down the road and Obama failed, we’re some deep shit. Most everybody realizes this. The independent, moderate middle couldn’t give a shit about GOP versus Dems.
[/quote]
Let me state in advance…I am NOT a Rush “ditto head”. That being said I do not think Obama is on the right path, his leaning to bigger government, more entitlement programs and his policies in general are less conservative than my liking so I do NOT want his policies to succeed either. In that respect I agree with Limbaugh, I would like Obama to succeed as President but not with his current policies. Make sense?
Does this make me unpatriotic?
It is also my opinion that Obama has started his term by ramming down the throats of the tax payers not only the biggest bill in history but also one of the most dishonest. Is there anyone on this forum that can say that the President kept his word when he said the stimulas bill would contain no pork or ear marks? Is there anyone on this forum that can say that this is a pure stimulas bill?
IMHO he is no better than Bush in that he has used the fear of the public to pass bills that never would have made it through the regular process…. just as Bush did after 911.
Is this the type of leadership that moderates and independents were looking for?
Am I way off base here?
afx114
February 19, 2009 @
10:52 AM
rnen wrote:Is there anyone on [quote=rnen]Is there anyone on this forum that can say that the President kept his word when he said the stimulas bill would contain no pork or ear marks?
[/quote]
I guess that depends on your definition of ‘pork.’ People seem to define pork as ‘something that does not benefit me directly.’ In other words, to some person in Ohio, a maglev train from Anaheim to Vegas is pork. But to a cocktail waitress in Vegas, that train is going to bring customers to her place of work, which leads to tips in her pocket. To her, a Vegas bullet train is not pork, it is a job and an income.
So if you really break it down, everything in the stimulus is both pork and not pork at the same time.
What specifics in the bill would you refer to as pork?
P.S., thank you for not saying ‘porkulus’
Arraya
February 19, 2009 @
11:06 AM
One more thing, we need to One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.
Gandolf, I think the only solution in the short term is going to a lower energy lifestyle. Not that we should not continue research, but it is a little late to count on a new technology. Robert Hersh did a report for the USG regarding peak oil back in 2005. Google, Hersh report. He said we need at least 20 years of mitigation to avoid disaster. Well, we peaked 2005-2008. There was at least a dozen think tanks around the world that came out with similar reports in the past few years. It’s like the dirty little secret that nobody talks about in the open. This is not a healthy situation. See Cheney Energy Task Force for examples and maps of oil fields. Iraq was our energy policy. It’s not hard to figure out. This was a bipartisan decision.
Energy and money are two sides of the same coin. One is more real than the other, though. You can’t print oil and that is all that matters. Nature is in deflation and a harsh task master.
The monetary system is broken beyond repair. It is no longer relevant with declining energy and no replacements. It’s a grow or die system. There is no more growth and a tremendous amount of debt that is not going to get paid back. This is a big geo-political stress.
There are a few better ideas on how to handle money. IMO, the gold standard is one though I don’t think the answer. It’s time to move forward. A commodity based currency with a steady state economy is a better, IMO. See herman daly for details, he used to work for the world bank and got ran off and called a heretic because he did not think the monetary system was sustainable.
Dr. Martenson does a pretty good job of explaining the compounding effects of energy and our monetary system. This is strictly a scientific look. http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
A collapse is coming, unavoidably; indeed, we are in the midst of it. The first government response, the bailout, was an attempt to uphold a tower of money that is far beyond the total value of real goods and services it promises to redeem. Predictably, the bailout was a miserable failure. The next response, Obama’s massive stimulus package, will fail for a different and much deeper reason. It will fail because we are “maxed out”: maxed out on nature’s capacity to receive our wastes without destroying the ecological basis of civilization; maxed out on society’s ability to withstand any more loss of community and connection; maxed out on our forests’ ability to withstand more clearcuts; maxed out on the human body’s capacity to stay viable in a depleted, toxic world. That we are also maxed out on our credit only reflects that we have nothing left to convert into money. Do we really need more roads and bridges? Can we sustain more of them, and more of the industrial economy that goes along? Government stimulus programs will at best prolong the current economic system for two or three years, with perhaps a brief period of growth as we complete the pillage of nature, spirit, body, and culture. When these vestiges of the commonwealth are gone, then nothing will be able to stop a massive inflationary surge and currency collapse on a global scale.
Obama, is just a friendly face on a falling empire. Like Bush, he does not appear to have much power.
From 2005<--While peak oil is a lifestyle change for the whole world it is only a disaster within the constructs of our monetary system or if we keep fighting for the remaining reserves.
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031005_globalcorp.shtml
Peak Oil is no longer on the way. It is here. Forget for a moment whether or not global oil production has actually begun (see below) its hopelessly irreversible decline. We will not know that for certain until sometime after it happens. The political fact, however, is that global inertia in response to Peak has driven our species, all of it, past the point of no return. There is no changing course for us. We have committed to a path of bloody destruction that can no longer be postponed or evaded. Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons – long a smoke alarm for Peak Oil – has said repeatedly, “The problem is that the world has no Plan B.” Simmons is right.
snip
Every country in the world is betting everything it has on this one hand knowing that after 2007 or 2008 the game ends. The map of the future after that is unknowable and, to large extent, irrelevant.
snip
Politicians are creatures of economics. Their success has always been measured first and only by what economic benefits they returned to constituents or themselves. The victim has been the future. We have all told the politicians what we really want them to do for us while speaking platitudes from the other side of our mouths. As I have said for so many years, we are all prisoners of the way money works. Until we change that, any solution is only temporal and illusory. No electoral change is possible now that elections all over the world have sworn their allegiance to privately owned software programs and obvious manipulation.
t is high time for the general population and socio-political players to get ready to face very hard times during which whole segments of our societies will be modified (4), temporarily disappear or even permanently vanish. For instance, the breakdown of the global monetary system we anticipated for summer 2009 will indeed entail the collapse of the US dollar (and all USD-denominated assets), but it will also induce, out of psychological contagion, a general loss of confidence in paper money altogether (these consequences give rise to a number of recommendations in this issue of the GEAB).
Last but not least, our team now estimates that the most monolithic, the most « imperialistic » political entities (5) will suffer the most from this fifth phase of the crisis. Some states will indeed experience a strategic dislocation undermining their territorial integrity and their influence worldwide. As a consequence, other states will suddenly lose their protected situations and be thrust into regional chaos.
———
Notes:
(1) Barack Obama, like Nicolas Sarkozy or Gordon Brown, spend their time chanting about the historic dimension of the crisis, but they are just hiding the fact that they fully misunderstand its nature in an attempt to clear their names from the future failure of their policies. As to the others, they prefer to persuade themselves that the problem will be solved like any normal technical problem, albeit a little more serious than usual. Meanwhile everyone continues to play by decades old rules, unaware of the fact that the game is vanishing from under their noses.
From Dimtry Orlov. What we need to do in the short term.
Forget “growth,” forget “jobs,” forget “financial stability.” What should their [the government’s] realistic new objectives be? Well, here they are: food, shelter, transportation, and security. Their task is to find a way to provide all of these necessities on an emergency basis, in absence of a functioning economy, with commerce at a standstill, with little or no access to imports, and to make them available to a population that is largely penniless. If successful, society will remain largely intact, and will be able to begin a slow and painful process of cultural transition, and eventually develop a new economy, a gradually de-industrializing economy, at a much lower level of resource expenditure, characterized by a quite a lot of austerity and even poverty, but in conditions that are safe, decent, and dignified. If unsuccessful, society will be gradually destroyed in a series of convulsions that will leave a defunct nation composed of many wretched little fiefdoms. Given its largely depleted resource base, a dysfunctional, collapsing infrastructure, and its history of unresolved social conflicts, the territory of the Former United States will undergo a process of steady degeneration punctuated by natural and man-made cataclysms.
We have to pull away from the central banking system and the way money works has to change and will whether we like it or not. You just can’t beat physics. Most economist are like priests following their own economic dogma. It is not a science. Our monetary system is not rational.
Wall Street and the politicos are either pretending and have secret plans or are completely mad or just stupid. Probably a combination I think most are caught like a deer in headlights and few others are making get away plans. It is reported that Bush bought a 100K acre ranch in Uruguay.
