The Economy Thread

[SentinelMind]

‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business: Kevin Hassett


Commentary by Kevin Hassett



March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

There are two steps to accomplish that.

Discourage Innovation

First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.

Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted. These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.

A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.

Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so slow to act that even liberal economist and commentator Paul Krugman is criticizing the administration for “dithering.” It has gotten so bad that the Intrade prediction market now has a future on whether Geithner is gone by year’s end. It currently puts the chance of that at about 20 percent.

No More Deferral

On the tax hike, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget quite ominously signaled that he intends to end or significantly amend the U.S. practice of allowing U.S. multinationals to defer U.S. taxes on income that they earn abroad.

Currently, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax on Earth. U.S. firms can compete in Europe by opening a subsidiary in a low-tax country and locating the profits there. Since the high U.S. tax applies only when the money is mailed home, and firms can let the money sit abroad for as long as they want, the big disadvantage of the high rate is muted significantly.

End that deferral opportunity and U.S. firms will no longer be able to compete, given their huge tax disadvantage. With foreign tax rates so low now, it is even possible that the end of deferral could lead to the extinction of the U.S. corporation.

If any firms are to remain, they will be festooned with massive carbon-permit expenses because of Obama’s new cap-and- trade program.

Importing Drugs

Obama’s attack on intellectual property is evident in his aggressive stance against U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the budget. He would force drug companies to pay higher “rebate” fees to Medicaid, and he included wording that suggests Americans will soon be able to import drugs from foreign countries. The stock prices of drug companies, predictably, tanked when his budget plan was released.

Obama will allow cheap and potentially counterfeit substitutes into the country and will set the U.S. price for drugs equal to the lowest price that any foreign government is able to coerce from our drugmakers.

Given this, why would anyone invest money in a risky new cancer trial, or bother inventing some other new thing that the government could expropriate as soon as it decides to?

Finally, Obama has set aside $634 billion to establish a health-reform reserve fund, a major first step in creating a universal health-care system. If you want to have health care for everyone, you have to give it to many people for free. Once we start doing that, we will never stop, at least until the government runs out of money.

It’s clear that President Obama wants the best for our country. That makes it all the more puzzling that he would legislate like a Manchurian Candidate.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: March 9, 2009 00:01 EDT


Interesting article....I agree with most of it. The part I'm not sure I agree with is position on importing foriegn drugs. While I understand other countries have governments that engage in price controls of prescription drugs, should our government engage in tariffs or bans of foriegn products to combat this? Wouldn't this be taking an anti-free trade position simply to benefit US prescription drug companies? If our drugs are better, shouldn't this value be realized in the marketplace?

[BlackLantern]

Jon Stewart is handing Jim Cramer his balls on The Daily Show

[ShadowBoxing]

Wow, Jon Stewart is the man.

[Alex The Great]

John Stewert is the best :up:

[hippie_hunter]

(March 12) – President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world's largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama's popularity ratings with the general public.

On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said.

Geithner received an average grade of 51, while Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71, the paper said.

On average, the economists now expect the economic downturn to end in October, according to the paper. In the previous survey, they had expected the bottom would arrive in August.

The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

The economists' negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion, the paper said. In December, before Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration's economic team was better than the departing team under former President George W. Bush.

Geithner's latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January, the paper said.

"We have taken an unprecedented level of action toward economic recovery, accomplishing in weeks what took other countries years to do," the paper cited Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker as saying.

"While Wall Street and investors were disappointed when they didn't get a sweeping bank bailout, we've laid out a plan to stabilize the financial system while protecting the taxpayer and ensuring government funds are spent wisely," Baker said, according to the paper.

"This crisis was years in the making, and it will take time to solve."

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-economy/380586

[hippie_hunter]

(March 12) – President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world's largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama's popularity ratings with the general public.

On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said.

Geithner received an average grade of 51, while Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71, the paper said.

On average, the economists now expect the economic downturn to end in October, according to the paper. In the previous survey, they had expected the bottom would arrive in August.

The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

The economists' negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion, the paper said. In December, before Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration's economic team was better than the departing team under former President George W. Bush.

Geithner's latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January, the paper said.

"We have taken an unprecedented level of action toward economic recovery, accomplishing in weeks what took other countries years to do," the paper cited Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker as saying.

"While Wall Street and investors were disappointed when they didn't get a sweeping bank bailout, we've laid out a plan to stabilize the financial system while protecting the taxpayer and ensuring government funds are spent wisely," Baker said, according to the paper.

"This crisis was years in the making, and it will take time to solve."

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-economy/380586

[hippie_hunter]

Sesame Street announces layoffs (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a5dae65d21/sesame-street-layoffs)

[SuBe]

Obama's Tax Policies to Suck the Life out of the Valley


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obamas_tax_policies_to_suck_th.html

Silicon Valley would be especially hard hit by Obama's soak-the-rich taxes. According to a recent survey, two Silicon Valley ZIP codes have the highest average gross incomes in the state. These people make the state's biggest mortgage payments, and Obama plans to squeeze them by reducing the deductibility of their mortgages. All this plus higher California taxes could spur an exodus that might eventually turn Silicon Valley into a ghost town.

[sinewave]

Obama's Tax Policies to Suck the Life out of the Valley


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obamas_tax_policies_to_suck_th.html

damn that mean old barack! :cmad:

[Anita18]

Obama's Tax Policies to Suck the Life out of the Valley

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obamas_tax_policies_to_suck_th.html
Uhhh, I'm sure the tech industry will always survive. It's not like the gold-mining industry.

The absurdly-high standard-of-living was already making Silicon Valley into a ghost town. My parents moved out of the area as soon as my younger sister was off to college - there was no point in paying such high property taxes and a high mortgage if we were no longer going to the great public high schools. Lots of my parents' friends did the same. My dad actually still works in the East Bay, but he either telecommutes or stays with friends during the week.

Ironically, my parents moved to Merced County, which is one of the hardest-hit areas in the housing crisis. :funny: But their current house is waaay cheaper than their previous Silicon Valley house and they aren't looking to sell anytime soon, so they don't have it as bad as some of their friends. One of my mom's friends bought an overpriced McMansion in Mountain House (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/business/11home.html?_r=1&partner=rss&pagewanted=all), and she's waaay underwater on that. :o

[Bathead]

Just wondering, now that the market has been on an upswing for that past 4 days, will those who blamed Obama for the previous downturn be as quick to give him credit for the current rally?

[Kelly]

Just wondering, now that the market has been on an upswing for that past 4 days, will those who blamed Obama for the previous downturn be as quick to give him credit for the current rally?


Sure, because I blame his rhetoric of "doom and gloom" as a catalyst for the downturn, and his recent rhetoric of "we can get through this" as a catalyst of the upswing......so yes, I'll blame him for both.

[sinewave]

Just wondering, now that the market has been on an upswing for that past 4 days, will those who blamed Obama for the previous downturn be as quick to give him credit for the current rally?

i was just about to post that same question.

[sinewave]

Sure, because I blame his rhetoric of "doom and gloom" as a catalyst for the downturn, and his recent rhetoric of "we can get through this" as a catalyst of the upswing......so yes, I'll blame him for both.

what makes it "doom and gloom" and not just telling it like it is?

[Kelly]

what makes it "doom and gloom" and not just telling it like it is?


Has nothing to do with that, just as his more upbeat rhetoric doesn't necessarily tell it like it is......but how people feel, will show in consumer spending, and will show on wall street. WE KNOW, the reality of all of this, but when our leader continuously says "its gonna get worse" etc, then that is going to keep people from buying...WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED. And when he seemed for a good portion of his first 50 days totally ignoring the banking problem (which is the main problem) then wall street had problems. Now, he is showing to THE PUBLIC, what he is doing..(which in my opinion, he should have done from the beginning) is showing that he is upbeat, and he hasn't forgotten the banking sector....and I believe, that it is showing in consumer spending and wall street. Which is good, I'm not saying he's doing anything wrong, I'm simply saying HE HASN'T spoke enough about what is going RIGHT. The ebb and flow of consumer spending and wall street, weighs heavy on the presidents rhetoric, its important, and I think its showing this week.

[sinewave]

Has nothing to do with that, just as his more upbeat rhetoric doesn't necessarily tell it like it is......but how people feel, will show in consumer spending, and will show on wall street. WE KNOW, the reality of all of this, but when our leader continuously says "its gonna get worse" etc, then that is going to keep people from buying...WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED. And when he seemed for a good portion of his first 50 days totally ignoring the banking problem (which is the main problem) then wall street had problems. Now, he is showing to THE PUBLIC, what he is doing..(which in my opinion, he should have done from the beginning) is showing that he is upbeat, and he hasn't forgotten the banking sector....and I believe, that it is showing in consumer spending and wall street. Which is good, I'm not saying he's doing anything wrong, I'm simply saying HE HASN'T spoke enough about what is going RIGHT. The ebb and flow of consumer spending and wall street, weighs heavy on the presidents rhetoric, its important, and I think its showing this week.

ok, but we've been hearing doom and gloom from both parties. i'd prefer the truth to being lied and pandered to.

[Kelly]

ok, but we've been hearing doom and gloom from both parties. i'd prefer the truth to being lied and pandered to.


No one is saying he needs to lie to us....NOR has anyone said its not coming from both parties.

I really wish I could make one comment, one post, one thought that may be just alittle bit negative towards Obama WITHOUT, it being taken as a slam against him, or the same rhetoric of "well the other party does it too". It's just seems extremely childish to me and very Hannity and Colmes.

I also wish some could see the difference between a slam, and simple questioning....

I will have very little good to say about our government until I see some "real change"....so for now the questioning WILL continue.


For some reason, I don't think my wish is going to come true around here. :csad:

[BlackLantern]

If things suck....say they suck....don't give me this light at the end of the tunnel ********

[sinewave]

No one is saying he needs to lie to us....NOR has anyone said its not coming from both parties.

I really wish I could make one comment, one post, one thought that may be just alittle bit negative towards Obama WITHOUT, it being taken as a slam against him, or the same rhetoric of "well the other party does it too". It's just seems extremely childish to me and very Hannity and Colmes.

I also wish some could see the difference between a slam, and simple questioning....

I will have very little good to say about our government until I see some "real change"....so for now the questioning WILL continue.


For some reason, I don't think my wish is going to come true around here. :csad:

well, then maybe you should have worded your original post better. you made it sound like he's the only one telling it like it is or "doom and gloom" as you put it, which sounds like you think he's being unnecessarily negative. everyone has been saying this is a huge mess, not just obama.

[sinewave]

If things suck....say they suck....don't give me this light at the end of the tunnel ********

exactly.

[SuBe]

There is not much you can say about Mr. Obama without it being misconstrued as a Negative Comment by many of the posters here.

[danoyse]

There is not much you can say about Mr. Obama without it being misconstrued as a Negative Comment by many of the posters here.

I've seen of Obama supporters here being accused of drinking the Kool-Aid on more than one occasion, so I'd say it's about even. :cwink:

[Kelly]

well, then maybe you should have worded your original post better. you made it sound like he's the only one telling it like it is or "doom and gloom" as you put it, which sounds like you think he's being unnecessarily negative. everyone has been saying this is a huge mess, not just obama.

Well, that's just silly....because it is obvious that HIS RHETORIC is going to have the most impact. Which is why I said HIM. And, I'm not alone in this thinking. I've sat here over the past week watching CNN, Fox, and listening to NPR and the vast majority of those that watch these things have said the same thing. Funny, they didn't have to say "both sides" in order for me to understand what they meant.

My political philosophy is actually very simple....

1. 2 wrongs do not make a right, it only makes me question why wrong #2, did not learn from wrong #1...
2. I judge the president by MY VOTE......


done...:yay:

[Kelly]

I've seen of Obama supporters here being accused of drinking the Kool-Aid on more than one occasion, so I'd say it's about even. :cwink:

4x.....I said it once.


But the Hannity and Colmes type of debates.....totally have gutted this place.

[Kelly]

If things suck....say they suck....don't give me this light at the end of the tunnel ********


you and I think alike, but apparently the mass consumers and wall street do not think like that.....:word:

[sinewave]

Well, that's just silly....because it is obvious that HIS RHETORIC is going to have the most impact. Which is why I said HIM. And, I'm not alone in this thinking. I've sat here over the past week watching CNN, Fox, and listening to NPR and the vast majority of those that watch these things have said the same thing. Funny, they didn't have to say "both sides" in order for me to understand what they meant.

My political philosophy is actually very simple....

1. 2 wrongs do not make a right, it only makes me question why wrong #2, did not learn from wrong #1...
2. I judge the president by MY VOTE......


done...:yay:

no, not done. i fail to see how him saying the same thing as everyone else, the truth even, is wrong. the guy can't win with some people. if he had pretended everything was hunky-dory, he'd get nailed for being too positive or not understanding the crisis. i think you're being "silly".

