Lucky... 0 #26 November 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Not sure if it has much to do with the past. Barry took 4 months to pick a damn dog. Priorities. Exactly what real crisis would you have had him push to the back burner so he could find a pet for his kids; Iran, Iraq, the economy? If it took him that long to pick a dog, no WONDER it's taking him forever to figure out what to do about the war. He pulls out, he alienates trash like Lieberman, who appears to be down on HC anyway, but if they threaten his chair positions he should roll - then Obama pulls out after HC and Lieberman feels betrayed - that's what will happen. Then the tax increases, my friends. Job'll be rollin and the sun will be shining Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #27 November 5, 2009 The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. Nothing......^..................................800 Billion I'd say the mark lies here.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 November 5, 2009 he's wrecking the economy on purpose. No, it was wrecked when he got here, how can you say he's further wrecking itt when his actions have pulled teh GDp out of the gutter? He's doing a pretty shitty job trashing the economy, maybe he should give GWB a call or see if he can summon Reagan's ghost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 November 5, 2009 Quote Quote Let's look at Reagan; tax cuts my friends and money supply contraction, which led to 10.8 unemployment and a prolonged mess. How quickly we forget the peanut farmer Most of the entire 70's were a POS fiscally. OPEC was teh biggest driver of all that crap, but at least Carter didn't cut taxes from 70% to 50% and ultimatley to 28% driving us into massive debt. Reagan's reaction to those horrible economic times was errant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 November 5, 2009 QuoteEconomy -----GDP fixed -----Market fixed -----Unemp bleeding stopped Only you would assume those things wouldn't have righted themselves without gov't interdiction. How did it work when your party ruined the economy the only time worse? Hoover cut taxes, my friends and 12 million died. The market wasn't about to correct, other than to reduce the number of people in America by way of starvation. Unem,p drove to 25% and was climbing, the GDP had several Q's of negative growth with no leveling. So if you think this majoc wand of self-correction then you must also allow your car to repair itself rather than fixing it yourself or taking it to the shop. It's old, cliche and flat errant to let something of the proportion we were just in "Correct itself." I almost wished tax cuts my friends would have been elected, that way we could go thru what they did in the early 30's and be guaranteed Dems for the next 20-30 years. Your claim is w/o any support, I have supported mine with historical reference, I don't expect the same from you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 November 5, 2009 QuoteThe truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. Nothing......^..................................800 Billion I'd say the mark lies here. The really stupid irony here is that if Obama had done a tax cuts my friends, things would have gotten worse and then you would blame him for not doing enough or not doing the right things. As it is, the early indicators are great and fast, so all you do is whine about the cost. And if he could have fixed the whole mess for free and it took 2 weeks, you find something new to bitch about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #32 November 5, 2009 Quote Quote but not CNN.com. Hmmm maybe others are catching on to his BS? You win for being the only one to understand what I'm trying to point out here. I don't necessarily think it's because their eyes are suddenly open. I think CNN is seeing Fox News' success and attempting to emulate them. They even did a facelift on CNN.com within the last couple of weeks.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #33 November 5, 2009 Quote Economy -----GDP fixed -----Market fixed -----Unemp bleeding stopped Wow, REALLY? REALLY? GDP for Q3 isn't even finalized, and one quarter of growth after a couple years of falling is not fixed in my book. Let's see how retail does after Q4 (their busiest time due to the holidays) compared to the last 5 years. tour and travel industry is WAY down, which 1/8th of jobs are tied to. the dow has barely been flirting with 10,000 for a couple weeks, all it means is some markets are temporarily stable, and we're far cry from over 14 where it was not too long ago. This thing can go either way- housing is still shot, subsequently ruining the home furnishings market. We've had over 100 banks close THIS YEAR, CIT group just filed... Out here unemp is still on the rise at over 12%, and nationally it aint a much more pretty picture. Yeah, a lot of this stuff began when Bush was in office, agreed. I think a lot has to do with factors outside politics, however Obama is in over his head in my opinion and the moves he can make are going to have a solid impact on how this plays out. I think you are drastically overstating the situation when you claim ANYTHING is "fixed." we may stablize for a while AT BEST, this thing is not going to magically turn around because Obama spent a trillion dollars. We f*cked ourselves and I think when we look back in a few years, the overall picture will be close to or even worse than the 30's...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #34 November 5, 2009 >we may stablize for a while AT BEST . . . ?? The economy will continue to cycle as it always has. This stimulus effort, at best, will slightly speed the arrival of the next upswing. Despite what the left (or the right) thinks, the economy isn't really under the government's control. They have a distant influence at best. >and I think when we look back in a few years, the overall picture will be >close to or even worse than the 30's... Hmm. Given that we have bottomed out and are starting to recover in terms of several key indicators, I tend to doubt that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #35 November 5, 2009 I mostly agree with your first statement, except i think he added unnecessary stimulus that is just going to go to waste. Second, i think we are going to waffle for a long while, potentially fall back down again. There are so many factors at stake here, some of which take a while for an effect to be felt, i dont think anyone has a clear picture of what is really happening. Hopefully youre right ont his point and I'm wrong. the facts of all the 'crashing' over the last 12 months can't be ignored, we could just be in an economic state of shock. I'm not an economist so this is just my opinion, I'd just be VERY careful right now to claim any economic successes.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #36 November 6, 2009 Quote>we may stablize for a while AT BEST . . . ?? The economy will continue to cycle as it always has. This stimulus effort, at best, will slightly speed the arrival of the next upswing. Despite what the left (or the right) thinks, the economy isn't really under the government's control. They have a distant influence at best. How can you support a trillion dollar stimulus spending spree and at the same time admit the economy isn't really under the government's control? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #37 November 6, 2009 >How can you support a trillion dollar stimulus spending spree and at the >same time admit the economy isn't really under the government's >control? From an earlier post: ======================== >(could we have done without the stimulus?) We could have, although the economy would have recovered more slowly. Does that mean it was worth it? Hard to say. If the economy improves at a rate fast enough that the money is recovered quickly, it probably was. If the debt service overwhelms that recovery, then probably not. There are some other ancillary benefits (improved infrastructure supports economic growth) and drawbacks (keeping unhealthy companies alive = fewer healthy companies) as well. ========================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 November 6, 2009 Quote>How can you support a trillion dollar stimulus spending spree and at the >same time admit the economy isn't really under the government's >control? From an earlier post: ======================== >(could we have done without the stimulus?) We could have, although the economy would have recovered more slowly. Does that mean it was worth it? Hard to say. If the economy improves at a rate fast enough that the money is recovered quickly, it probably was. If the debt service overwhelms that recovery, then probably not. There are some other ancillary benefits (improved infrastructure supports economic growth) and drawbacks (keeping unhealthy companies alive = fewer healthy companies) as well. ========================== When we had a policy of providing government stimulus during recessions and PAYING BACK when the economy was in good shape, the cycles weren't too severe. Once the policy became to continue to outspend revenues even during the good times (Voodoo Economics, (C) GHW Bush) this outcome was inevitable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