The bubble is not hard to understand why it happened. The monetary system has a PONZI scheme dynamic and the guys that make the money pushed the politicians and banks to practically state mandate debt growth so the system would not collapse. It’s too big, there is too much debt and an immense amount of new debt creation has to be made to keep it from becoming dysfunctional. Amount of debt goes hand in hand with the amount of money, If people did what was good for them the system would be dysfunctional. This is an unhealthy dynamic. Mish, just did a piece of the monetary system today. I have said this a dozen times on here.
Borrowers have to pay interest on the amount borrowed. However, the interest and the debt cannot possibly be paid back except by an ever expanding Ponzi scheme of lending. That scheme can last only as long as everyone believes the debt can be paid back and the market value of that debt keeps rising.
China wants away from the dollar they have made that apparent. They just lent Russia 25 billion for an energy contract. Yup, thats right no market. That is an alliance along with Iran and Venezuela. It’s happening in the next .5-3 years at some point. The dollar collapse is imminent.
Israel is still saying it is going to attack Iran. If they do this it would be very very bad. Alliances have been made.
This is not partisan, it is common sense. The monetary system can and will not last. Our leaders are worthless, they have no creativity and no desire except power.
The tattered veneer of easy wealth is quickly evaporating, like a magician that pulls a table cloth over an object and makes it disappear, so goes our economy. Wooosh!
Welcome to the real world.
Get to know your neighbors your most likely going to need them. Start community action groups. Life is about to come calling, the real one. Not the pretend one we have been living.
partypup
February 19, 2009 @
6:52 PM
[quote=arraya
From LEAP, last [quote=arraya
From LEAP, last week.
t is high time for the general population and socio-political players to get ready to face very hard times during which whole segments of our societies will be modified (4), temporarily disappear or even permanently vanish. For instance, the breakdown of the global monetary system we anticipated for summer 2009 will indeed entail the collapse of the US dollar (and all USD-denominated assets), but it will also induce, out of psychological contagion, a general loss of confidence in paper money altogether (these consequences give rise to a number of recommendations in this issue of the GEAB).
Last but not least, our team now estimates that the most monolithic, the most « imperialistic » political entities (5) will suffer the most from this fifth phase of the crisis. Some states will indeed experience a strategic dislocation undermining their territorial integrity and their influence worldwide. As a consequence, other states will suddenly lose their protected situations and be thrust into regional chaos.
[/quote]
Arraya, LEAP’s most recent newsletter also still predicts a U.S. default or radical dollar devaluation by summer 2009.
Given Son of TARP (and the various progeny it will assuredly spawn) and the chaos we are witnessing in the financial markets, who on this board still thinks this is not a serious possibility?
partypup
February 19, 2009 @
6:53 PM
Oh, and Arraya – you rock Oh, and Arraya – you rock 🙂
Arraya
February 19, 2009 @
8:33 PM
partypup [quote=partypup][quote=arraya
From LEAP, last week.
t is high time for the general population and socio-political players to get ready to face very hard times during which whole segments of our societies will be modified (4), temporarily disappear or even permanently vanish. For instance, the breakdown of the global monetary system we anticipated for summer 2009 will indeed entail the collapse of the US dollar (and all USD-denominated assets), but it will also induce, out of psychological contagion, a general loss of confidence in paper money altogether (these consequences give rise to a number of recommendations in this issue of the GEAB).
Last but not least, our team now estimates that the most monolithic, the most « imperialistic » political entities (5) will suffer the most from this fifth phase of the crisis. Some states will indeed experience a strategic dislocation undermining their territorial integrity and their influence worldwide. As a consequence, other states will suddenly lose their protected situations and be thrust into regional chaos.
[/quote]
Arraya, LEAP’s most recent newsletter also still predicts a U.S. default or radical dollar devaluation by summer 2009.
Given Son of TARP (and the various progeny it will assuredly spawn) and the chaos we are witnessing in the financial markets, who on this board still thinks this is not a serious possibility?[/quote]
Well, it surely is possible. Whether it’s this year or in next few it will happen. The timeline is interesting because I was reading that Russia, SA and Iran want to launch a gold backed currency early 2010. Either way things need to come into balance so it’s inevitable at some point soon.
TheBreeze
February 19, 2009 @
9:44 PM
So the dollar is going to So the dollar is going to crash and US dollar denominated assets are going to crash too? Isn’t there an inverse relationship between those two things? Wouldn’t a crashing dollar cause asset prices to rise and vice versa?
TheBreeze
February 19, 2009 @
9:51 PM
As to the original question, As to the original question, Obama has performed magnificently. It will just take time for it to sink in to you plebes what a great President Obama is/will be.
an
February 19, 2009 @
11:14 PM
TheBreeze wrote:As to the [quote=TheBreeze]As to the original question, Obama has performed magnificently. It will just take time for it to sink in to you plebes what a great President Obama is/will be.[/quote]
[quote=TheBreeze]Holy Jesus! Obama is really showing his ineptitude. Man I actually thought he would be a decent president but this guy can’t find his ass with both hands. His Commerce Secretary effectively resigned before ever being confirmed:
Unbelievable! This guy’s going to be worse than Chimpy. He’s Chimpy the Lesser.
In case you can’t tell, I’ve jumped off the Big O’s bandwagon. [/quote]
‘nough said.
TheBreeze
February 20, 2009 @
8:38 AM
I’m trying out a new strategy I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish.
rnen
February 20, 2009 @
9:18 AM
TheBreeze wrote:I’m trying [quote=TheBreeze]I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish. [/quote]
Just like Obama! :0
Arraya
February 20, 2009 @
9:29 AM
rnen wrote:TheBreeze [quote=rnen][quote=TheBreeze]I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish. [/quote]
Just like Obama! :0[/quote]
LOL
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @
2:36 PM
No problem, rnen. On the No problem, rnen. On the issues, selection of cabinet members, to bail or not to bail, transparency, etc. — these are legitimate questions, debates, positions, etc. You would admit as well, the difficulty-level of what we’re facing right now is immense, and the GOP talking points are steady “Look what a terrible job Obama’s doing.” These guys have been on the job what, like four weeks? It’s manufactured outrage.
I’d like to say the Obama Admin is going to succeed, but I don’t know the answer to that. Nobody does. And I won’t. I don’t like Geithner in Treasury. But that doesn’t mean I hope they fail. They might fail. If they do, I hope it’s for genuine reasons, like Geithner is a tool of Wall Street, not because a bunch of calculating GOP politicians undermine him the whole way with ‘message wars’ and end up wrecking the country as a result.
GOP really needs to focus on contributing more than attack lines, opposition research and propoganda. How about actual leadership for a change? In 2008, that would have decided elections. Obama has an opportunity to be a good leader, and I think most of us would like to see if that happens before kneecapping him out of the gate.
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @
2:58 PM
Arraya, your comments are Arraya, your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. All I have to say is I hope you’re not right.
With Peak Oil, you’re not far off the mark. In truth, there are a couple of incremental adjustments to the original PO predictions, technology has pushed things out slightly, but this is perhaps a decade at most. East Asian growth has erased much of the original advances.
On sustainability, we can and should learn to live more ‘conservative’ lifestyles (odd to see this term in its original intended context). However, fitting under the severe resource constraints you’re speaking of will lead to dislocation, poverty, widespread violence and war.
There is a more peaceful way forward, through science and technology, sources of energy that we have not yet learned to tap, perhaps renewable and green. It’s the way out of the long-term resource constraints of the ‘Oil Age’. I don’t know what’s next, but I pray it’s not World War III and communal living in the toxic wasteland that follows. We need to do better and energy is the key.
Aecetia
February 19, 2009 @
4:00 PM
I wish he was just a joke. He I wish he was just a joke. He is a dangerous socialist surrounded by even more dangerous political operatives who are going to grow government at the expense of working people everywhere. They want to level the playing field (social engineering) for all but the ruling elite who will continue to lie and cheat. Look at what the DOW is doing today. Oh yeah, that is Bush’s fault.
sd_matt
February 19, 2009 @
6:30 PM
At best I would call Obama an At best I would call Obama an idealistic, sincere, well-meaning idiot with a gift for gab.
Have you noticed the change in the tone of his voice nowadays? It doesn’t sound so certain.