[sinewave]

There is not much you can say about Mr. Obama without it being misconstrued as a Negative Comment by many of the posters here.

there's also not much that he's done or said that can't be turned into a negative by many posters here.

[Kelly]

no, not done. i fail to see how him saying the same thing as everyone else, the truth even, is wrong. the guy can't win with some people. if he had pretended everything was hunky-dory, he'd get nailed for being too positive or not understanding the crisis. i think you're being "silly".



Never said it was wrong, I said I believed his change from "gloom and doom" to a more positive tone was the main catalyst to the stock market being up. Also, I never said that he was wrong when saying the economy is bad.....that is pretty much a duh.

You may not be done, but I am....:yay:

[SuBe]

there's also not much that he's done or said that can't be turned into a negative by many posters here.
Spending more than any other president in his time in office so far is good to comment about, right? What is it, a Billion Dollars an hour since taking office?

[sinewave]

Spending more than any other president in his time in office so far is good to comment about, right? What is it, a Billion Dollars an hour since taking office?

we don't know the results of that spending, yet. man, you've got a one-track mind: $$$$

[sinewave]

Never said it was wrong, I said I believed his change from "gloom and doom" to a more positive tone was the main catalyst to the stock market being up. Also, I never said that he was wrong when saying the economy is bad.....that is pretty much a duh.

You may not be done, but I am....:yay:

you didn't say it was wrong but you blamed him, specifically, for the downturn, while everybody else was saying the same thing. take a look.

Sure, because I blame his rhetoric of "doom and gloom" as a catalyst for the downturn, and his recent rhetoric of "we can get through this" as a catalyst of the upswing......so yes, I'll blame him for both.
Yesterday 04:51 PM

you act like the president's honesty is what's causing the market to go south. that sounds, to use your word "silly".

[Kelly]

you didn't say it was wrong but you blamed him, specifically, for the downturn, while everybody else was saying the same thing. take a look.



you act like the president's honesty is what's causing the market to go south. that sounds, to use your word "silly".


There is something to be said about how consumer's feel about their economy....we want them to SPEND. We do not want them to PUT MONEY UNDER THEIR MATRESS. We want people to BUY on Wall Street. IF......IF President Obama simply using a more positive line will help in those two things, which it certainly seems it has this week.....then YES, go that direction. WHY? Because it is obvious that our economy is in a bad way.....we don't need our President reminding us of that in every speech, we get it....that is a duh, and if simply taking a more positive line is going to help, then of course you use that. Apparently Obama has realized this, and is using that more positive line. It's working....that's a good thing.

Stop trying to turn my words into a "Kel hates Obama" crap.....which is what you do all the time, you totally miss points because you are trying to be the shield for Obama around here. He's a big boy....

[sinewave]

There is something to be said about how consumer's feel about their economy....we want them to SPEND. We do not want them to PUT MONEY UNDER THEIR MATRESS. We want people to BUY on Wall Street. IF......IF President Obama simply using a more positive line will help in those two things, which it certainly seems it has this week.....then YES, go that direction. WHY? Because it is obvious that our economy is in a bad way.....we don't need our President reminding us of that in every speech, we get it....that is a duh, and if simply taking a more positive line is going to help, then of course you use that. Apparently Obama has realized this, and is using that more positive line. It's working....that's a good thing.

Stop trying to turn my words into a "Kel hates Obama" crap.....which is what you do all the time, you totally miss points because you are trying to be the shield for Obama around here. He's a big boy....

i thought you were done? is it just because you feel the need to get the last word in, "teach"? don't act like you don't have biases. everybody does and i've seen enough of your posts to get a decent idea of what those biases might be. obama has never said anything about not spending or encouraged people to hoard their money. i think you're misinterpreting his message. he's been honest about the economy, but he's also been hopeful and encouraging. do you have any specific quotes from him that would illustrate your point?

[Kelly]

i thought you were done? is it just because you feel the need to get the last word in, "teach"? don't act like you don't have biases. everybody does and i've seen enough of your posts to get a decent idea of what those biases might be. obama has never said anything about not spending or encouraged people to hoard their money. i think you're misinterpreting his message. he's been honest about the economy, but he's also been hopeful and encouraging. do you have any specific quotes from him that would illustrate your point?

Watch all of his speeches Sine, ON YOUR OWN, from his inaugural address up until about 2 weeks ago. THEN after Bill Clinton said he really needed to take a more positive tone. WATCH the speeches after that.....figure it out for yourself.

And again, do you even read posts....please show me where I said he said anything about hoarding money, YES....YES, he just said in this week that now was a good time to buy stock.....and low and behold look what happened.

All I'm saying Sine, is quit the nitpicking to find "Obama hate" and actually read the posts.

I have said FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS FORUM that I am "fiscally conservative, and socially liberal" If you can find a post that says anything different, you let me know.

If you can't figure out on your own from his speeches thus far, and what we've heard from him about the last 9 days, then there is nothing I can do for you....but as long as you keep the telescope out for "Obama haters" its going to be pretty hard to have a good discussion with you. Impossible actually.

[BlackLantern]

Im not spending any money I dont have to....Im holding off on big purchases, looking for deals at the grocery store...I was going to buy a newer car this year, but Ill just use that money to fix my current car

[sinewave]

Watch all of his speeches Sine, ON YOUR OWN, from his inaugural address up until about 2 weeks ago. THEN after Bill Clinton said he really needed to take a more positive tone. WATCH the speeches after that.....figure it out for yourself.

And again, do you even read posts....please show me where I said he said anything about hoarding money, YES....YES, he just said in this week that now was a good time to buy stock.....and low and behold look what happened.

All I'm saying Sine, is quit the nitpicking to find "Obama hate" and actually read the posts.

I have said FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS FORUM that I am "fiscally conservative, and socially liberal" If you can find a post that says anything different, you let me know.

If you can't figure out on your own from his speeches thus far, and what we've heard from him about the last 9 days, then there is nothing I can do for you....but as long as you keep the telescope out for "Obama haters" its going to be pretty hard to have a good discussion with you. Impossible actually.

i still think you're wrong, but i'll let it go.

[Kelly]

i still think you're wrong, but i'll let it go.


Heres the thing Sine....disagreeing with me is fine. I'm cool with that...what I have a problem with is being put into the category of having an opinion just because its against Obama....I VOTED FOR OBAMA. I DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH, either time. But guess what, I will question the rhetoric, the decisions, etc, with Obama, just as I did with Bush. Why? Because that is what all should do. I'm not a plebeian sheep.....I will question, and I have every right to do so. You want to disagree with my opinion, that's cool, but do not dismiss it as simply "hating Obama". I can assure you, I respect him as my President, far more than most Americans I know.

But, I would encourage you to watch his speeches, because they have changed, and the stock market and consumer spending rose with those changes....

[sinewave]

Heres the thing Sine....disagreeing with me is fine. I'm cool with that...what I have a problem with is being put into the category of having an opinion just because its against Obama....I VOTED FOR OBAMA. I DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH, either time. But guess what, I will question the rhetoric, the decisions, etc, with Obama, just as I did with Bush. Why? Because that is what all should do. I'm not a plebeian sheep.....I will question, and I have every right to do so. You want to disagree with my opinion, that's cool, but do not dismiss it as simply "hating Obama". I can assure you, I respect him as my President, far more than most Americans I know.

But, I would encourage you to watch his speeches, because they have changed, and the stock market and consumer spending rose with those changes....

when have i ever accused you of hating obama? jeez, you'd think with you being an academic you'd be more open to people questioning your views and challenging you.

[Kelly]

when have i ever accused you of hating obama? jeez, you'd think with you being an academic you'd be more open to people questioning your views and challenging you.

I have no problem with challenging me sine, as said you disagreeing with me is fine. And its not the fact that you call people that, but you certainly generally put people into categories around here. And you seem to have your "Obama hater" (simply a figure of speech, to those that can't see Obama doing anything right) and those that agree with you. If we agree with you, its all good, but when we don't we get the....some of you just can't wait, its only so many days, he will never do anything you agree with, yada....yada....yada. So that tells me you really aren't reading the posts, you are skimming and pulling out what you see as Obama hate (again, a figure of speech), seizing on that and running with it, never to see the person as anything else. Ever again....

Just as I said the "buck stopped with Bush", I'm going to do the same here. As I have said many times before, I like for a new President to look forward, not always blaming the past. We know who to blame, we know where this problem in the economy came from, it came from a Congress that had no clue how and when to spend and not to spend, it happened on the watch of Republicans as well as Democrats, AND it happened on Bush's watch. We get that....I watch news, pretty much 24/7 unless I'm in my classroom. (well, I can't watch local news at the moment, but that will end in a week or so), but national news is always on, all different stations etc. I hear/listen from all views, and I make a decision. MY ONLY, AND TRULY ONLY problem I had with your reply to me had nothing to do with your challenge, (I told you how to see where I got my view....if you don't want to rewatch the speeches, or watch for the first time...that's up to you)...I didn't see your post as a challenge, actually. I saw your post as simply another one of your posts screaming at someone that had something even slightly negative to say towards Obama. THAT IS ALL that I saw as far as your post was concerned. When I would reply to your post, you would then pick the specific thing out that you saw as a negative toward Obama. Totally ignoring what I just said he did right.

But hey, I don't want to belabor the point....if you aren't getting what I'm saying...that's ok, keep on posting baby.

So did I see it as a challenge? No far from it.....:yay:

[Anita18]

There is something to be said about how consumer's feel about their economy....we want them to SPEND. We do not want them to PUT MONEY UNDER THEIR MATRESS. We want people to BUY on Wall Street.
Yet we also don't want them to spend money they don't have. Doesn't matter if consumer confidence is nothing but roses - if that confidence is based on a lie, the house of cards WILL come crashing down eventually. That's what's happening now.

I don't trust Wall St, just as I don't trust Social Security to take care of me when it comes for me to retire. I'm not considering it when saving. And as for the rest, I save what I can and pray I don't get hit by a bus, because if there's anything else I look upon with more disdain than Wall St, it's the insurance industry..

[Kelly]

Yet we also don't want them to spend money they don't have. Doesn't matter if consumer confidence is nothing but roses - if that confidence is based on a lie, the house of cards WILL come crashing down eventually. That's what's happening now.

I don't trust Wall St, just as I don't trust Social Security to take care of me when it comes for me to retire. I'm not considering it when saving. And as for the rest, I save what I can and pray I don't get hit by a bus, because if there's anything else I look upon with more disdain than Wall St, it's the insurance industry..

Totally agree, those are the people that helped to get us here in the first place....ie: buying houses they can't afford.

The people I'm talking about, ARE THE PEOPLE that have the money, they are simply not spending because they are not comfortable spending. It is those people spending that will help us through this....

I understand where you are coming from...
I...

1. save...
2. have a 403b/and another with a number I can't even remember at the moment...lol
3. and teacher's retirement...

I understand not trusting Wall Street....

And just because people are spending more this week, and WS is up.....doesn't mean its all great. Unemployment still has a ways to go DOWN, before it starts going up.....so I understand all of that, but economists put alot into consumer confidence, and WS confidence, that is what I was talking about....NOT CONFIDENCE IN WALL STREET....lol

[Anita18]

Totally agree, those are the people that helped to get us here in the first place....ie: buying houses they can't afford.

The people I'm talking about, ARE THE PEOPLE that have the money, they are simply not spending because they are not comfortable spending. It is those people spending that will help us through this....

I understand where you are coming from...
I...

1. save...
2. have a 403b/and another with a number I can't even remember at the moment...lol
3. and teacher's retirement...

I understand not trusting Wall Street....

And just because people are spending more this week, and WS is up.....doesn't mean its all great. Unemployment still has a ways to go DOWN, before it starts going up.....so I understand all of that, but economists put alot into consumer confidence, and WS confidence, that is what I was talking about....NOT CONFIDENCE IN WALL STREET....lol
The people with the money WOULD be the banks. :funny: They're not lending, which is trickling down to people with small businesses who need loans to pay for inventory and their employee's salaries, etc etc.

I was reading the most recent issue of TIME magazine, I was like, "THANK YOU!" for this article:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1884328,00.html

CNBC's reaction is colored by its stressed-out day trader's focus on the short term. When ordinary people think about the economy, they think about jobs, college, retirement. Sure, the stock market affects them in the long run — but so do job security and the threat of getting wiped out by health-care bills. When CNBC considers the economy, it means Wall Street's numbers that day, that hour, that minute. CNBC may pay lip service to the long term, but it has the time horizon of a fruit fly.

This means that CNBC looks at everything, particularly politics, in terms of how it will affect "the Market." The commentators on CNBC murmur about the Market as if it were the Island on Lost: a mystic force that must be placated, lest it become angry and punish us. "The Market doesn't like ..." "What the Market wants to see is ..."

[BlackLantern]

Im investing in prostitutes

[Kelly]

The people with the money WOULD be the banks.:funny: They're not lending, which is trickling down to people with small businesses who need loans to pay for inventory and their employee's salaries, etc etc.

I was reading the most recent issue of TIME magazine, I was like, "THANK YOU!" for this article:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1884328,00.html

They sure as hell have "our" money don't they.....lol

[Kelly]

Im investing in prostitutes


And I'm sure they appreciate it BL....:cwink:

[BlackLantern]

And I'm sure they appreciate it BL....:cwink:

Coke and rubbers don't buy themselves

[Kelly]

Coke and rubbers don't buy themselves

Good lord BL, choose alittle higher up on the prostitute scale will ya.....:wow::o:csad:

[Anita18]

Good lord BL, choose alittle higher up on the prostitute scale will ya.....:wow::o:csad:
Apparently the same principles which lead people to shop more at Walmart applies to prostitutes as well. :lmao:

[Kelly]

Apparently the same principles which lead people to shop more at Walmart applies to prostitutes as well. :lmao:


I shop at Target myself. No, Walmart is where BL is finding his prostitutes.....:woot:

[BlackLantern]

I prefer Target...the stores are generally cleaner and they hire functioning employees...

[Holiday]

I prefer Target as well but I have to drive 35 minutes to get to one. Going to Wal-Mart is so much more convenient for me but I'm going to try and stop spending money there anyways.

[Kelly]

Well, I have a very nice Walmart, very clean, big Super Center near me......but I just prefer Target, simply because the one I go to has a Starbucks in it....

If the Walmart near me had some type of coffee shop, I'd shop there...

[hippie_hunter]

I always considered Target to be the rich man's Wal-Mart.

K-Mart is the Wal-Mart in the ghetto :(

[Kelly]

I always considered Target to be the rich man's Wal-Mart.

K-Mart is the Wal-Mart in the ghetto :(


Hmmmmm, never quite thought of it that way, but yeah, you're right.....

The K-Mart near me closed down years ago.....

[danoyse]

Our Kmart turned into a Sears Express years ago. It's basically Kmart with a bigger appliance section.

I prefer Target over Walmart too. I once let a Walmart employee know that someone in the pet section left a live fish in a little cup of water and the fish was now not looking so good. I was told it was fine...it was in water after all. :wow:

[Kelly]

Our Kmart turned into a Sears Express years ago. It's basically Kmart with a bigger appliance section.

I prefer Target over Walmart too. I once let a Walmart employee know that someone in the pet section left a live fish in a little cup of water and the fish was now not looking so good. I was told it was fine...it was in water after all. :wow:

I would have called the SPCA.....:csad:

[souloffire]

Im not spending any money I dont have to....Im holding off on big purchases, looking for deals at the grocery store...I was going to buy a newer car this year, but Ill just use that money to fix my current carI have to hold off on a new car this year as well. The money I make for a car payment has to go to the Government every week. Apparently I'm not so bright and the Government thinks they can spend MY MONEY better than me.

[sinewave]

I have no problem with challenging me sine, as said you disagreeing with me is fine. And its not the fact that you call people that, but you certainly generally put people into categories around here. And you seem to have your "Obama hater" (simply a figure of speech, to those that can't see Obama doing anything right) and those that agree with you. If we agree with you, its all good, but when we don't we get the....some of you just can't wait, its only so many days, he will never do anything you agree with, yada....yada....yada. So that tells me you really aren't reading the posts, you are skimming and pulling out what you see as Obama hate (again, a figure of speech), seizing on that and running with it, never to see the person as anything else. Ever again....

Just as I said the "buck stopped with Bush", I'm going to do the same here. As I have said many times before, I like for a new President to look forward, not always blaming the past. We know who to blame, we know where this problem in the economy came from, it came from a Congress that had no clue how and when to spend and not to spend, it happened on the watch of Republicans as well as Democrats, AND it happened on Bush's watch. We get that....I watch news, pretty much 24/7 unless I'm in my classroom. (well, I can't watch local news at the moment, but that will end in a week or so), but national news is always on, all different stations etc. I hear/listen from all views, and I make a decision. MY ONLY, AND TRULY ONLY problem I had with your reply to me had nothing to do with your challenge, (I told you how to see where I got my view....if you don't want to rewatch the speeches, or watch for the first time...that's up to you)...I didn't see your post as a challenge, actually. I saw your post as simply another one of your posts screaming at someone that had something even slightly negative to say towards Obama. THAT IS ALL that I saw as far as your post was concerned. When I would reply to your post, you would then pick the specific thing out that you saw as a negative toward Obama. Totally ignoring what I just said he did right.

But hey, I don't want to belabor the point....if you aren't getting what I'm saying...that's ok, keep on posting baby.

So did I see it as a challenge? No far from it.....:yay:

at the risk of eliciting another bloated post from you explaining why your views couldn't possibly be wrong, i will say this, i understand what you are saying, but i felt you were unfairly insinuating that obama's honest critique of the situation at hand was the cause of the plunge in the stock market. whether that makes me an obama "homer", as you imply, so be it.

[SuBe]

Warning: The Below is an opinion piece and should be treated as such


Is Rand Relevant?

By YARON BROOK
Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.

Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.

Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.

Dr. Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

[Marx]

I always considered Target to be the rich man's Wal-Mart.

K-Mart is the Wal-Mart in the ghetto :(

That's a pretty good description hippie. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Backdrifter]

Warning: The Below is an opinion piece and should be treated as such



Interesting. I think self sacrifice is a good attribute to instill into people. But, I don't think the government can be an objective third party in all of that. Giving money and resources to people who are less fortunate is wonderful and should be encouraged by the government through tax incentives and what not, but the government has no business reaching into my pocket and taking whatever it wants to give to whoever it wants. There is nothing noble about that. That is not self sacrifice, it is theft.

[chaseter]

I love how Obama talked gloom and doom for 3 months and now is reassuring everybody...what a load of BS. The fundamentals of the economy are sound according to our president but he mocked McCain for saying that 6 months ago when the economy was better.

[LastSunrise1981]

I love how Obama talked gloom and doom for 3 months and now is reassuring everybody...what a load of BS. The fundamentals of the economy are sound according to our president but he mocked McCain for saying that 6 months ago when the economy was better.

I feel Obama was stating what was the truth and wasn't doom and gloom when you think about it. He clearly stated that the economy was in bad shape and it is in bad shape, would you prefer for him to be in denial and say everything was peachy?

Besides Bush, Cheney, and a host of other republican politicians were saying the exact same thing. Where's the anger on that issue?

[Kelly]

I love how Obama talked gloom and doom for 3 months and now is reassuring everybody...what a load of BS. The fundamentals of the economy are sound according to our president but he mocked McCain for saying that 6 months ago when the economy was better.

I feel Obama was stating what was the truth and wasn't doom and gloom when you think about it. He clearly stated that the economy was in bad shape and it is in bad shape, would you prefer for him to be in denial and say everything was peachy?

Besides Bush, Cheney, and a host of other republican politicians were saying the exact same thing. Where's the anger on that issue?

So what I'm getting from this is...

The Republicans ****ed things up before, and now the Democrats are doing the same thing......since when did 2 wrongs make a right.....?:o

[chaseter]

I feel Obama was stating what was the truth and wasn't doom and gloom when you think about it. He clearly stated that the economy was in bad shape and it is in bad shape, would you prefer for him to be in denial and say everything was peachy?

Besides Bush, Cheney, and a host of other republican politicians were saying the exact same thing. Where's the anger on that issue?
This has nothing to do with Bush/Cheney so lets not delve into that. Obama caused the stock market to plummet further down by talking gloom and doom. Even a 3rd grader can make the connection that after every single one of his economic speeches, the stock market dove the next day. Why was he doing this then? It all had to do with the stimulus bill. He created fear so that he could pass the bill and get done what him and his party wanted done in one feral swoop. Now that it is passed, it is time to talk happy about the economy!

What was FDR's fireside chats like? Did he constantly talk about how we are going to hell in a hand basket or did he try and reassure everyone that we will be fine? And low and behold Obama talks good about the economy and the stock market went up...gadzooks it's magic. The ironic thing is, he said the exact same thing he mocked John McCain over 6 months ago.

[LastSunrise1981]

So what I'm getting from this is...

The Republicans ****ed things up before, and now the Democrats are doing the same thing......since when did 2 wrongs make a right.....?:o

Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. All I'm pointing out is no one was upset or even questioning the Republicans until they were lame duck politicians. Wall Street workers and other politicians were saying Obama should be more optimistic to reassure the investors on Wall Street.

Bottom line is that it's time for people to actually start calling the Republicans out on their crap as well. Can you define how Democrats are ****ing things up? Unless you're talking about the government stepping into the economy business?

[chaseter]

HAHA...what do you think the past 8 years was? Bush Love Mania 2000-2008!!! The Republicans are not in power anymore and the Democrats are and they are ****ing up. So, are we going to say that they are ****ing up because of the Republicans? It is hilarious to see the Democrats still clinging to Republican bashing to cover up their tracks.

[LastSunrise1981]

This has nothing to do with Bush/Cheney so lets not delve into that. Obama caused the stock market to plummet further down by talking gloom and doom. Even a 3rd grader can make the connection that after every single one of his economic speeches, the stock market dove the next day. Why was he doing this then? It all had to do with the stimulus bill. He created fear so that he could pass the bill and get done what him and his party wanted done in one feral swoop. Now that it is passed, it is time to talk happy about the economy!

What was FDR's fireside chats like? Did he constantly talk about how we are going to hell in a hand basket or did he try and reassure everyone that we will be fine? And low and behold Obama talks good about the economy and the stock market went up...gadzooks it's magic. The ironic thing is, he said the exact same thing he mocked John McCain over 6 months ago.

How did Obama cause the stock market to fall? You have a lot of unemployed and the rate for the unemployed continues to rise, plus I definitely don't think its fair to say he caused fear. Hell when a lot of the corporate offices were going bankrupt that's when it started, and guess what? Bush and Cheney were in office then. So a lot of it started on their watch and for anyone to even blame Obama really needs to think about it again.

I don't believe he created fear. If anything a lot of your media personalities, politicians, and even some news outlets were calling for a Depression and all that stuff.

Why should Wall Street even depend on a human to reassure them on anything? They should be concentrating on doing their jobs and not thinking about what Obama or the government is saying.

[chaseter]

So I guess the three or four speeches in which he talks down the economy and the stock markets fall the next day as well as the speech in which he talks up the economy and stock markets rise is just all coincedence.

Once again...the Bush and Cheney years are over and it is now Obama's and the Democrat's watch and everything they have done so far has failed....but that's okay, it is all Bush's fault.

[Kelly]

Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. All I'm pointing out is no one was upset or even questioning the Republicans until they were lame duck politicians. Wall Street workers and other politicians were saying Obama should be more optimistic to reassure the investors on Wall Street.

If we had been yelling, then it wouldn't have just been Republicans, considering it was Dodd who put the wording into legislation that said the bonuses were not a part of the regulation. I guess we should have yelled about that, I guess we should have also yelled about his dealings with Fannie and Freddie....I guess we also should have yelled when Republicans along with Democrats tried to put through legislation for more regulations and oversight on Fannie and Freddie in 2003, 2005 and 2007 but 2003, and 2005 didn't even get out of Dodd's committee. SO, with all of that said, yes we should have yelled and didn't....WHY? because we didn't know all of this, THAT IS WHAT I BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR.....THEY KNEW, they knew enough to have sent 10+ memos to the House referring to Fannie and Freddie, that went ignored...THEY STILL DID NOT COME TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...so yeah, I blame the Bush Administration for a lack of transparency. GUESS WHAT? The Obama administration didn't learn anything.

Bottom line is that it's time for people to actually start calling the Republicans out on their crap as well. Can you define how Democrats are ****ing things up? Unless you're talking about the government stepping into the economy business?

Bottom line for me is this......2 wrongs DO NOT make right, and I WILL CONTINUE ASKING why Wrong #2, didn't learn from Wrong #1. Thats my bottom line. I don't give a damn what party wrong #1 or wrong #2 is.....THEY ARE BOTH WRONG. THEY ARE BOTH SCREWING UUUUUUP.

[chaseter]

The Bush admin did screw up...but lets focus on that while the Obama admin is doing the exact same thing:dry:

To hide this, the Dems are blaming all of this on Bush to cover their own ***. When will it stop? When will people wise up?