Aecetia
February 19, 2009 @
6:38 PM
I have noticed the change and I have noticed the change and he may be well meaning, but he is listening to the wrong people. Sometimes idealistic people are known as zealots. I think there are a lot of them in his cabinet.
sd_matt
February 19, 2009 @
7:42 PM
Aecetia
Sure enough on the Aecetia
Sure enough on the wrong people. I remember Bill O’Reilly passing off Obama’s attendance of Wrights church as just politics and not bad judgment. I figured that time would tell on that one. Given the political correctness of the media it is going to take a LONG time for the smoke to clear on this one. I’m not sure that I will be alive to watch an episode of Presidents from the History Channel call Obama for what he is. Well maybe it will after we vote in another black president who actually has a clue.
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @
9:21 AM
Currency crisis ($$) in the Currency crisis ($$) in the next five years is 80% likely and probable path to debasement of debt, which is completely untenable. The economy is badly out of balance. What’s the take-away? Take on as much leveraged, unpayable dollar-denominated debt as possible because in 10 years you’ll be in possession of the underlying assets and will have paid a fraction of their real value?
What a crock of shit this whole situation is, 30 years in the making. The Boomer-centric establishment here in the US has been an epic FAIL and while all this came to pass with bipartisan support, a HUGE AMOUNT OF IT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the GOP sponsored deregulation sponsored in Gramm-Leach-Bliley. If I hear one more Republican jackass predict the end of the world because of Obama… Look yourself in the mirror.
Arraya
February 20, 2009 @
9:32 AM
gandalf wrote:Currency crisis [quote=gandalf]Currency crisis ($$) in the next five years is 80% likely and probable path to debasement of debt, which is completely untenable. The economy is badly out of balance. What’s the take-away? Take on as much leveraged, unpayable dollar-denominated debt as possible because in 10 years you’ll be in possession of the underlying assets and will have paid a fraction of their real value?
What a crock of shit this whole situation is, 30 years in the making. The Boomer-centric establishment here in the US has been an epic FAIL and while all this came to pass with bipartisan support, a HUGE AMOUNT OF IT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the GOP sponsored deregulation sponsored in Gramm-Leach-Bliley. If I hear one more Republican jackass predict the end of the world because of Obama… Look yourself in the mirror.
[/quote]
You don’t see the big “O” repealing that do you? You might want to ask why?
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @
9:56 AM
Okay, okay, okay, Okay, okay, okay, Arraya.
“Uncle!”
Are you happy now?? 😉
Obama’s a tool of the Wall Street establishment — er, I mean Chicago politics — er, I mean liberal anti-war crowd — er, I mean black revolution — er, I mean…
What exactly should we have done otherwise? Vote for Johnny Mac? I like McCain. To be honest, I liked him better ten years ago before he started sucking up to the GOP establishment. But he’s basically an honorable guy.
Problem is today’s GOP is PWNED by talk radio hosts, political operatives and closet-gay religious freaks who are selling our country down the river. Don’t talk to me about fiscal conservatism. The GOP has ZERO credibility on this anymore. Phil Gramm is a complete MORON when it comes to economic matters and he would CERTAINLY be in treasury right now if McCain had won. Carly Fiorina was an AWFUL CEO. She was FIRED! She would have been another CABINET-appointee, telegenic jackass with shit for brains.
WHO has bad judgement??? Obama? Are you joking?
Okay, okay, okay. I’ll settle down.
The world is coming to an end as we know it. I get it.
Heading to CostCo for rice (white not brown, keeps good longer). Stocking up on bullets, flares, gas masks.
I’m even going to move to Idaho — because heck! The income taxes are lower and CA’s demise is imminent right… Huh??!
Arraya: serious question here. Barring a complete re-casting of civilization as we know it, which is pretty extreme you have to admit — what would you do if you were in Obama shoes?
What would you do? Let it fail? Do you realize how many lives that would destroy? We’re talking bread lines and riots and eventually A BIG WAR. Is that what you want? Do you have a family? Kids?
What would you do if you were Obama?
Same question for the GOP types here. What would you do if you were Obama? (Don’t forget, the opposition party is committed to your failure.)
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @
10:01 AM
And on the specific question And on the specific question of repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, I definitely see the rules being rewritten BIG-TIME. Obama can’t just ‘repeal’ it though. Congress has to rewrite the laws.
And I think financial insitutions are going to be HIGHLY REGULATED when all this is done, and possible put into some form of nationalized receivership in the short-term.
And BTW, I don’t mean to be abrasive Arraya. You have good things to say. I just hope you’re wrong about all the chaos to come!! I’m a parent, for christ’s sake…
Aecetia
February 20, 2009 @
12:07 PM
Repeal the stimulus and let Repeal the stimulus and let the silent hand of the market prevail. Do nothing. That would be a big improvement. It is going to take years to undo all the stupidity and cupidity of Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Get out of the way and let economic Darwinism prevail.
afx114
February 20, 2009 @
12:19 PM
Aecetia wrote:Repeal the [quote=Aecetia]Repeal the stimulus and let the silent hand of the market prevail. Do nothing. That would be a big improvement. It is going to take years to undo all the stupidity and cupidity of Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Get out of the way and let economic Darwinism prevail.[/quote]
While this is a fun and easy position to take, it ignores the issue of collateral damage and the law of unintended consequences. Be careful what you ask for, because that silent hand will be up your ass as well. Pragmatism is king.
Aecetia
February 20, 2009 @
12:22 PM
afx, Perhaps you prefer afx, Perhaps you prefer bailing out losers whether they are stupid people who used liar loans to buy more house than they could afford or stupid businesses catering to stupid people. Either way, watch your own backside, because your ass is compromised as well.
As for those who would like to move to Idaho, here is something else to add to the list of things to have:
Aecetia wrote:afx, Perhaps [quote=Aecetia]afx, Perhaps you prefer bailing out losers whether they are stupid people who used liar loans to buy more house than they could afford or stupid businesses catering to stupid people. Either way, watch your own backside, because your ass is compromised as well.[/quote]
No, I don’t prefer bailing out losers. But I also realize that the world is not black and white. I realize that while bailouts are for the most part bad, and I’d prefer for them not to happen, in some situations they are necessary. I don’t like having to pay to replace the brakes on my car either, but if I don’t, I’m destined to crash and burn. I see this as a complex problem with complex solutions, and taking the easy way out, throwing your hands up, and saying “fuck ’em all” is not a reasoned argument and doesn’t add much value to the discussion. It is the reason why anonymous people on the Internets aren’t running things despite the fact that they believe they have all the answers. All bark, no bite. Offer something a little more complex than “blow it all up” and then maybe we can have a reasoned dialogue.
TheBreeze
February 20, 2009 @
5:38 PM
The main problem I have with The main problem I have with the stimulus and the bailouts is that they just seem like a bunch of trickle-down BS. Instead of helping the people who need it most, the government is instead giving money to the super-rich and hoping it trickles down. I’d prefer to see the social safety net for the poorest beefed up as opposed to all of these ridiculous bank bailouts.
A moral society does not let it’s people starve. A moral society also does not give money to dumb people so that they can continue to live above their means. I wish government would focus more on the social safety net and less on bailouts. I thought this would happen with Obama, but he appears to be following the same path as Bush.
Let the banks and businesses fail and provide a moderate safety net for the people. Those people with ambition will use the safety net to build new businesses. Those without ambition can use the social safety net to keep from starving. What we have now is the government propping up a bunch of bad businesses/banks which makes the whole economic system weaker.
Zeitgeist
February 21, 2009 @
10:33 AM
By Jove Breeze, you’ve got By Jove Breeze, you’ve got it, Obama is no different than the two before. He was just packaged and sold as different during the election. Hope and change and a clever campaign do not a statesman make. He is no Lincoln because Lincoln had core beliefs. Obama’s beliefs are those of the marketer, changing with whatever the polls say, based more on the need for approval than an internal guidance system. Obama ran a brilliant campaign and fooled a lot of people. Let’s see how he is doing after his first hundred days. The stock market does not like his economic meanderings…
DWCAP
February 18, 2009 @ 10:57 AM
I cant decide between “not so
I cant decide between “not so great, I expected that’, and ‘It doesnt matter, they are all crooks’. I find both to be true.
afx114
February 18, 2009 @ 11:06 AM
Need an option of “Doing the
Need an option of “Doing the best they can given the circumstances”
Veritas
February 18, 2009 @ 11:15 AM
Guess what he won. The
Guess what he won. The taxpayers lose. Welcome to the redistribution of wealth.
as
February 18, 2009 @ 11:27 AM
Although I don’t agree with
Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.
All bad comes from Bush. He drilled a big deep hole during his 8 years of administration. Now we, the taxpayers are all sucked into the funnel of
the tornado Bush and Cheney created.