[Kelly]

The Bush admin did screw up...but lets focus on that while the Obama admin is doing the exact same thing:dry:

To hide this, the Dems are blaming all of this on Bush to cover their own ***. When will it stop? When will people wise up?

Well we've turned our heads throughout history as people hungry for power, especially those after President Kennedy, devour the Constitution and then use it to wipe their ass.....so apparently we are not a very wise people...:dry:

[chaseter]

Change we can believe in:(

[LastSunrise1981]

If we had been yelling, then it wouldn't have just been Republicans, considering it was Dodd who put the wording into legislation that said the bonuses were not a part of the regulation. I guess we should have yelled about that, I guess we should have also yelled about his dealings with Fannie and Freddie....I guess we also should have yelled when Republicans along with Democrats tried to put through legislation for more regulations and oversight on Fannie and Freddie in 2003, 2005 and 2007 but 2003, and 2005 didn't even get out of Dodd's committee. SO, with all of that said, yes we should have yelled and didn't....WHY? because we didn't know all of this, THAT IS WHAT I BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR.....THEY KNEW, they knew enough to have sent 10+ memos to the House referring to Fannie and Freddie, that went ignored...THEY STILL DID NOT COME TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...so yeah, I blame the Bush Administration for a lack of transparency. GUESS WHAT? The Obama administration didn't learn anything.



Bottom line for me is this......2 wrongs DO NOT make right, and I WILL CONTINUE ASKING why Wrong #2, didn't learn from Wrong #1. Thats my bottom line. I don't give a damn what party wrong #1 or wrong #2 is.....THEY ARE BOTH WRONG. THEY ARE BOTH SCREWING UUUUUUP.

Then what people need to do is stop voting for those who are "screwing up" America. We all have a voice right? Stop voting for them and start voting for different political parties. But if that happens what difference would it make? All politicians are corrupt in my eyes and while Obama, in my opinion, seems to be trying to do the right thing and seems like he has good intentions with his work ethic. He's still human, a politician, and can be corrupted as well.

I view it like this. Whether you're a democrat, republican, libertarian(spelling?), or independent they're corrupt and are only in it for themselves in the end.

To be quite honest I believe we should've been yelling when Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore and started rewarding the rich, punishing the middle to lower class, thrust America into a phony war based on lies and greed for oil, and etc. As American people we didn't let our voice be heard and people gave in to fear, corruption, and lies rather than standing up for truth, justice, and honor.

As far as the Economy is concerned? When push comes to shove it's still a mess and it's going to take years to fix I believe.

[Kelly]

Then what people need to do is stop voting for those who are "screwing up" America. We all have a voice right? Stop voting for them and start voting for different political parties. But if that happens what difference would it make? All politicians are corrupt in my eyes and while Obama, in my opinion, seems to be trying to do the right thing and seems like he has good intentions with his work ethic. He's still human, a politician, and can be corrupted as well.

I view it like this. Whether you're a democrat, republican, libertarian(spelling?), or independent they're corrupt and are only in it for themselves in the end.

To be quite honest I believe we should've been yelling when Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore and started rewarding the rich, punishing the middle to lower class, thrust America into a phony war based on lies and greed for oil, and etc. As American people we didn't let our voice be heard and people gave in to fear, corruption, and lies rather than standing up for truth, justice, and honor.

As far as the Economy is concerned? When push comes to shove it's still a mess and it's going to take years to fix I believe.

The problem is.....that is the only voice we have (our vote), and the other problem is, the banks have a bigger voice with these candidates.....We need to remember who the biggest recipient of AIG campaign contributions was......when 1 voice has more $$$$$$$$ behind it, that voice is the one that is heard.:o

[chaseter]

People made a huge deal out of Bush/Cheney's relationship with Enron...well I fail to see how this is so different.

I didn't vote this election and my voice didn't matter:( Obama was going to win even if Jesus himself came down and ran for president.

[redfirebird2008]

People made a huge deal out of Bush/Cheney's relationship with Enron...well I fail to see how this is so different.

I didn't vote this election and my voice didn't matter:( Obama was going to win even if Jesus himself came down and ran for president.

Yes, because the alternative was so great. A 72 year old who flip flops more than anyone on pretty much every major issue with a dingbat running mate just waiting for him to croak so she could take over.

[chaseter]

Did you not just see that I said that I did not vote? If I wanted McCain/Palin...I would have voted for them:dry: K thanks.

[Anita18]

Yes yes, we get it. Wall Street doesn't like Obama. :whatever:

Whatever, I think Wall Street should just SUCK. IT. UP. :cmad:

Until someone on Wall Street actually says something to convince me what they're doing makes sense, I'm on Obama's side. At least he's talking. Wall Street's just tanking like whiny crybabies.

[redfirebird2008]

Did you not just see that I said that I did not vote? If I wanted McCain/Palin...I would have voted for them:dry: K thanks.

Not voting doesn't necessarily mean you don't want to vote. I wanted to vote but I moved in May after graduating from college and I never got around to changing my registration location. I wanted to vote, just not enough to bother with it. :hehe:

[Kelly]

I didn't vote in 2004, simply because it would have simply been the lesser of the two idiots.

Many in 2008, that I know, didn't vote because McCain was no longer McCain, and there was no way in hell they were going to vote for someone who had barely 5 years of legislative experience to be President. (that is their words)

[SsM]

I didn't vote in 2004, simply because it would have simply been the lesser of the two idiots.

Many in 2008, that I know, didn't vote because McCain was no longer McCain, and there was no way in hell they were going to vote for someone who had barely 5 years of legislative experience to be President. (that is their words)

I agree with this. Obama does NOT have the experience to be President. He was voted in because hes a celebrity Icon. As for McCain.. I just don't know what to think about him..

[Kelly]

I agree with this. Obama does NOT have the experience to be President. He was voted in because hes a celebrity Icon. As for McCain.. I just don't know what to think about him..


Well, I voted for Obama, simply because he does seem like an intelligent man that thinks things through.....AND THEN within the first 50 days we have spent more money than ever in the history of our government, and on top of that, no one had time to read any of it because it was pushed through with a bulldozer called Pelosi. So, I am questioning my vote alittle, but I'll still hold out hope that he is going to sit down and think pretty soon.....:cwink:

[chaseter]

I didn't vote in 2004, simply because it would have simply been the lesser of the two idiots.

Many in 2008, that I know, didn't vote because McCain was no longer McCain, and there was no way in hell they were going to vote for someone who had barely 5 years of legislative experience to be President. (that is their words)
Exactly why I didn't vote in 08.

[Mr. Green]

HAHA...what do you think the past 8 years was? Bush Love Mania 2000-2008!!! The Republicans are not in power anymore and the Democrats are and they are ****ing up. So, are we going to say that they are ****ing up because of the Republicans? It is hilarious to see the Democrats still clinging to Republican bashing to cover up their tracks.
Yeah, both of their politics are just a joke. Such a minority of congress and the senate even read the bills before they vote on them or have consistent principals that they vote based on.

Meanwhile, they're destroying our economy on purpose and people cheer for Obama as he breaks his word on pretty much everything he campaigned on. He's a liar and he's immoral and it's scary as hell because the government is on a fast track to some pretty authoritarian ****.

[Mr. Green]

Exactly why I didn't vote in 08.
You honestly should vote third-party. Yeah, yeah, it's a wasted vote, whatever -- the only reason no real change is because people who don't even know or understand the issues DON'T vote third part, and it's NEVER going to happen unless people quit voting for lying puppets like Obama.

What's happening to America is so immoral and ****ed up, it really blows my mind that more people don't want to have the people responsible arrested.

[Kelly]

You honestly should vote third-party. Yeah, yeah, it's a wasted vote, whatever -- the only reason no real change is because people who don't even know or understand the issues DON'T vote third part, and it's NEVER going to happen unless people quit voting for lying puppets like Obama.

What's happening to America is so immoral and ****ed up, it really blows my mind that more people don't want to have the people responsible arrested.

I would DEFINITELY vote 3rd party if they gave me someone to actually vote for.....as an independent, I'm almost always left out of the presidential election. I have voted in quite a few elections, and I have yet to have had a viable 3rd party person to vote for.

[Marx]

You honestly should vote third-party. Yeah, yeah, it's a wasted vote, whatever -- the only reason no real change is because people who don't even know or understand the issues DON'T vote third part, and it's NEVER going to happen unless people quit voting for lying puppets like Obama.

What's happening to America is so immoral and ****ed up, it really blows my mind that more people don't want to have the people responsible arrested.

Matt? Is that you? :oldrazz:

On a more serious note, if there actually was a viable third party candidate, I would take a serious look at them. However, there haven't been, so I don't.

[Darthphere]

Let me ask a question. A friend and I recently came into some money. He's a business major and thought that maybe we should invest. I thought the idea was crazy considering the climate but he's making a pretty compelling case. What say you?

[Marx]

Let me ask a question. A friend and I recently came into some money. He's a business major and thought that maybe we should invest. I thought the idea was crazy considering the climate but he's making a pretty compelling case. What say you?

When it comes to the stock market, it's always best to buy low and sell high. You have to think long-term when it comes to stocks.

[Mr. Green]

Let me ask a question. A friend and I recently came into some money. He's a business major and thought that maybe we should invest. I thought the idea was crazy considering the climate but he's making a pretty compelling case. What say you?
Buy gold or silver. Best investment you could make right now, hands down. Do it now too. They're printing money like crazy right now and that inflation is going to jack prices WAY up soon.

[redfirebird2008]

Buy gold or silver. Best investment you could make right now, hands down. Do it now too. They're printing money like crazy right now and that inflation is going to jack prices WAY up soon.

Bingo.

[The Senator]

Let me ask a question. A friend and I recently came into some money. He's a business major and thought that maybe we should invest. I thought the idea was crazy considering the climate but he's making a pretty compelling case. What say you?

My friend had me buy $1500 worth of GE stock recently. The stock is low and may get lower, but he is confident that it will rebound within the next few years. I think that with many stocks being at their lowest points in decades, it would be wise to invest if you have the money to gamble away on it.

[SsM]

Matt? Is that you? :oldrazz:

On a more serious note, if there actually was a viable third party candidate, I would take a serious look at them. However, there haven't been, so I don't.


Has there ever been a viable third party candidate?? I'm pretty young so I've only been able to vote in two elections so...

[SsM]

Well, I voted for Obama, simply because he does seem like an intelligent man that thinks things through.....AND THEN within the first 50 days we have spent more money than ever in the history of our government, and on top of that, no one had time to read any of it because it was pushed through with a bulldozer called Pelosi. So, I am questioning my vote alittle, but I'll still hold out hope that he is going to sit down and think pretty soon.....:cwink:

I'm not saying he isn't intelligent. He is without a doubt a smart man. He just lacks the experience needed to lead the country

[Mr. Green]

Has there ever been a viable third party candidate?? I'm pretty young so I've only been able to vote in two elections so...
2008 had some pretty honest guys who understand what's going on and want to do something about. Chuck Baldwin was the candidate for the constitution party and even Bob Barr would be infinitely better than this authoritarian a-hole we have in there now.

And hey, they would actually CHANGE things so that would be good.
I'm not saying he isn't intelligent. He is without a doubt a smart man. He just lacks the experience needed to lead the country
He doesn't need experience to be a puppet. He just does everything he's told and lies to the entire country repeatedly.

[LastSunrise1981]

2008 had some pretty honest guys who understand what's going on and want to do something about. Chuck Baldwin was the candidate for the constitution party and even Bob Barr would be infinitely better than this authoritarian a-hole we have in there now.

And hey, they would actually CHANGE things so that would be good.

He doesn't need experience to be a puppet. He just does everything he's told and lies to the entire country repeatedly.

Isn't that what all politicians are? Not saying Obama is a saint or anything. I voted for him because I do believe he has good intentions. But every politician is a liar, corrupt, and only in it for the money. What you are saying isn't a shock nor is it any different when it comes to third parties.

[Mr. Green]

Isn't that what all politicians are? Not saying Obama is a saint or anything. I voted for him because I do believe he has good intentions. But every politician is a liar, corrupt, and only in it for the money. What you are saying isn't a shock nor is it any different when it comes to third parties.
Making generalizations like that is pretty much nonsense though. That's like saying all black people like rap music or all white people are serial killers.

There are, in fact, politicians who get into the game to change things for the better and who read the bills before they vote on them and who believe in the constitution, civil liberties, etc. Politicians like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich actually go on the house floor and protest all the ******** that's going down all the time. You just never hear about it because the mainstream media is owned by the bankers and corporate fat-cats who don't want people to know or pay attention to that kind of stuff.

That's why if someone runs for president on ideas that involve real change the people on the news just dismiss them as a joke and say things like, "You have no chance of winning."

But there ARE some good politicians out there, you just have to actually look for them, watch the debates before the primaries, etc.

[LastSunrise1981]

Making generalizations like that is pretty much nonsense though. That's like saying all black people like rap music or all white people are serial killers.

There are, in fact, politicians who get into the game to change things for the better and who read the bills before they vote on them and who believe in the constitution, civil liberties, etc. Politicians like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich actually go on the house floor and protest all the ******** that's going down all the time. You just never hear about it because the mainstream media is owned by the bankers and corporate fat-cats who don't want people to know or pay attention to that kind of stuff.

That's why if someone runs for president on ideas that involve real change the people on the news just dismiss them as a joke and say things like, "You have no chance of winning."

But there ARE some good politicians out there, you just have to actually look for them, watch the debates before the primaries, etc.

No offense, it sounds like an excuse to me. As I said before, if their ideas are truly revolutionary and will bring change for the better then they'd find a way to have their voices be heard right? It just sounds like a cop out as to why they're not successful.

As for the generalization? What you stated is apples and oranges. I view politicians in the same light as they're all liars, money hungry, and are only in it for themselves.

Ross Perot is living proof that what you stated isn't a fact. He received a lot of mainstream attention and it's not like the media wasn't owned by "rich fat cat executives" then either.

[chaseter]

AIG's stock has already tripled from its low of .33 so there is money to be made right now in the short run and the long run. The gov. will make sure AIG doesn't fail and neither will its consumer base being the largest insurance co. in America. AIG is cheap...buy some of that and you don't have to invest a ton of money on it to get a huge return and if it does fail...you didn't spend a lot of bucks.

[Mr. Green]

No offense, it sounds like an excuse to me. As I said before, if their ideas are truly revolutionary and will bring change for the better then they'd find a way to have their voices be heard right? It just sounds like a cop out as to why they're not successful.

As for the generalization? What you stated is apples and oranges. I view politicians in the same light as they're all liars, money hungry, and are only in it for themselves.

Ross Perot is living proof that what you stated isn't a fact. He received a lot of mainstream attention and it's not like the media wasn't owned by "rich fat cat executives" then either.
As for the cop-out thing, guess what? Ron Paul made 20 million dollars in the fourth quarter of his campaign and broke multiple donation records for money raised in one day and money raised via the internet in one day. The only two candidates that made as much as RP 4th Qtr were Hillary Clinton and Obama. RP garnered an enormous amount of support since the media worked against him so hard.

It's simply not a candidates fault that people are stupid enough to vote for someone who is obviously a liar.

As for apples and oranges, I think it's pretty much fact that gross generalizations like that are pretty much NEVER true.

And as for Ross Perot and other third party candidates, the system is OBVIOUSLY built to discourage people from running and voting third party. For example, there are laws that prevent someone who ran as a democrat or a republican in the primary, to be put on the ballot as a third-party candidate in the actual election. Also, it's hard as hell to even get on the ballot if that's NOT the case if you're a third-party candidate. And was Ross Perot or any other third-party candidate even on the debates? No. They weren't.

To argue that third-party candidates are given an equal, fair opportunity is just silly. They're not and most Americans aren't smart enough or don't care enough to research all the politicians and/or the issues before they vote. And for the record, obeying the constitution, respecting civil liberties, and NOT intentionally destroying the economy are NOT revolutionary ideas.

[Backdrifter]

No offense, it sounds like an excuse to me. As I said before, if their ideas are truly revolutionary and will bring change for the better then they'd find a way to have their voices be heard right? It just sounds like a cop out as to why they're not successful.

As for the generalization? What you stated is apples and oranges. I view politicians in the same light as they're all liars, money hungry, and are only in it for themselves.

Ross Perot is living proof that what you stated isn't a fact. He received a lot of mainstream attention and it's not like the media wasn't owned by "rich fat cat executives" then either.
Man, you are just so wrong on this. I don't have the time or energy to go into but the simple logic is you have two parties in control of the government. You have two parties making and enforcing laws. They like being in power and they really aren't too keen on third parties coming in and mucking it all up. Thus we have laws created by the controlling parties that essentially place ridiclous parameters for third party candidates to even get on the ballot.

Furthermore, the presidental debate committee is controlled by republicans and democrats. They also are not interested in third party candidates... which is why you never saw a Chuck Baldwin or a Bob Barr during the campaign.

To sit there and say that everything is fair is sit in total ignorance of the true reality that our political system is dominated by a two party system that has no interest in letting go of its power.

[Erzengel]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1092/debt20star.jpg

[Mr. Green]

LOL! Nice!
Man, you are just so wrong on this. I don't have the time or energy to go into but the simple logic is you have two parties in control of the government. You have two parties making and enforcing laws. They like being in power and they really aren't too keen on third parties coming in and mucking it all up. Thus we have laws created by the controlling parties that essentially place ridiclous parameters for third party candidates to even get on the ballot.

Furthermore, the presidental debate committee is controlled by republicans and democrats. They also are not interested in third party candidates... which is why you never saw a Chuck Baldwin or a Bob Barr during the campaign.

To sit there and say that everything is fair is sit in total ignorance of the true reality that our political system is dominated by a two party system that has no interest in letting go of its power.
True that. I would also like to emphasize the fact that this is a characteristic of authoritarian government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Characteristics).
"Highly concentrated and centralized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralized_government) power structures," in which political power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power) is generated and maintained by a "repressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression) system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government"
One of many authoritarian ideologies supported by many members of the house, the senate, and the Obama administration.

The Constitution is the only thing protecting us, the people, against tyrannical government and most politicians have shown that they don't understand or care about obeying the constitution whatsoever.

[Mr. Green]

Alright guys, you all need to check this **** (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4986287/IMF-poised-to-print-billions-of-dollars-in-global-quantitative-easing.html) out because it's a BIG ****ing deal.

IMF poised to print billions of dollars in 'global quantitative easing'
The International Monetary Fund is poised to embark on what analysts have described as "global quantitative easing" by printing billions of dollars worth of a global "super-currency" in an unprecedented new effort to address the economic crisis.

By Edmund Conway
Last Updated: 9:07AM GMT 16 Mar 2009

Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression.

Should the move, which is up for discussion by the summit of G20 finance ministers this weekend, be adopted, it will represent a global equivalent of the Bank of England's plan to pump extra cash into the UK economy.

However, economists warned that the scheme could cause a major swell of inflation around the world as the newly-created money filters through the system. The idea has been suggested by a number of key figures, including billionaire investor George Soros and US Treasury adviser Ted Truman.

Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF, said: "The principle behind it is that everyone would get bonus dollars and instead of the Federal Reserve having to print them, everyone gets them.

"The objective is to create a windfall of cash. However if everybody goes out and spends the money it could be very inflationary."
In summary, the big central bankers are making some aggressive moves toward a world bank and world currency. This will undoubtedly give the bankers even more power and the average Joe will be screwed. This has been predicted by many people including Alex Jones which, for some reason, people thought was just a crazy conspiracy theorist. Well, it's coming true and it's not good.

[SuBe]

Rep. Mack Calls on Secretary Geithner to Resign or Be Fired

March 18, 2009 - WASHINGTON - In the wake of the growing issues surrounding the AIG bonus scandal and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s oft-demonstrated inability to lead and act appropriately, Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14) today called on Secretary Geithner to either resign or be fired from his position.

Mack said:

“Well before Timothy Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury, he was working hand-in-hand with AIG and other financial institutions to provide them hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money as one of the key architects of the financial sector bailout. I was outspoken against the bailouts then, and I’m even more outraged now.

“I’ve had serious concerns about Secretary Geithner from the moment he was nominated. In the months since, he has shown us time and again why he was the wrong choice for this critical post.

“This week’s news on the AIG bonus scandal is but the latest fiasco under his watch and he has lost the confidence of the American people.

“Quite simply, the Timothy Geithner experience has been a disaster. The Treasury Department is in disarray. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. America’s economy hangs in the balance. America needs and deserves a Treasury Secretary who can truly lead us forward.

“Timothy Geithner should either resign or be fired for the good of the country, and President Obama should nominate a new Treasury Secretary with the experience and leadership skills America deserves.”

My Congressman

[BlackLantern]

Geithner does suck something awful....so does Hilary and the White House Press guy....they should all be replaced

[chaseter]

Geithner is horrible and he doesn't even have any staff. No wonder why we still have problems. Obama thinks Geithner can solve the economic crisis alone:dry:

[Anita18]

For a more global perspective, the French postdoc in my lab was talking about how there's a very large strike in France today/tomorrow because the government is planning to do away with their version of Social Security. Or actually, it was because the government is "equalizing" insurance rates for both private and public sector jobs. Public sector jobs pay less but the insurance rates are lower and you're more supported in retirement. Private sector jobs pay more but the insurance rates are higher and you're less supported in retirement. (It's generally the same case here.) Now they want to make all the benefits the same and the public sector people are PISSED. And striking. And when the entirety of the French public sector strikes, society basically shuts down. :grin:

The Social Security thing IS coming up the pipeline though, and he told me that the French save NOTHING, because they're expecting the government to take care of them. So, that's not a wholly American thing. I think our generation doubts the government enough that we're trying to be more self-supportive.

[SsM]

Geithner does suck something awful....so does Hilary and the White House Press guy....they should all be replaced

Man, He is terrible! He can't get through ONE sentence without saying Uh... Ummm Uh.. like ten times.

[chaseter]

Yeah Gibbs sucks big time. Took public speaking a few semesters ago and no way I would have passed that class saying "Uh....ummmm, ummmm, uh," every sentence.

[SsM]

I'm not good at public speaking at all... Thankfully I don't have a job that puts me in the spotlight.. almost DAILY.

[BlackLantern]

what the administration needs is a Democrat version of a Tony Snow or Dana Perino....political leanings aside, they were damn good at their jobs

[Anita18]

:csad: Tony Snow. Far too young, that man.

[SuBe]

yum..... Dana Perino...*Drool*

[Paradyme]

what the administration needs is a Democrat version of a Tony Snow or Dana Perino....political leanings aside, they were damn good at their jobs

True. The Family Guy is pretty hard to understand when he answers a question because of the um, uhh, uh-uhhh, uhhm umm's.

[BlackLantern]

yum..... Dana Perino...*Drool*

I want to be on her

[chaseter]

Gibbs is like the character off of Family Guy when Joe Swanson does the good cop mentally challenged cop routine...Gibbs is not the good cop.

[BlackLantern]

Gibbs is trying too hard to be "friendly" with everyone in there

[Paradyme]

Gibbs is trying too hard to be "friendly" with everyone in there

To me he is coming off rather fake. Maybe thats just me.

[Timstuff]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1092/debt20star.jpg

Brilliant! :lmao:

[SsM]

:csad: Tony Snow. Far too young, that man.

Tony Snow was a brilliant speaker.

[Kelly]

I'm sorry, but Gibbs comes off as a doofus. I loved that an NBC reporter called him on his comments about Cheney. Just VERY CHILDISH....Cheney is an ass, but he was also the Vice-President, and whether you like Cheney or not, you hold the OFFICE respectfully. That whole thing really diminished Gibbs credibility as far as I'm concerned, I don't seem him lasting very long. I hope he doesn't, the Obama administration deserves better.

[The Senator]

Yeah Gibbs sucks big time. Took public speaking a few semesters ago and no way I would have passed that class saying "Uh....ummmm, ummmm, uh," every sentence.

Were you constantly thrown specific questions which instantaneously required a concise response? Because in my public speaking class, we were never subjected to a forum similar to that of a government press conference...

[BlackLantern]

Were you constantly thrown specific questions which instantaneously required a concise response? Because in my public speaking class, we were never subjected to a forum similar to that of a government press conference...

Its certainly a pressure cooker, but we've seen other WH press secretaries make that podium their prison ***** and this guy isn't cutting it....

[hippie_hunter]

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

He said Wednesday that the "grandfather clause" language "seemed like innocent modifications" at the time. Video Watch Dodd's interview with CNN's Dana Bash »

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

Dodd said he did not speak to high-ranking administration officials and the change came after his staff spoke with staffers from Treasury.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.

Later, in a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, Obama addressed the AIG controversy, saying, "I'll take responsibilty. I'm the president.

"We didn't draft these contracts. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this," he said. "So we're going to do everything we can to fix it."

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy called the roughly $165 million in bonuses "distasteful" but necessary because of legal obligations and competition.

"We have to continue managing our business as a business -- taking account of the cold realities of competition for customers, for revenues and for employees," Liddy told a House Financial Services subcommittee. "Because of this, and because of certain legal obligations, AIG has recently made a set of compensation payments, some of which I find distasteful."

Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski, the hearing's chairman, responded to Liddy's statement by arguing that AIG should have refused to pay all the bonuses -- regardless of its contractual obligations with the bonus recipients.

"Let them sue us," said Kanjorski, a Democrat.

Liddy, who joined AIG after the bailout, said some employees have returned their bonus money.

Senators and representatives have vowed to get the bonus money back, but questions have arisen about why Congress didn't act to prevent the bonuses in the first place.

"Well, the only lever we have in this is the fact that these corporations have come to the Congress of the United States and want a taxpayers' bailout," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

"If it weren't for that, we would not have any leverage on how any individual corporation is being run, and we don't pretend to have any leverage on any corporation today in the United States that's not seeking federal help," said Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Related: Grassley defends 'suicide' comment

AIG, an ailing insurance giant, has received more than $170 billion in federal assistance. Taxpayers now own nearly 80 percent of the company.

In a letter to Congress on Tuesday, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo confirmed that AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of $1 million-plus each this year after it received federal bailout money.

AIG will have to return the $165 million it paid in executive bonuses to the Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday.

Grassley and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, on Tuesday introduced a plan that would impose a hefty tax on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or in which the United States has an equity interest. Video Watch Grassley describe how the tax would work »

Other lawmakers, such as Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, said it would be unfair to use the tax code as punishment, but Grassley said it's not a question of being fair.

"It's unfair what they did to the taxpayers by paying bonuses when they don't have the money to pay bonuses," he said. iReport.com: Sound off on AIG

AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy has defended the bonuses, saying the company needed them to retain top talent and because of contractual rights. He has pledged to reduce 2009 bonus payments, which AIG refers to as "retention payments," by at least 30 percent.

Libby is testifying Wednesday on Capitol Hill. He's likely to face tough questions from lawmakers despite not being at the helm of AIG when the financial fiasco happened. He took over about six months ago.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, said Wednesday that Congress can't just pass a law to abrogate any past contracts because that move would not hold up in court. Instead, he argued the executives don't deserve bonuses under the contract. Video Watch what Frank says about the bonuses »

"We own this company in effect, and we're not asking that these bonuses be rescinded because we have lent money to the company. I believe we are saying as the owners of the company, we do not think ... we should have paid bonuses to people who made mistakes who were incompetent," said Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

I understand and all, but damn Dodd, are you like trying to lose re-election?

[Kelly]

Yes he is....and doing a damn good job of it.

[BlackLantern]

we've been dealing with Dodd here in CT for quite a while now....that's the problem with voters in CT, they will keep re-electing someone unless they really **** up or if it seems they can't effectively do their job anymore....that's how Shays lost his seat

[Kelly]

we've been dealing with Dodd here in CT for quite a while now....that's the problem with voters in CT, they will keep re-electing someone unless they really **** up or if it seems they can't effectively do their job anymore....that's how Shays lost his seat

Well Dodd is trying REALLY hard this year....

[Mr. Green]

And in related news, we're ****ed (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F13%2FMNTH16EU OE.DTL).

Premier worried over China's U.S. debt holdings

Anthony Faiola, Washington Post
Saturday, March 14, 2009

Exerting its new influence as the U.S. government's largest creditor, China demanded Friday that the Obama administration "guarantee the safety" of its $1 trillion in American bonds as Washington goes further into debt to combat the economic crisis.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao made the demand at the end of the National People's Congress in Beijing at a time when relations between the two nations show fresh signs of strain.

"We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets," Wen said. "To be honest, I am definitely a little worried."

China surpassed Japan last year as the largest foreign holder of Treasury bonds. Any indication that it intends to cease those purchases - or, worse, stage a sell-off - could drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, as well as send mortgage rates higher for millions of Americans.

That reality, experts say, has given China more leverage in its dealings with Washington, with some seeing Wen's comments Friday as amounting to economic saber-rattling. The words came only days after a confrontation in international waters between a U.S. Navy surveillance ship and five Chinese vessels that set off recriminations on both sides of the Pacific. Chinese officials have also signaled alarm over a growing "protectionist" sentiment in the U.S. Congress that could further endanger its exports, now in sharp decline as world demand shrinks during the global economic crisis.

A number of Chinese officials have expressed concern about the future of Beijing's holdings of U.S. debt. American officials have sought to ease those concerns, effectively acknowledging the importance of China's role as Washington's banker. Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the Chinese to keep buying U.S. bonds. Asked about the increasingly jittery reaction in China to the rising U.S. debt, White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers on Friday defended the expensive policies that are forcing the nation to borrow a record $2.5 trillion this year, by White House estimates.

"In the short run, the need is to get the economy going again," Summers told a packed auditorium at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. Summers acknowledged that fiscal stimulus and various financial-sector bailouts are forcing the nation to borrow huge sums, but the alternative, he said, would be much worse. "If deflation sets in, if the GDP collapses further ... if that happens, the magnitude of the federal borrowing, as large as it is today, will be dwarfed. It will be far, far larger."

The White House sought to reassure global investors about the safety of U.S. Treasurys. "There is no safer investment in the world than in the United States," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

[The Senator]

If China stops lending us money, they will be ****ed as well.

[chaseter]

Were you constantly thrown specific questions which instantaneously required a concise response? Because in my public speaking class, we were never subjected to a forum similar to that of a government press conference...
Here comes Jman to defend everything Democrat and fight away naysayers:dry:

He isn't the best of the bunch and it doesn't matter if I could do that because it isn't my damn job. Do you go to a barber who can't cut hair that well? Do you go to a bank that constantly flubs things? His job is to be educated in everything his president is doing and to speak eloquently about it because he reflects an image about the administration he is working for.

I am not a communications major so I can't say with 100% certainty but I am extremely sure there is a class on public forum speaking.

[chaseter]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

I understand and all, but damn Dodd, are you like trying to lose re-election?
It's funny how last week he was saying he wasn't responsible:dry:

[SuBe]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

Fannie Mae is also giving out Retention Bonuses, where is the outrage?

[Malice]

Does anyone think its insane and stupid to enact a law strictly for ONE company....for one incident?
The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

[Malice]

I understand and all, but damn Dodd, are you like trying to lose re-election?

I think Dodd, is loosing it now...

[hippie_hunter]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

Fannie Mae is also giving out Retention Bonuses, where is the outrage?

It's crap, but AIG is just one sore spot after another and has proven that it's run by a bunch of greedy *******s with their numerous parties, bonuses, and constantly asking for yet another bailout.

[Paradyme]

Does anyone think its insane and stupid to enact a law strictly for ONE company....for one incident?
The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

Its actually crazy in general and should not be enacted at all even if it does encompass multiple companies.

[BlackLantern]

Its actually crazy in general and should not be enacted at all even if it does encompass multiple companies.

If it passes...I see it just scraping by....reps are getting their phones and emails blown up with citizens voicing their opinions on this

[hippie_hunter]

Its actually crazy in general and should not be enacted at all even if it does encompass multiple companies.

It should be enacted. Companies that receive government bailouts should not give their top employees bonuses. That money should be going to fix the damn company, not in their pockets.

[SuBe]

It should be enacted. Companies that receive government bailouts should not give their top employees bonuses. That money should be going to fix the damn company, not in their pockets.
Imagine you have a Brilliant brand new Executive. He has nothing to do with the reason that a company asked for a bailout, but he can help you out of your problems and get the company profitable.

Now, he comes with a high price tag, but he is exactly what you need. You want to hire him, but your company now has restrictions on what he can be paid.

Does he stay with your troubled company, or does he go to another company without those restrictions?

[Mr. Green]

If China stops lending us money, they will be ****ed as well.
Not really.

[hippie_hunter]

Imagine you have a Brilliant brand new Executive. He has nothing to do with the reason that a company asked for a bailout, but he can help you out of your problems and get the company profitable.

Now, he comes with a high price tag, but he is exactly what you need. You want to hire him, but your company now has restrictions on what he can be paid.

Does he stay with your troubled company, or does he go to another company without those restrictions?

AIGs bonuses are going to the people behind its meltdown.

[hippie_hunter]

Not really.

Yes they will. China is so dependent on exports that if the United States collapses, then the world economy will essentially collapse. And if there is no one to buy shoddily made Chinese goods, China will collapse.

[Marx]

AIGs bonuses are going to the people behind its meltdown.

Exactly.

[SuBe]

Every single one of them? They are retainer bonuses. They are contracted. It's apart of their Base Pay.

But, really, answer the question. Why would anyone want to work for a company, as brilliant as they are, with Restrictions on pay? They can go to a troubled company and steer them out of a mess for a limited amount of pay, or go work somewhere else for as much as they want.

[hippie_hunter]

Who would want to work for a company that has essentially failed to the point where the government owns 80% of it?

[Marx]

Every single one of them? They are retainer bonuses. They are contracted. It's apart of their Base Pay.

But, really, answer the question. Why would anyone want to work for a company, as brilliant as they are, with Restrictions on pay? They can go to a troubled company and steer them out of a mess for a limited amount of pay, or go work somewhere else for as much as they want.

The point is that the company has all but tanked, and needed bailout money from taxpayers to survive. I read an article with an AIG executive (I can't remember where now) the other day that the guy flat out said the bonuses wouldn't have even been possible had it not been for the bailout!

As for your question, if a company is doing that poorly, I would NEVER expect a bonus. Period.

[Anita18]

Every single one of them? They are retainer bonuses. They are contracted. It's apart of their Base Pay.

But, really, answer the question. Why would anyone want to work for a company, as brilliant as they are, with Restrictions on pay? They can go to a troubled company and steer them out of a mess for a limited amount of pay, or go work somewhere else for as much as they want.
They are contracted, but from what I've read (I work off a government grant and no bonuses for me), there's always a clause in the contract which says the company can restrict or take away bonuses if they're doing badly and can't afford it. If AIG didn't have that in the contracts, thinking that they would never do badly, that's the s**ttiest contract ever drawn up.

And many of these people are apparently no longer working at AIG, so "retention bonus" my ass.

Also, you speak as if jobs are easy to come by nowadays. :funny: A few years ago, someone could be picky. Now...not so much.

[Mr. Green]

Yes they will. China is so dependent on exports that if the United States collapses, then the world economy will essentially collapse. And if there is no one to buy shoddily made Chinese goods, China will collapse.
We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

[Malice]

They are contracted, but from what I've read (I work off a government grant and no bonuses for me), there's always a clause in the contract which says the company can restrict or take away bonuses if they're doing badly and can't afford it. If AIG didn't have that in the contracts, thinking that they would never do badly, that's the s**ttiest contract ever drawn up.

And many of these people are apparently no longer working at AIG, so "retention bonus" my ass.

Also, you speak as if jobs are easy to come by nowadays. :funny: A few years ago, someone could be picky. Now...not so much.

Remember, these are retention bonuses.
This is a bonus to stay where you are to work...that has no bearing on how the company is doing.

[Anita18]

Remember, these are retention bonuses.
This is a bonus to stay where you are to work...that has no bearing on how the company is doing.
But then some of these people aren't working at AIG anymore. How do you justify that? :huh:

"Hey, thanks for the Godly amount of money, but I think I'll leave instead. So long, suckers!" :o

[Malice]

But then some of these people aren't working at AIG anymore. How do you justify that? :huh:

"Hey, thanks for the Godly amount of money, but I think I'll leave instead. So long, suckers!" :o

Now if they met the retention bonus requirements...by contract, they get em.

If they left before the retention bonus date, they shouldn't, simple as that...

I stopped following the AIG thing since its become a circus.
If they are giving bonuses to people, no longer there, that did not live up to the contract of a retention date, then I have a severe problem with it.

Otherwise...they get their money :)

If this was based on performance....then this would be a WHOLE different tune...

[BlackLantern]

The chairman of AIG was reading the threats they have received at his testimony yesterday....no one seemd to care

[hippie_hunter]

We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

Dude, the European banks collapsed because the American banks collapsed. Just imagine how Europe and Japan would do if the American economy collapsed.

If China weren't dependent on exports, then yes, I'd say that they could survive. But since the Western economy would collapse in backlash to the collapse of the American economy, China too would collapse.

Case in point, China's economy dropped from solid double digit growth to less than the 8% growth that a lot of people say China needs in order to remain stable and the Chinese government itself tries to maintain. This happened solely because demand for shoddily made Chinese goods dropped in the recession global economy.

Now if the Western economy collapses, it's a guarantee that China's economy would collapse because the demand for Chinese exports would be killed. And without exports, China is nothing.

As a matter in fact, China would probably end up in the worst state if the Western economy collapsed. If the Western economy collapsed, then no money would be going into China. With no money, China would be unable to afford its massive military expansion, health care for it's 1 billion+ populace, and various projects like its space program, the Three Gorges Dam, maintaining various historical monuments like the Great Wall, Forbidden Palace, the Terra Cotta Soldiers, expansion of airports in Shanghai Pudong International Airport and Beijing Capital International Airport, and investment in technologies such as maglev trains.