NotCranky
February 18, 2009 @ 11:38 AM
as wrote:Although I don’t
[quote=as]Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.
All bad comes from Bush. He drilled a big deep hole during his 8 years of administration. Now we, the taxpayers are all sucked into the funnel of
the tornado Bush and Cheney created.
[/quote]
Bush didn’t cause all the problems but he made things worse and fixed very little about anything, if anything at all.Can anyone name something that he improved? This may come as a shock to some to hear from me, but if he improved military pay, I would say that’s good(fair).
DataAgent
February 18, 2009 @ 11:49 AM
“Can anyone name something
“Can anyone name something that he improved?”
The price of real estate… if you were lucky enough to sell in 2005.
Coronita
February 18, 2009 @ 12:16 PM
Bush did sign into law that
Bush did sign into law that it is illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against you from the results of DNA testing that would reveal future health related issues.
Not saying I liked him, but it was a relevant law.
afx114
February 18, 2009 @ 12:21 PM
I’d like to see the
I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.
NotCranky
February 18, 2009 @ 12:30 PM
afx114 wrote:I’d like to see
[quote=afx114]I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
I would fail miserably at getting elected
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.
There would be no one to thank or appease for it.[/quote]
Arraya
February 18, 2009 @ 12:37 PM
afx114 wrote:
2) Absolute
[quote=afx114]
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.[/quote]
Yeah, absolute proof on a theoretical action. Ok, what is this first grade.
Right, we get it, since we can’t absolutely prove a theoretical action would be better than a real one you always win the argument. Nice
afx114
February 18, 2009 @ 12:40 PM
arraya wrote:Right, we get
[quote=arraya]Right, we get it, since we can’t absolutely prove a theoretical action would be better than a real one you always win the argument. Nic
[/quote]
Yet you have absolute proof that Obama’s actions will fail? Pot, meet kettle.
They were rhetorical questions, which I thought would be obvious. What is this, Kindergarden?
partypup
February 18, 2009 @ 9:46 PM
afx114 wrote:I’d like to see
[quote=afx114]I’d like to see the following:
1) Exactly what everyone would do differently.
2) Absolute proof that what you’d do differently would work.[/quote]
Obama needs to do the following:
1.
(a) Stand back and let the market actually work and stop trying to fix something that is terminally and fatally ill. The strong will rise and weak will be absorbed by them. That’s the way a free market is supposed to actually function. The idea that if we don’t *stimulate* the economy with borrowed crack the entire system will collapse assumes that the coming pain and misery can be avoided. But they cannot be avoided. They are inevitable at this point, and instead of cloaking ourselves in denial and trying to avert the inevitable, we all need to “butch up” and take the pain. The sooner we take it, the sooner we can get on with the business of recovery.
Be clear about this: with or without a gargantuan stimulus package, the U.S. economy is going to COLLAPSE, and all indications point to the fact that this watershed event will happen this year. And the global economy is going to COLLAPSE. But I would rather come out of the collapse with a sound currency (as was the case during the 1929 Depression) than pile on more debt and ensure that our grandchildren are slaves.
(b) Abolish the Fed. NOW.
(c) Return to the gold standard. NOW.
(d) Lower taxes across the board by 10% for all tax brackets.
(e) Dramatically reduce government spending and *stimulation*, and certainly by more than the amount (d) is reduced.
(e) Call for a bank holiday and require ALL banks to open their books to see who is healthy and who needs to be eaten by the healthy. That way, rather than throwing money at zombie banks, money would be given to banks that have only dug themselves into small holes instead of gifting money to banks that have dug themselves into bottomless pits (but won’t admit it).
2. Absent a journey to an alternate universe, how would you recommend that proof of success be presented?
Here’s the question you need to be asking: where is the absolute proof that what Obama IS doing will work? There is no such proof.
Where is the absolute proof that what Obama IS doing will fail? That proof is everywhere around you. Obama has clearly chosen the IMF/World Bank/Federal Reserve/Bilderberger path of endless fiat debt collection that has brought us to the brink of collapse.
Ask yourself if the following strategies have worked:
(a) the 2008 stimulus/rebate checks
(b) endless interest rate cuts by the Fed
(c) unlimited bailouts of financial institutions; and
(d) TARP
The $813 billion stimulus bill is merely step (e) on this rapidly growing list of failures.
Obama has not chosen the path of bold action.
He has simply acted as his Masters have instructed him to, and in doing so he is leading us — with oodles of charm and *hope* — down the last few steps of the path of destruction that Bush set us upon 8 years ago.
The end game is here. No need to fight it at this late date. Just duck and cover.
an
February 18, 2009 @ 11:54 AM
as wrote:Although I don’t
[quote=as]Although I don’t agree with the stimulus package, but he does not have any choice.
If he does not do so, the American economy will crash.[/quote]
That’s what Al Greenspan said in “House of Cards” and see where that got us? Everyone has a choice, including him. He just choose to “stimulate” instead.
Aecetia
February 18, 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Russ, I think Bush improved
Russ, I think Bush improved Iraq because they have a flat tax and we don’t. Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.
cr
February 18, 2009 @ 12:20 PM
Obama will get one pass on
Obama will get one pass on the “we inherited this from Bush” excuse for running this economy further into the ground before it’s on him.
The stimulus is anything but, it won’t create any jobs for at least a year, and is further waste of money we don’t have.
The truth is you can’t blame Bush for the economy, and most of you here if you are honest with yourself recognize this, but Bush talks slow and is an easy target for our countries self-inflicted pain.
The rest of the world isn’t doing too great either.
You can blame Bush for Iraq, fine (even though Congres voted to go to war), but we haven’t been attacked since.
Obama’s stimulus (and let’s call it what it is: payoff for those who got him elected) cost more than the entire Iraq war.
luxuryglow
February 19, 2009 @ 1:21 PM
cooprider wrote:Obama will
[quote=cooprider]Obama will get one pass on the “we inherited this from Bush” excuse for running this economy further into the ground before it’s on him.
The stimulus is anything but, it won’t create any jobs for at least a year, and is further waste of money we don’t have.
The truth is you can’t blame Bush for the economy, and most of you here if you are honest with yourself recognize this, but Bush talks slow and is an easy target for our countries self-inflicted pain.
The rest of the world isn’t doing too great either.
You can blame Bush for Iraq, fine (even though Congres voted to go to war), but we haven’t been attacked since.
Obama’s stimulus (and let’s call it what it is: payoff for those who got him elected) cost more than the entire Iraq war.[/quote]
I agree!
Coronita
February 18, 2009 @ 12:43 PM
I’m actually pretty much
I’m actually pretty much enjoying seeing this administration unravel much quicker than I anticipated. We can count and a more balanced government in about 2 years instead of a 4, when the congressional elections are held.
Alhtough there isn’t any correlation, it’s just funny seeing hte market dump after obama announces his/their plan these days.
Maybe this is just it. A complex ruse by both parties to build a bigger government that everyone counts on.
Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.
CA renter
February 19, 2009 @ 2:47 AM
flu wrote:Nationalizing the
[quote=flu]Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.[/quote]
…because private industry handled things so much better?
Coronita
February 19, 2009 @ 6:57 AM
CA renter wrote:flu
[quote=CA renter][quote=flu]Nationalizing the banks, insurance, health care, auto industry, etc.[/quote]
…because private industry handled things so much better?[/quote]
No, but private industries that fail usually go out of business….Business Darwinism.
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @ 1:32 PM
I voted for Obama. I’ve been
I voted for Obama. I’ve been very disappointed in his financial team. They all come out of the Fed and banking world and have that mindset that if you give the banks enough money it will solve the problem.
Someone asked what I’d do differently.
Geithner made a bit of noise about stress testing the big banks… but it’s not going to happen. Because those are his buddies and they don’t want the crap exposed. If these big banks are going to get huge infusions of money as well as low cost credit – they need to OPEN THEIR BOOKS.
This hope for housing crap is a joke… It seems to be directly designed to benefit banks who mod the non-fannie/freddie loans – if you read the whitehouse Q&A about it, it says that points/fees still apply… so the servicers will get a bonanza from this. The same servicers that wrote the original crappy loans. It truly would be much better to just let forclosures happen and let the dust (and market) settle, without intervention.
I’m tired of intervention by our government with TARP, TALF, stimulus, credit easing, etc. The banks that are too big to fail should be broken up – and let the smaller pieces fail.
I may be a liberal, socially… but I was raised with the concept of personal responsibility. That means accepting that if you made a bad decision – you deal with the consequences.
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @ 1:32 PM
One more thing. I think it
One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.
an
February 18, 2009 @ 1:44 PM
UCGal wrote:One more thing.
[quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
Absolute proof that it would be far worse under McCain. 😀
UCGal
February 18, 2009 @ 1:58 PM
AN wrote:UCGal wrote:One more
[quote=AN][quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
Absolute proof that it would be far worse under McCain. :-D[/quote]
I don’t/can’t have proof. Just my opinion.
Casca
February 18, 2009 @ 2:15 PM
Yes, facing one of the
Yes, facing one of the greatest economic hurdles of history, and our choice of mounts were a couple of nags. Still one promised to make every jump, while the other admitted that he wasn’t so sure. I’d rather have the honest one.
Maybe some good will come out of all of this. Maybe the collective doofi will learn how incompetent government really is. As for the we’ve-never-seen-anything-like-this-before crowd, sure we have. It was 1917, and the savior du jour was some guy named Lenin.
CDMA ENG
February 19, 2009 @ 9:55 AM
UCGal wrote:One more thing.
[quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
I disagree. I think McCain would have been the republican packaging of Obama. Same policies….
Afghanstan/Iraq… Same quagmire…
Economics… Same Same…
And I am with you 100 percent UCGal about being a social democrat and a fiscal republican!
CE
jficquette
February 19, 2009 @ 11:52 AM
UCGal wrote:One more thing.
[quote=UCGal]One more thing. I think it would be far worse under McCain.[/quote]
That’s Bull. McCain wouldn’t have come with $800 Billion in gas and mortgage money.
I can’t believe you really think that under McCain would have been worst. McCain wouldn’t have put a bunch of tax cheating creeps in important jobs as Obama did.
Obama is inept, incompetent and unprofessional. I would like to see Obama land a Jet on a carrier or spend years in POW camp like McCain.
Obama is a Joke.
John
DWCAP
February 18, 2009 @ 1:43 PM
Absolute proof? Is that it
Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
afx114
February 18, 2009 @ 2:13 PM
DWCAP wrote:Absolute proof?
[quote=DWCAP]Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
[/quote]
No. For all I know, and from what I read on here, everything Obama is doing is going to destroy the world. I have no illusions that Obama is the second coming of Lincon or that he will fix everything, but I do know that the answer is far more complicated than “no new taxes! Government is a disease!” It is also far more complicated than “tax the rich! Help for the poor!” My point is that no one has all of the answers, especially all of the armchair presidents and fed chairmen here on Pigginton. Yet everyone seems to think they are such geniuses that they can fix this whole clusterfuck with a couple anonymous posts on a messageboard on the Internets.
It is easy to sit around and point fingers and proclaim ‘miserable failure’ (Google it) about Obama after about a month in office. It is quite another thing to offer your own complex multi-faceted solution on how to fix this complex multi-faceted mess.
I truly would like to know who all the Obama haters would rather have in charge. McCain? Clinton? Ron Paul? Bill Gates? Jesus… err, I mean, Reagan? Lets have some pragmatism here. Obama is our president, and he’s doing his best to fix the problems that he inherited. People are free to believe that Obama is trying to covertly enslave us to the state. I only ask that these people take a step back from their foaming rabid Obama-is-the-downfall-of-America box and offer what they would do differently. Solutions that are more in depth than “cut my taxes!”
Me personally, I have no idea how to fix anything. I’m not an economist. I live frugally and have savings and am waiting to buy a house just like most people here. I’m here to learn. But lately all I learn here is that Obama is the second coming of Marx and that America is doomed to become a nation of Communist slaves.
If Ron Paul (or Grover Norquist, or Buddha) had won the election, would everything be fixed yet? If not, would you be lashing at their throats in the same way that you’re lashing at Obama’s?
partypup
February 18, 2009 @ 9:59 PM
afx114 wrote:DWCAP
[quote=afx114][quote=DWCAP]Absolute proof? Is that it takes now to convice people that maybe Obama doesnt have all the answers and isnt the second coming of Lincoln? AFX, do you have absolute proof that this will do what they claim?
[/quote]
No. For all I know, and from what I read on here, everything Obama is doing is going to destroy the world. I have no illusions that Obama is the second coming of Lincon or that he will fix everything, but I do know that the answer is far more complicated than “no new taxes! Government is a disease!” It is also far more complicated than “tax the rich! Help for the poor!” My point is that no one has all of the answers, especially all of the armchair presidents and fed chairmen here on Pigginton. Yet everyone seems to think they are such geniuses that they can fix this whole clusterfuck with a couple anonymous posts on a messageboard on the Internets.
It is easy to sit around and point fingers and proclaim ‘miserable failure’ (Google it) about Obama after about a month in office. It is quite another thing to offer your own complex multi-faceted solution on how to fix this complex multi-faceted mess.
I truly would like to know who all the Obama haters would rather have in charge. McCain? Clinton? Ron Paul? Bill Gates? Jesus… err, I mean, Reagan? Lets have some pragmatism here. Obama is our president, and he’s doing his best to fix the problems that he inherited. People are free to believe that Obama is trying to covertly enslave us to the state. I only ask that these people take a step back from their foaming rabid Obama-is-the-downfall-of-America box and offer what they would do differently. Solutions that are more in depth than “cut my taxes!”
Me personally, I have no idea how to fix anything. I’m not an economist. I live frugally and have savings and am waiting to buy a house just like most people here. I’m here to learn. But lately all I learn here is that Obama is the second coming of Marx and that America is doomed to become a nation of Communist slaves.
If Ron Paul (or Grover Norquist, or Buddha) had won the election, would everything be fixed yet? If not, would you be lashing at their throats in the same way that you’re lashing at Obama’s?[/quote]
Afx, the criticism of Obama goes much deeper than his (and Geithner’s – has anyone noticed that he has goblin ears?) amateur handling of the economic crisis. This is but a symptom of what appears to be a larger problem with Obama now taking shape before our eyes.
It is the insane and unreasonable expectations raised by Obama throughout his campaign — even as the tell-tale signs of depression were appearing all around us — that evoke such bitterness from his critics.
Had Obama been honest enough to say (a) that most of the jobs that have left this country will NEVER return (McCain acknowledged this) , (b) the oceans weren’t going to *heal* simply because he won the North carolina primary, and in fact our oceans are likely to be sicker than ever due to climate change beyond Obama’s control (c) he was simply going to hire the same group of goons and crooks from the Fed and Wall Street to *fix* the very economic crisis that they created; (d) his cabinet was going to be peppered with lobbyists, Clinton re-treads and tax cheats, and (e) he merely intended to siphon troops from a bogus war in Iraq into another bogus war in Afghanistan (a conflict that cost the Russians tens of thousands of soldiers over a decade), I don’t think people would be this angry and disappointed.
Because they wouldn’t have VOTED for him.
The only thing this guy can *fix* is a Chicago election.
That’s why we despise Obama.
CostaMesa
February 18, 2009 @ 10:09 PM
Welcome to the Grumpy
Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:
partypup
February 18, 2009 @ 10:25 PM
CostaMesa wrote:Welcome to
[quote=CostaMesa]Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:[/quote]
Uh…I’ve been a Democrat for 23 years. I didn’t turn independent until last year.
How does that square with your poorly-thought out and applied epithet?
Arraya
February 18, 2009 @ 10:38 PM
partypup wrote:CostaMesa
[quote=partypup][quote=CostaMesa]Welcome to the Grumpy Republican Losers Whining Incessantly thread.
:rolleyes:[/quote]
Uh…I’ve been a Democrat for 23 years. I didn’t turn independent until last year.
How does that square with your poorly-thought out and applied epithet?
[/quote]
Exactly, people are SO brainwashed…
partypup
February 18, 2009 @ 9:47 PM
I see that “He/they are doing
I see that “He/they are doing great” has actually garnered 2 votes.
I think Breeze must have voted twice 😉
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 @ 10:11 PM
I want to vote for 3 & 5. I
I want to vote for 3 & 5. I am terribly disappointed, but I knew he would suck before he was elected.
The sad thing is that they are all crooks. Witness the Kabuki theater taking place in Sacramento. They are all corrupt and no longer represent the people. They only represent special interests.