If the Western economy collapsed, then no Western companies will come in to set up shop in China or make orders to Chinese factories. Without Western companies, unemployment would rise dramatically. With massively rising unemployment, along with the fact that 0.4% of the population controls 70% of the wealth in China and 300 million Chinese make a dollar or less a day, people will get pissed and unrest will occur within the work force along with dissidents from Tibet, Hong Kong, and a rapidly rising Christian population that the government frowns upon.

China would be screwed if the Western economy collapsed.

[Kelly]

Every single one of them? They are retainer bonuses. They are contracted. It's apart of their Base Pay.

But, really, answer the question. Why would anyone want to work for a company, as brilliant as they are, with Restrictions on pay? They can go to a troubled company and steer them out of a mess for a limited amount of pay, or go work somewhere else for as much as they want.

11 of them don't even work for AIG anymore.

If you can find me proof of the ones that were hired by the new CEO, I'll say ok to "those". But the fact that the new CEO himself said he would not have written these bonuses into contracts. That kind of tells me alot about the people that received the bonuses.

[Mr. Green]

China would be screwed if the Western economy collapsed.
We're going to collapse whether China buys our debt or not if we keep living beyond our means.

[Kelly]

Now if they met the retention bonus requirements...by contract, they get em.

If they left before the retention bonus date, they shouldn't, simple as that...

I stopped following the AIG thing since its become a circus.
If they are giving bonuses to people, no longer there, that did not live up to the contract of a retention date, then I have a severe problem with it.

Otherwise...they get their money :)

If this was based on performance....then this would be a WHOLE different tune...

How do the 11 that got the bonuses, that don't work there anymore, meet the retention requirement?

[Kelly]

The chairman of AIG was reading the threats they have received at his testimony yesterday....no one seemd to care


Which I thought was ridiculously stupid. Frank was just bloviating....there is no way they can be forced to give those names. I'd take that all the way to the Supreme Court, the jerks.

Do I want the people to give the money back on their own? Of course....

Am I pissed they were given the bonuses in the first place? Of course....

But, if giving their names to this committe is going to put their lives in jeopardy, or even the hint of jeopardy.....then BACK OFF, and give them a chance to get the money back on their own.

[Backdrifter]

Does anyone think its insane and stupid to enact a law strictly for ONE company....for one incident?
The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

Talk about grandstanding...

Sooo... they bailed out a company only to bury it with ridiculous taxes?

I swear, this may go down as one of the WORST congresses in the history of the country.

Bye, bye AIG.

[Anita18]

Dunno if this has been posted... but a very interesting read that points out some things I hadn't been aware of:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/a_simple_guide.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_economics unbound

Why is the banking crisis so hard to solve? We stood and watched while Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke fumbled with their response in the fall. Now we are being treated to the distressing spectacle of Tim Geithner struggling as well to articulate a clear policy for dealing with zombie banks. How come these smart and powerful men can’t get a handle on the problem?

I want to lay out 5 simple propositions which will help you understand why the banking crisis is so intractable. Then I will explain what happens next.

Proposition 1: The boom in the U.S. was funded almost totally by foreign money....

Proposition 2: Foreign investors preferred to put their money into investments that were perceived as having low risk....

Proposition 3: Today, after everything has gone bad, many of the counterparties on the other side of the toxic assets are foreign investors, directly or indirectly....

Proposition 4: It’s a lot harder for the Federal Reserve and Treasury to resolve a banking crisis where the main counterparties are not American....

Proposition 5: The fact that the counterparties are overseas means that out of the three options: bailout, bankruptcy, or nationalization—none are satisfactory...

[Anita18]

Talk about grandstanding...

Sooo... they bailed out a company only to bury it with ridiculous taxes?

I swear, this may go down as one of the WORST congresses in the history of the country.

Bye, bye AIG.
The company is already hypothetically dead and gone. I think the bailouts are just to pay back whatever was on its books.

[Backdrifter]

So why not let it go bankrupt?

Such a ridiculous waste. I'm sick of hearing about this. They basically let these people take this money and then Obama tries to use it to gain some political capital.

Oy vey.

[Mr. Green]

Hey, anybody remember than crazy Ron Paul guy who ran for president last year? What a loon.
Ron Paul, old coot who warned of economic turmoil, thinks he was right

Remember Ron Paul? Congressman Ron Paul?

The long-term libertarian-like representative from Texas who's even older than McCain? The guy with a leased blimp who sought the Republican presidential nomination last year and came within something like 1,000 delegates of upsetting the Arizonan.

Paul lasted a lot longer than Romney, who had to write off some $40 million of his own dough.

And Paul's hundreds of thousands of dedicated supporters way-outraised that preacher Huckabee who's now all over Fox News, which, btw, is the network that barred Paul from its New Hampshire GOP debate because he had no chance. Although, to be fair and balanced, Paul had done better in Iowa than Giuliani or that D.A. Thompson guy, what's his name Frank or Fred. Thank goodness Fox protected its viewers from this Texan, who used to be an ob-gyn.

So Paul marched all the way to St. Paul, past that ex-New York mayor, who the mainstream media said was the certain GOP nominee until he wasn't; Giuliani made it only a few hours past Florida.

Here's how silly Ron Paul is: He set a budget for his campaign and lived within it. Flew commercial. Stayed at Super 8's. No motorcades.

In fact, he ended with no deficit, which is how he thinks the federal government should operate.

In point of fact, Paul ended his campaign with a surplus. Can you imagine anything so silly in this day and age?

Paul warned all during his campaign about a looming economic disaster if government just kept growing and growing and printing more money like Republicans and Democrats wanted. Many said he was loony. His noisy followers too. Today, just because the old geezer predicted correctly, Paul thinks someone will listen to him? Get real!

Paul was on Bloomberg TV on Wednesday, and he absolutely amazed the reporters by patiently explaining that we got into this national financial whirlpool by spending too much government money, and so the solution was probably not to spend even more government money. Ever heard anything so wacky?

You can listen for yourself on the video below. But in a nutshell, here's the craziness Paul peddles: "We should be cutting spending. We should be trying to live within our means and not just try to spend our way out of a recession that was brought upon us by too much spending and too much borrowing and too much printing-press money."

LOL!

Oh, and here's something else. Paul says the reason housing prices are falling is because there's too much housing on the market, something about supply exceeding demand. So, Paul reasons, instead of spending hundreds of billions of deficit dollars to build more houses, making the supply even larger, politicians should risk unpopularity, cut spending and taxes and let the market settle out.

And the startled reporters point out that would mean thousands could lose the homes they can't afford. And Paul said yes, something like 8%. But how much help has spending hundreds of billions been so far? So spending hundreds of billions more will work better?

And they thanked him for his time. Watch for yourself.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QjiTolWqd7I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QjiTolWqd7I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

-- Andrew Malcolm

[Anita18]

So why not let it go bankrupt?

Such a ridiculous waste. I'm sick of hearing about this. They basically let these people take this money and then Obama tries to use it to gain some political capital.

Oy vey.
Because a ton of other companies sunk cash into AIG by buying its services. They need to be paid back. Or...from the link I just posted, it's those international banks that need to be paid back. It answers a good question I had - I mean, we COULD technically wipe out the debts and start all over (yeah right :funny: But I can dream), but with other countries in the mix, it definitely gets more complicated.

[The Senator]

Ron Paul can never be in a position of authority higher than where he is now. Being an executive is about making decisions; Ron Paul rarely makes any decisions. He simply votes "NO" out of principle. His policy proposals are so extreme they would never be enacted, and his overall stubbornness and refusal to compromise his own values for the collective well-being of this country would cause a government shutdown.

[Backdrifter]

Ron Paul can never be in a position of authority higher than where he is now. Being an executive is about making decisions; Ron Paul rarely makes any decisions. He simply votes "NO" out of principle. His policy proposals are so extreme they would never be enacted, and his overall stubbornness and refusal to compromise his own values for the collective well-being of this country would cause a government shutdown.
Votes not out of principle? Gosh, we can't be having our policy makers having any of those damn PRINCIPLES! We certainly don't want people to vote a certain way because their PRINCIPLES don't reflect expanding the government and more spending! We need more slimy, back stabbing, lying, "bi partisan," party line towing politicians. YEAH! That's the answer! That's REAL change!!

Maybe Ron Paul believes that the collective well-being of the country looks different than yours? Heaven forbid that a politician actually vote out of some kind of principled framework instead of going with the party or voting with his or her reelection in mind.

What is so extreme about Ron Paul? The most extreme thing I can think of is getting rid of the federal reserve. Not so extreme when you consider the constitutionality of its existence in the first place. Seems more extreme to keep such an illegal institution with zero oversight running in the first place.

Actually, what I think is more extreme is your description of Ron Paul.

[The Senator]

Votes not out of principle? Gosh, we can't be having our policy makers having any of those damn PRINCIPLES! We certainly don't want people to vote a certain way because their PRINCIPLES don't reflect expanding the government and more spending! We need more slimy, back stabbing, lying, "bi partisan," party line towing politicians. YEAH! That's the answer! That's REAL change!!

It would be one thing if Ron Paul's principles were actually realistic. But they aren't. He wants to abolish administrative agencies which the majority of Americans feel are necessary. While people agree that the Department of Education needs to be reformed, for example, he thinks we should just throw it away. That isn't realistic. It isn't intelligent, either, considering a lot of the national educational programs and reforms have been far more helpful than they have been detrimental. And-- funny thing-- these programs aren't wasting our money, considering I remember a time when we had a budget surplus even with the DOE, DOI, DOL, DHHS, etc. in existence.

Paul also waves the Constitution around as if it is the be-all, end-all on debate. Which is fine, except we have laws which are not explicitly addressed by the Constitution, and because the Constitution does not explicitly go into detail on those laws, he refuses to support them. It seems like the decisions he makes on his own are poorly made, and the ones he refuses to make show that he is incapable of making difficult decisions. That's not a leader I am looking for, and such a leader-- in my opinion-- would completely screw over this country.


Maybe Ron Paul believes that the collective well-being of the country looks different than yours?

Oh, it definitely is different than mine. It is unrealistic and irrational. He would be an epic failure of a President for the reasons I have already listed. He wouldn't accomplish a damn thing.

[Mr. Green]

Ron Paul can never be in a position of authority higher than where he is now. Being an executive is about making decisions; Ron Paul rarely makes any decisions. He simply votes "NO" out of principle. His policy proposals are so extreme they would never be enacted, and his overall stubbornness and refusal to compromise his own values for the collective well-being of this country would cause a government shutdown.
I agree 100%.

Being the president isn't about following the constitution or staying out of the market. It's about telling people how to live their lives, sending armies overseas to expand the American empire, and spending money that you don't have and isn't rightfully yours in the first place.

Who wants someone who votes out of principal? I much prefer people who vote yes without even reading the bills.

And I'm tired of his extreme proposals to do things like end the war in Iraq? End the war? Why the hell would ANY president want to do that? I mean, sure, 70% of the American people are against the war, but it's not the presidents job to listen to the people. He needs to do what's best for us.

And ending the drug war? Sure, it doesn't work by the government's own admittance. But we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to force people to do what's best for them.

And living within our means -- don't even get me started on that. This is America, dammit! There is absolutely NO reason that we should try to pay off our national debt. What is it, over $10 trillion? That's nothing to the greatest country on Earth.

Surely, if we pulled all our soldiers in from overseas and quit waging war on third-world countries that are no threat to our national security whatsoever this country would implode. Sure, we would save the $1 trillion+ a year we spend on our overseas expenditures, but who needs that money? It's not like there are people in this country who would actually benefit from the cut in taxes.

And get rid of the income tax?! I mean, sure, it would give every person in the country an immediate pay raise, but to do that we would have to quit spending money on sweet Big Government programs like the Department of Homeland Security. How else are we going to streamline national defense than by adding more bureaucracy? I mean, everyone knows that more bureaucracy = more efficiency.

Yep, he's NUTS. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[Backdrifter]

Most of those departments have no business existing on a federal level. States should take care of those things on their own. What the heck do we need a DoE for? Scholarships? Why can't states handle that kind of thing on their own?

[The Senator]

Every student in the country should have access to financial aid. If we had state programs, there would be no guarantee that someone in an economically stagnant state like Mississippi would be afforded the same access to aid as someone in an economically stable state like Florida or Texas. Moreover, what about students who decide to apply to college out of state? Or what about the students in the District of Columbia for that matter?