The Turtle
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @ 12:55 AM
Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are
Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are pretty much ass-clowns these days.
Things are going from bad to worse. Our financial institutions are massively insolvent and our broader economy is badly out of balance. It’s an enormous (and dangerous) problem and it will take a decade to unwind.
BTW, when did Obama take office? Couple of weeks ago?
No doubt in my mind McCain would have been worse. You want proof positive? Phil Gramm in Treasury. GOP are not to be taken seriously these days. Sorry bunch of sad-sack, used-up ass-clowns.
UCGal, I agree with you. Wish I could say otherwise but I’m not impressed with Obama’s economics team so far, mainly because of Geithner. He’s an insider, a tax cheat, and more of the same. And Sumners is a Carly Fiorina-style Harvard reject. We need some ‘talent’ in there.
However, I don’t know what I would do otherwise. This is a massive disaster. First stabilize, then try to inflate and debase the systemic imbalances. Hope it unwinds peaceably over the long-term. The risks are on the downside and it’s absolutely scary when you get your mind around what CAN happen.
Anybody else catch word that the $1/2T money-market withdrawals last September were Chinese? Makes you think, huh? (Or maybe it doesn’t.)
Economy was always the end-game. The world will be different in 25 years and if you think Iraq is the big ‘battlefield’, you’re a fool. If you don’t see that our country is massively at risk, you’re a fool. We are absolutely in a mess that’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Turning Obama into some sort of bogeyman is not helpful. GOP should shut the fuck up and start participating in a constructive bi-partisan outcome because that’s the best we can hope for right now.
One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.
rnen
February 19, 2009 @ 7:06 AM
gandalf wrote:Pretty funny.
[quote=gandalf]Pretty funny. Yeah, GOP are pretty much ass-clowns these days.
Things are going from bad to worse. Our financial institutions are massively insolvent and our broader economy is badly out of balance. It’s an enormous (and dangerous) problem and it will take a decade to unwind.
BTW, when did Obama take office? Couple of weeks ago?
No doubt in my mind McCain would have been worse. You want proof positive? Phil Gramm in Treasury. GOP are not to be taken seriously these days. Sorry bunch of sad-sack, used-up ass-clowns.
UCGal, I agree with you. Wish I could say otherwise but I’m not impressed with Obama’s economics team so far, mainly because of Geithner. He’s an insider, a tax cheat, and more of the same. And Sumners is a Carly Fiorina-style Harvard reject. We need some ‘talent’ in there.
However, I don’t know what I would do otherwise. This is a massive disaster. First stabilize, then try to inflate and debase the systemic imbalances. Hope it unwinds peaceably over the long-term. The risks are on the downside and it’s absolutely scary when you get your mind around what CAN happen.
Anybody else catch word that the $1/2T money-market withdrawals last September were Chinese? Makes you think, huh? (Or maybe it doesn’t.)
Economy was always the end-game. The world will be different in 25 years and if you think Iraq is the big ‘battlefield’, you’re a fool. If you don’t see that our country is massively at risk, you’re a fool. We are absolutely in a mess that’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Turning Obama into some sort of bogeyman is not helpful. GOP should shut the fuck up and start participating in a constructive bi-partisan outcome because that’s the best we can hope for right now.
One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.[/quote]
I find it amusing that when a persons party of choice is in power NOW is the time for the GOP to shut the fuck up! I don’t care which party is in power… the GOP has a RESPONSIBILITY to be CRITICAL and SUPPORTIVE when they feel it is the best interest of the country. What is the freaking point of having more than one party otherwise?
In your mind,(as well as mine and a ton of others) Bush was a dismal failure… did you “shut the fuck up ” and support him?
Ummm, ya, I thought not.
NotCranky
February 19, 2009 @ 7:45 AM
In the house 246 dems voted
In the house 246 dems voted for the stimulus bill and all 176 Republicans voted against. It can’t be that good and that bad for Americans at the same time?Yes, know they vote in blocks. This show however, that very few people set the agenda and our representatives just follow. I don’t think a no vote is much different than a yes vote anyway. It shows the repective constiutents “see I voted the way you elected me:, that’s all. The agenda passes all the time.
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @ 9:18 AM
Actually, rnen, if you think
Actually, rnen, if you think back to the beginning of Bush’s term, he had quite an opportunity to get started in his term. The honeymoon period was extended after 9/11, high approval ratings and so forth, and you can count me in with the crowd that approved.
It was only in 2003 that the hyper-partisan agenda and tactics that characterized Bush’s presidency started to emerge for the general public, as well as gross incompetence and dishonesty.
My comments are not about suppressing dissent. What the GOP is doing right now 30-some odd days into a Democratic preaidency is not patriotic dissent, it’s a calculated political maneuver and most of the public sees it for what it is. That’s the issue for me. Rush ‘dickhead’ Limbaugh said it himself, “He hopes Obama fails.”
If we get 4-years down the road and Obama failed, we’re some deep shit. Most everybody realizes this. The independent, moderate middle couldn’t give a shit about GOP versus Dems.
rnen
February 19, 2009 @ 10:41 AM
gandalf wrote:Actually, rnen,
[quote=gandalf]Actually, rnen, if you think back to the beginning of Bush’s term, he had quite an opportunity to get started in his term. The honeymoon period was extended after 9/11, high approval ratings and so forth, and you can count me in with the crowd that approved.
It was only in 2003 that the hyper-partisan agenda and tactics that characterized Bush’s presidency started to emerge for the general public, as well as gross incompetence and dishonesty.
My comments are not about suppressing dissent. What the GOP is doing right now 30-some odd days into a Democratic preaidency is not patriotic dissent, it’s a calculated political maneuver and most of the public sees it for what it is. That’s the issue for me. Rush ‘dickhead’ Limbaugh said it himself, “He hopes Obama fails.”
If we get 4-years down the road and Obama failed, we’re some deep shit. Most everybody realizes this. The independent, moderate middle couldn’t give a shit about GOP versus Dems.
[/quote]
Let me state in advance…I am NOT a Rush “ditto head”. That being said I do not think Obama is on the right path, his leaning to bigger government, more entitlement programs and his policies in general are less conservative than my liking so I do NOT want his policies to succeed either. In that respect I agree with Limbaugh, I would like Obama to succeed as President but not with his current policies. Make sense?
Does this make me unpatriotic?
It is also my opinion that Obama has started his term by ramming down the throats of the tax payers not only the biggest bill in history but also one of the most dishonest. Is there anyone on this forum that can say that the President kept his word when he said the stimulas bill would contain no pork or ear marks? Is there anyone on this forum that can say that this is a pure stimulas bill?
IMHO he is no better than Bush in that he has used the fear of the public to pass bills that never would have made it through the regular process…. just as Bush did after 911.
Is this the type of leadership that moderates and independents were looking for?
Am I way off base here?
afx114
February 19, 2009 @ 10:52 AM
rnen wrote:Is there anyone on
[quote=rnen]Is there anyone on this forum that can say that the President kept his word when he said the stimulas bill would contain no pork or ear marks?
[/quote]
I guess that depends on your definition of ‘pork.’ People seem to define pork as ‘something that does not benefit me directly.’ In other words, to some person in Ohio, a maglev train from Anaheim to Vegas is pork. But to a cocktail waitress in Vegas, that train is going to bring customers to her place of work, which leads to tips in her pocket. To her, a Vegas bullet train is not pork, it is a job and an income.
So if you really break it down, everything in the stimulus is both pork and not pork at the same time.
What specifics in the bill would you refer to as pork?
P.S., thank you for not saying ‘porkulus’
Arraya
February 19, 2009 @ 11:06 AM
One more thing, we need to
One more thing, we need to solve the energy issue NOW. It’s a big-time national security matter. Half the stimulus should have been ENERGY-related. I want electric cars made in USA and powered by clean renewable AMERICAN energy sources. That’s the way forward. Massive stimulus into energy-related R&D and business development. That’s what we should be doing.
Gandolf, I think the only solution in the short term is going to a lower energy lifestyle. Not that we should not continue research, but it is a little late to count on a new technology. Robert Hersh did a report for the USG regarding peak oil back in 2005. Google, Hersh report. He said we need at least 20 years of mitigation to avoid disaster. Well, we peaked 2005-2008. There was at least a dozen think tanks around the world that came out with similar reports in the past few years. It’s like the dirty little secret that nobody talks about in the open. This is not a healthy situation. See Cheney Energy Task Force for examples and maps of oil fields. Iraq was our energy policy. It’s not hard to figure out. This was a bipartisan decision.
Energy and money are two sides of the same coin. One is more real than the other, though. You can’t print oil and that is all that matters. Nature is in deflation and a harsh task master.
The monetary system is broken beyond repair. It is no longer relevant with declining energy and no replacements. It’s a grow or die system. There is no more growth and a tremendous amount of debt that is not going to get paid back. This is a big geo-political stress.
There are a few better ideas on how to handle money. IMO, the gold standard is one though I don’t think the answer. It’s time to move forward. A commodity based currency with a steady state economy is a better, IMO. See herman daly for details, he used to work for the world bank and got ran off and called a heretic because he did not think the monetary system was sustainable.
Concept for cashless society and resource base economy. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
Dr. Martenson does a pretty good job of explaining the compounding effects of energy and our monetary system. This is strictly a scientific look.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Money and the Crisis of Civilization
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=93902
Obama, is just a friendly face on a falling empire. Like Bush, he does not appear to have much power.
From 2005<--While peak oil is a lifestyle change for the whole world it is only a disaster within the constructs of our monetary system or if we keep fighting for the remaining reserves. http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031005_globalcorp.shtml
From LEAP, last week.
ttp://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-32-is-available!-4th-quarter-2009-Beginning-of-Phase-5-of-the-global-systemic-crisis-phase-of-global-geopolitical_a2805.html?PHPSESSID=7f96eb38796490220a969131e624599e
From Dimtry Orlov. What we need to do in the short term.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
We have to pull away from the central banking system and the way money works has to change and will whether we like it or not. You just can’t beat physics. Most economist are like priests following their own economic dogma. It is not a science. Our monetary system is not rational.
Wall Street and the politicos are either pretending and have secret plans or are completely mad or just stupid. Probably a combination I think most are caught like a deer in headlights and few others are making get away plans. It is reported that Bush bought a 100K acre ranch in Uruguay.
The bubble is not hard to understand why it happened. The monetary system has a PONZI scheme dynamic and the guys that make the money pushed the politicians and banks to practically state mandate debt growth so the system would not collapse. It’s too big, there is too much debt and an immense amount of new debt creation has to be made to keep it from becoming dysfunctional. Amount of debt goes hand in hand with the amount of money, If people did what was good for them the system would be dysfunctional. This is an unhealthy dynamic. Mish, just did a piece of the monetary system today. I have said this a dozen times on here.
Borrowers have to pay interest on the amount borrowed. However, the interest and the debt cannot possibly be paid back except by an ever expanding Ponzi scheme of lending. That scheme can last only as long as everyone believes the debt can be paid back and the market value of that debt keeps rising.
China wants away from the dollar they have made that apparent. They just lent Russia 25 billion for an energy contract. Yup, thats right no market. That is an alliance along with Iran and Venezuela. It’s happening in the next .5-3 years at some point. The dollar collapse is imminent.
Israel is still saying it is going to attack Iran. If they do this it would be very very bad. Alliances have been made.
This is not partisan, it is common sense. The monetary system can and will not last. Our leaders are worthless, they have no creativity and no desire except power.
The tattered veneer of easy wealth is quickly evaporating, like a magician that pulls a table cloth over an object and makes it disappear, so goes our economy. Wooosh!
Welcome to the real world.
Get to know your neighbors your most likely going to need them. Start community action groups. Life is about to come calling, the real one. Not the pretend one we have been living.
partypup
February 19, 2009 @ 6:52 PM
[quote=arraya
From LEAP, last
[quote=arraya
From LEAP, last week.
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-32-is-available!-4th-quarter-2009-Beginning-of-Phase-5-of-the-global-systemic-crisis-phase-of-global-geopolitical_a2805.html?PHPSESSID=7f96eb38796490220a969131e624599e
partypup
February 19, 2009 @ 6:53 PM
Oh, and Arraya – you rock
Oh, and Arraya – you rock 🙂
Arraya
February 19, 2009 @ 8:33 PM
partypup
[quote=partypup][quote=arraya
From LEAP, last week.
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-32-is-available!-4th-quarter-2009-Beginning-of-Phase-5-of-the-global-systemic-crisis-phase-of-global-geopolitical_a2805.html?PHPSESSID=7f96eb38796490220a969131e624599e
TheBreeze
February 19, 2009 @ 9:44 PM
So the dollar is going to
So the dollar is going to crash and US dollar denominated assets are going to crash too? Isn’t there an inverse relationship between those two things? Wouldn’t a crashing dollar cause asset prices to rise and vice versa?
TheBreeze
February 19, 2009 @ 9:51 PM
As to the original question,
As to the original question, Obama has performed magnificently. It will just take time for it to sink in to you plebes what a great President Obama is/will be.
an
February 19, 2009 @ 11:14 PM
TheBreeze wrote:As to the
[quote=TheBreeze]As to the original question, Obama has performed magnificently. It will just take time for it to sink in to you plebes what a great President Obama is/will be.[/quote]
[quote=TheBreeze]Holy Jesus! Obama is really showing his ineptitude. Man I actually thought he would be a decent president but this guy can’t find his ass with both hands. His Commerce Secretary effectively resigned before ever being confirmed:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashgg.htm
Unbelievable! This guy’s going to be worse than Chimpy. He’s Chimpy the Lesser.
In case you can’t tell, I’ve jumped off the Big O’s bandwagon. [/quote]
‘nough said.
TheBreeze
February 20, 2009 @ 8:38 AM
I’m trying out a new strategy
I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish.
rnen
February 20, 2009 @ 9:18 AM
TheBreeze wrote:I’m trying
[quote=TheBreeze]I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish. [/quote]
Just like Obama! :0
Arraya
February 20, 2009 @ 9:29 AM
rnen wrote:TheBreeze
[quote=rnen][quote=TheBreeze]I’m trying out a new strategy where I say two things that are completely contradictory. One of them is bound to be rightish. [/quote]
Just like Obama! :0[/quote]
LOL
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @ 2:36 PM
No problem, rnen. On the
No problem, rnen. On the issues, selection of cabinet members, to bail or not to bail, transparency, etc. — these are legitimate questions, debates, positions, etc. You would admit as well, the difficulty-level of what we’re facing right now is immense, and the GOP talking points are steady “Look what a terrible job Obama’s doing.” These guys have been on the job what, like four weeks? It’s manufactured outrage.
I’d like to say the Obama Admin is going to succeed, but I don’t know the answer to that. Nobody does. And I won’t. I don’t like Geithner in Treasury. But that doesn’t mean I hope they fail. They might fail. If they do, I hope it’s for genuine reasons, like Geithner is a tool of Wall Street, not because a bunch of calculating GOP politicians undermine him the whole way with ‘message wars’ and end up wrecking the country as a result.
GOP really needs to focus on contributing more than attack lines, opposition research and propoganda. How about actual leadership for a change? In 2008, that would have decided elections. Obama has an opportunity to be a good leader, and I think most of us would like to see if that happens before kneecapping him out of the gate.
gandalf
February 19, 2009 @ 2:58 PM
Arraya, your comments are
Arraya, your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. All I have to say is I hope you’re not right.
With Peak Oil, you’re not far off the mark. In truth, there are a couple of incremental adjustments to the original PO predictions, technology has pushed things out slightly, but this is perhaps a decade at most. East Asian growth has erased much of the original advances.
On sustainability, we can and should learn to live more ‘conservative’ lifestyles (odd to see this term in its original intended context). However, fitting under the severe resource constraints you’re speaking of will lead to dislocation, poverty, widespread violence and war.
There is a more peaceful way forward, through science and technology, sources of energy that we have not yet learned to tap, perhaps renewable and green. It’s the way out of the long-term resource constraints of the ‘Oil Age’. I don’t know what’s next, but I pray it’s not World War III and communal living in the toxic wasteland that follows. We need to do better and energy is the key.
Aecetia
February 19, 2009 @ 4:00 PM
I wish he was just a joke. He
I wish he was just a joke. He is a dangerous socialist surrounded by even more dangerous political operatives who are going to grow government at the expense of working people everywhere. They want to level the playing field (social engineering) for all but the ruling elite who will continue to lie and cheat. Look at what the DOW is doing today. Oh yeah, that is Bush’s fault.
sd_matt
February 19, 2009 @ 6:30 PM
At best I would call Obama an
At best I would call Obama an idealistic, sincere, well-meaning idiot with a gift for gab.
Have you noticed the change in the tone of his voice nowadays? It doesn’t sound so certain.
Aecetia
February 19, 2009 @ 6:38 PM
I have noticed the change and
I have noticed the change and he may be well meaning, but he is listening to the wrong people. Sometimes idealistic people are known as zealots. I think there are a lot of them in his cabinet.
sd_matt
February 19, 2009 @ 7:42 PM
Aecetia
Sure enough on the
Aecetia
Sure enough on the wrong people. I remember Bill O’Reilly passing off Obama’s attendance of Wrights church as just politics and not bad judgment. I figured that time would tell on that one. Given the political correctness of the media it is going to take a LONG time for the smoke to clear on this one. I’m not sure that I will be alive to watch an episode of Presidents from the History Channel call Obama for what he is. Well maybe it will after we vote in another black president who actually has a clue.
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @ 9:21 AM
Currency crisis ($$) in the
Currency crisis ($$) in the next five years is 80% likely and probable path to debasement of debt, which is completely untenable. The economy is badly out of balance. What’s the take-away? Take on as much leveraged, unpayable dollar-denominated debt as possible because in 10 years you’ll be in possession of the underlying assets and will have paid a fraction of their real value?
What a crock of shit this whole situation is, 30 years in the making. The Boomer-centric establishment here in the US has been an epic FAIL and while all this came to pass with bipartisan support, a HUGE AMOUNT OF IT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the GOP sponsored deregulation sponsored in Gramm-Leach-Bliley. If I hear one more Republican jackass predict the end of the world because of Obama… Look yourself in the mirror.
Arraya
February 20, 2009 @ 9:32 AM
gandalf wrote:Currency crisis
[quote=gandalf]Currency crisis ($$) in the next five years is 80% likely and probable path to debasement of debt, which is completely untenable. The economy is badly out of balance. What’s the take-away? Take on as much leveraged, unpayable dollar-denominated debt as possible because in 10 years you’ll be in possession of the underlying assets and will have paid a fraction of their real value?
What a crock of shit this whole situation is, 30 years in the making. The Boomer-centric establishment here in the US has been an epic FAIL and while all this came to pass with bipartisan support, a HUGE AMOUNT OF IT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the GOP sponsored deregulation sponsored in Gramm-Leach-Bliley. If I hear one more Republican jackass predict the end of the world because of Obama… Look yourself in the mirror.
[/quote]
You don’t see the big “O” repealing that do you? You might want to ask why?
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @ 9:56 AM
Okay, okay, okay,
Okay, okay, okay, Arraya.
“Uncle!”
Are you happy now?? 😉
Obama’s a tool of the Wall Street establishment — er, I mean Chicago politics — er, I mean liberal anti-war crowd — er, I mean black revolution — er, I mean…
What exactly should we have done otherwise? Vote for Johnny Mac? I like McCain. To be honest, I liked him better ten years ago before he started sucking up to the GOP establishment. But he’s basically an honorable guy.
Problem is today’s GOP is PWNED by talk radio hosts, political operatives and closet-gay religious freaks who are selling our country down the river. Don’t talk to me about fiscal conservatism. The GOP has ZERO credibility on this anymore. Phil Gramm is a complete MORON when it comes to economic matters and he would CERTAINLY be in treasury right now if McCain had won. Carly Fiorina was an AWFUL CEO. She was FIRED! She would have been another CABINET-appointee, telegenic jackass with shit for brains.
WHO has bad judgement??? Obama? Are you joking?
Okay, okay, okay. I’ll settle down.
The world is coming to an end as we know it. I get it.
Heading to CostCo for rice (white not brown, keeps good longer). Stocking up on bullets, flares, gas masks.
I’m even going to move to Idaho — because heck! The income taxes are lower and CA’s demise is imminent right… Huh??!
Arraya: serious question here. Barring a complete re-casting of civilization as we know it, which is pretty extreme you have to admit — what would you do if you were in Obama shoes?
What would you do? Let it fail? Do you realize how many lives that would destroy? We’re talking bread lines and riots and eventually A BIG WAR. Is that what you want? Do you have a family? Kids?
What would you do if you were Obama?
Same question for the GOP types here. What would you do if you were Obama? (Don’t forget, the opposition party is committed to your failure.)
gandalf
February 20, 2009 @ 10:01 AM
And on the specific question
And on the specific question of repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, I definitely see the rules being rewritten BIG-TIME. Obama can’t just ‘repeal’ it though. Congress has to rewrite the laws.
And I think financial insitutions are going to be HIGHLY REGULATED when all this is done, and possible put into some form of nationalized receivership in the short-term.
And BTW, I don’t mean to be abrasive Arraya. You have good things to say. I just hope you’re wrong about all the chaos to come!! I’m a parent, for christ’s sake…
Aecetia
February 20, 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Repeal the stimulus and let
Repeal the stimulus and let the silent hand of the market prevail. Do nothing. That would be a big improvement. It is going to take years to undo all the stupidity and cupidity of Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Get out of the way and let economic Darwinism prevail.
afx114
February 20, 2009 @ 12:19 PM
Aecetia wrote:Repeal the
[quote=Aecetia]Repeal the stimulus and let the silent hand of the market prevail. Do nothing. That would be a big improvement. It is going to take years to undo all the stupidity and cupidity of Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Get out of the way and let economic Darwinism prevail.[/quote]
While this is a fun and easy position to take, it ignores the issue of collateral damage and the law of unintended consequences. Be careful what you ask for, because that silent hand will be up your ass as well. Pragmatism is king.
Aecetia
February 20, 2009 @ 12:22 PM
afx, Perhaps you prefer
afx, Perhaps you prefer bailing out losers whether they are stupid people who used liar loans to buy more house than they could afford or stupid businesses catering to stupid people. Either way, watch your own backside, because your ass is compromised as well.
As for those who would like to move to Idaho, here is something else to add to the list of things to have:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,213971.0/topicseen.html
afx114
February 20, 2009 @ 12:49 PM
Aecetia wrote:afx, Perhaps
[quote=Aecetia]afx, Perhaps you prefer bailing out losers whether they are stupid people who used liar loans to buy more house than they could afford or stupid businesses catering to stupid people. Either way, watch your own backside, because your ass is compromised as well.[/quote]
No, I don’t prefer bailing out losers. But I also realize that the world is not black and white. I realize that while bailouts are for the most part bad, and I’d prefer for them not to happen, in some situations they are necessary. I don’t like having to pay to replace the brakes on my car either, but if I don’t, I’m destined to crash and burn. I see this as a complex problem with complex solutions, and taking the easy way out, throwing your hands up, and saying “fuck ’em all” is not a reasoned argument and doesn’t add much value to the discussion. It is the reason why anonymous people on the Internets aren’t running things despite the fact that they believe they have all the answers. All bark, no bite. Offer something a little more complex than “blow it all up” and then maybe we can have a reasoned dialogue.
TheBreeze
February 20, 2009 @ 5:38 PM
The main problem I have with
The main problem I have with the stimulus and the bailouts is that they just seem like a bunch of trickle-down BS. Instead of helping the people who need it most, the government is instead giving money to the super-rich and hoping it trickles down. I’d prefer to see the social safety net for the poorest beefed up as opposed to all of these ridiculous bank bailouts.
A moral society does not let it’s people starve. A moral society also does not give money to dumb people so that they can continue to live above their means. I wish government would focus more on the social safety net and less on bailouts. I thought this would happen with Obama, but he appears to be following the same path as Bush.
Let the banks and businesses fail and provide a moderate safety net for the people. Those people with ambition will use the safety net to build new businesses. Those without ambition can use the social safety net to keep from starving. What we have now is the government propping up a bunch of bad businesses/banks which makes the whole economic system weaker.
Zeitgeist
February 21, 2009 @ 10:33 AM
By Jove Breeze, you’ve got
By Jove Breeze, you’ve got it, Obama is no different than the two before. He was just packaged and sold as different during the election. Hope and change and a clever campaign do not a statesman make. He is no Lincoln because Lincoln had core beliefs. Obama’s beliefs are those of the marketer, changing with whatever the polls say, based more on the need for approval than an internal guidance system. Obama ran a brilliant campaign and fooled a lot of people. Let’s see how he is doing after his first hundred days. The stock market does not like his economic meanderings…