[Mr. Green]

Every student in the country should have access to financial aid. If we had state programs, there would be no guarantee that someone in an economically stagnant state like Mississippi would be afforded the same access to aid as someone in an economically stable state like Florida or Texas. Moreover, what about students who decide to apply to college out of state? Or what about the students in the District of Columbia for that matter?
We can't afford that! We need US military bases in 130 countries! We need to pay for bailouts and stimulus packages! We need MORE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS! How are we going to afford to pay to blow up bridges in Iraq? More importantly, how are we going to afford to pay for the no-bid contracts to rebuild those bridges?

That is just far too extreme an idea, Senator.

[Darthphere]

Wow, way to take what The Senator said out of context.

[The Senator]

I agree 100%.

Being the president isn't about following the constitution or staying out of the market. It's about telling people how to live their lives, sending armies overseas to expand the American empire, and spending money that you don't have and isn't rightfully yours in the first place.

Ron Paul only follows the Constitution and his own principles when it is convenient for his political ambitions. Remember his claims about fiscal conservatism? Remember his claims about how earmarks are wasteful spending? Well, Ron Paul happens to be one of the biggest earmark whores in the House of Representatives. Sure, he votes against the spending bills when he disagrees with others' earmarked appropriations, but he has no problem submitting over $70 million worth of requests each year.

Remember how Paul claimed that the United States should remain isolated? Interesting he should say that, considering he voted to send troops to Afghanistan. Yeah, I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is a war worth fighting, but when a politician claims he is against military interventionism, it is nothing less than hypocritical to vote for a multi-billion dollar war overseas.

Remember how Paul claims to be an ardent defender of First Amendment rights? It is also strange that someone who actually supports the First Amendment would vote to keep the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance after claiming to be uninterested in endorsing any religious ideology over another. Last time I checked, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, and others didn't believe in a single omnipotent being. He supports school prayer and has claimed that the Founding Fathers established this country as a Christian nation-- never mind that Christianity is never mentioned in the one document he wears on his sleave, the U.S. Constitution.


Who wants someone who votes out of principal? I much prefer people who vote yes without even reading the bills.

Ron Paul doesn't read many bills, either. He votes against them due to his pre-conceived notion to oppose anything and everything he can for the sake of looking like a constructionist.


And I'm tired of his extreme proposals to do things like end the war in Iraq? End the war? Why the hell would ANY president want to do that? I mean, sure, 70% of the American people are against the war, but it's not the presidents job to listen to the people. He needs to do what's best for us.

You really think Ron Paul would be able to end the war in Iraq on the very first day he came into power? Good luck. Remove all the troops at once, then see Iraq collapse entirely. And then lose America's reputation in the process.


And ending the drug war? Sure, it doesn't work by the government's own admittance. But we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to force people to do what's best for them.

This seems to be the main reason why most of his supporters support him. But he's not the only politician to propose such a thing, and it is hardly a reason for me to back him given his other extremist and unrealistic positions.


And living within our means -- don't even get me started on that. This is America, dammit! There is absolutely NO reason that we should try to pay off our national debt. What is it, over $10 trillion? That's nothing to the greatest country on Earth.

And how is Ron Paul going to pay off our national debt, exactly?


Surely, if we pulled all our soldiers in from overseas and quit waging war on third-world countries that are no threat to our national security whatsoever this country would implode. Sure, we would save the $1 trillion+ a year we spend on our overseas expenditures, but who needs that money? It's not like there are people in this country who would actually benefit from the cut in taxes.

I think it would be downright idiotic for us to cut all of our defense resources from certain countries. We have legitimate national security interests in certain countries which, if we withdrew, we would find ourselves screwed and other countries would end up screwed as well. With great power comes great responsibility, and we have a responsibility to use our power and influence to ensure that certain nations do not take advantage of other nations, and that nations which have long supported us have our back pending an international crisis. We have the money, we have the resources-- therefore, it only seems right that we lend a hand wherever it is needed, as long as it is done so justly and within international law.


And get rid of the income tax?! I mean, sure, it would give every person in the country an immediate pay raise, but to do that we would have to quit spending money on sweet Big Government programs like the Department of Homeland Security. How else are we going to streamline national defense than by adding more bureaucracy? I mean, everyone knows that more bureaucracy = more efficiency.

I agree that Homeland Security is an inefficient department and that it needs to be abolished. But at the same time, there are government programs in other departments which have dramatically helped Americans survive financially since their inception. Government should be there to help its people, not leave them fending for themselves when there are corporate interests constantly screwing people over.

[The Senator]

Wow, way to take what The Senator said out of context.

Yeah............... I am so glad I do not blindly align myself with any politician...

[Mr. Green]

Wow, way to take what The Senator said out of context.
Yeah, it's not like I was being sarcastic or anything.

*sarcasm detector in the room explodes*

[The Senator]

Except you lacked a basic understanding of what I was saying, hence why Darth said what he said... students already have access to financial aid at the federal level... I was defending what already exists, which is something Ron Paul unsurprisingly wants to cut...

[SuBe]

How do the 11 that got the bonuses, that don't work there anymore, meet the retention requirement?

It doesn't matter, it was in their contract. I know, Liddy didn't write the contracts. The Government appointed Liddy. He wouldn't have put the bonuses in there. But, it doesn't matter. There are there, and when he took over for CEO of AIG, he still has to abide by the former Contracts until they are dissolved or re-written. And they weren't.

AIG is based out of Connecticut. If they did not pay these contracted Bonuses, they would have been sued. AND, luckily for AIG, if employees sued for wages, they would be forced to DOUBLE the amount of bonuses. By law, in Connecticut, if any employee sues over a matter of Wages and wins, the employer must pay double the amount owed AND attorney fees.

So, instead of $165 Million to abide by their Contracts, they could have paid $330 Million for not!

The more dangerous thing here is the House yesterday decided that it was OKAY to impose a Direct Tax on individuals. Which is against the Constitution. They just said "Hey, if the 'people' decide you don't deserve your pay, we are taking it away from you with no reason other than appeasement and vote buying" HOW DANGEROUS IS THAT? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THAT SET?

[Anita18]

It doesn't matter, it was in their contract. I know, Liddy didn't write the contracts. The Government appointed Liddy. He wouldn't have put the bonuses in there. But, it doesn't matter. There are there, and when he took over for CEO of AIG, he still has to abide by the former Contracts until they are dissolved or re-written. And they weren't.

AIG is based out of Connecticut. If they did not pay these contracted Bonuses, they would have been sued. AND, luckily for AIG, if employees sued for wages, they would be forced to DOUBLE the amount of bonuses. By law, in Connecticut, if any employee sues over a matter of Wages and wins, the employer must pay double the amount owed AND attorney fees.

So, instead of $165 Million to abide by their Contracts, they could have paid $330 Million for not!

The more dangerous thing here is the House yesterday decided that it was OKAY to impose a Direct Tax on individuals. Which is against the Constitution. They just said "Hey, if the 'people' decide you don't deserve your pay, we are taking it away from you with no reason other than appeasement and vote buying" HOW DANGEROUS IS THAT? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THAT SET?
I agree that it's rather frightening. I was sleepy but I did catch most of Obama on Leno and Leno brought that up. I forgot what Obama's response was, but it was probably something non-committal and PR-friendly. :funny: I think it had to do with Congress being pissed. It's all grand-standing at this point on the part of the government.

In my view, the harm has been done - the AIG bonuses have been made public and there's practically a lynch mob out for them. I'm not all surprised that they're getting death threats, and I'm not all that sympathetic either. And I'm normally a sympathetic person. :funny:

Or I dunno, maybe I'm too damn nice. I would refuse a bonus if my company was going under, even if it was written in my contract. Anyone who sues to get a bonus (even if it's in a contract) when your company has to BEG THE GOVERNMENT for the money to give you one is a jackass. IMO.

[Handsome Rob]

The more dangerous thing here is the House yesterday decided that it was OKAY to impose a Direct Tax on individuals. Which is against the Constitution. They just said "Hey, if the 'people' decide you don't deserve your pay, we are taking it away from you with no reason other than appeasement and vote buying" HOW DANGEROUS IS THAT? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THAT SET?

And if people would actually look at the bigger picture, they would see what a dangerous precedent this is setting. But, they'd rather point fingers at the other side and play the partisan blame game.

For the government to target specific individuals with tax increases . . . :cmad:

[SuBe]

Yesterday's vote in the House was completely expected. Overwhelmingly, your representatives in Washington voted huge taxes on bonuses for AIG employees. Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." Funny .. after recently passing a bill with more than 8,000 earmarks worth over $400 billion, the hollow-eyed hippy from Haight-Ashbury and her flying monkeys are suddenly worried about the taxpayers.

First point. It is not "their" money. The money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the people to whom they were paid. Those bonuses were paid pursuant to a valid contract and are not the rightful and legal property of the payees. Let's us also remember that the amount paid in those bonuses was less than one-tenth of one percent of the bailout money received by AIG. Remember, though ... politicians believe that ever penny you earn actually belongs to the government. In the official language of Washington any money from your paycheck that these political hacks allow you to keep is a "tax expenditure." You earned it ... but if you're allowed to keep it they treat it as a government expenditure. To the Democrat mind, and in the mind of all too many Republicans, all wealth is owned by government. Produced by the people, but owned by government.

Second point. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Con su permisio I'll explain.

So the House succeeded in passing a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees of AIG and any company receiving at least $5 billion in bailout money. But only with those evil rich employees whose family income is above $250,000 a year will have to pay this 90% tax.

You just cannot like what you're seeing here. These politicians are targeting specific individuals out there who have received some money that the politicians, for political purposes, just do not want them to have. So they pass a law allowing the government to seize that money. Can you imagine where this goes from here? How about Ann Coulter? She delights in writing books that just irritate the ever-luvin' puddin' out of Democrats and liberals. Let's say that one of Nancy Pelosi's flying monkeys reports to the Princess that Coulter made $1.5 million from her last book. This money was legally paid to Coulter pursuant to a contract. Sound familiar? But Pelosi feels that Coulter has made this money by promoting divisiveness in the population, so she decides that punishment is in order. She then has her minions pass a bill establishing a 90% tax on the royalties from all books and writings that promote political dissention and defame public servants in the Congress of the United States. Come on now, you tell me the big huge difference between a confiscatory tax on legally earned bonuses and one on legally received book royalties.

This is going nowhere folks. It will never make it through the Senate. If the members of the House had any appreciation at all for the Constitution it wouldn't have gone this far. And why, pray tell, would that be? That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

Well, in this case the Congress isn't trying to put anyone to death ... they're just trying to steal some money. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week. Well, there's that pesky little Constitution again. A man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and in our country due process means a trial before a jury of one's peers. Barney Frank et al are trying to take these people's money through legislative action without a trial. I would truly hope there isn't a federal judge in this country that wouldn't smack this idiocy down at the earliest opportunity.

This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps not. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. The property is there's. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.

On to the Senate. Let's hope someone over there has read the Constitution


From Neal Boortz's Blog.

[Kelly]

It doesn't matter, it was in their contract. I know, Liddy didn't write the contracts. The Government appointed Liddy. He wouldn't have put the bonuses in there. But, it doesn't matter. There are there, and when he took over for CEO of AIG, he still has to abide by the former Contracts until they are dissolved or re-written. And they weren't.

AIG is based out of Connecticut. If they did not pay these contracted Bonuses, they would have been sued. AND, luckily for AIG, if employees sued for wages, they would be forced to DOUBLE the amount of bonuses. By law, in Connecticut, if any employee sues over a matter of Wages and wins, the employer must pay double the amount owed AND attorney fees.

So, instead of $165 Million to abide by their Contracts, they could have paid $330 Million for not!

The more dangerous thing here is the House yesterday decided that it was OKAY to impose a Direct Tax on individuals. Which is against the Constitution. They just said "Hey, if the 'people' decide you don't deserve your pay, we are taking it away from you with no reason other than appeasement and vote buying" HOW DANGEROUS IS THAT? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THAT SET?

I understand it was in the contract, I understand what Liddy was saying in the congressional hearings, and I agree with him. Mentioning the 11, is simply to say......why would they get a "retention bonus" when they did not stay.

I also question why (as I have questioned, for the past 50 days) WHY, adequate time was not given for our represenatives to read this legislative, and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE someone might have caught this ahead of time. I also question, when people actually knew about this. According to Liddy there has been OPEN knowledge of these bonuses for weeks....and yet we now hear about it.

It seems to simply be a "wag the dog" tactic, IMO. And I don't like those. I don't like the bonuses, I don't like Frank slamming Liddy asking for the names, I don't like any of it.

[SuBe]

According to Liddy, he was given Approval from the Treasury Department and Chris Dodd to give the bonuses in the first place.

[Kelly]

According to Liddy, he was given Approval from the Treasury Department and Chris Dodd to give the bonuses in the first place.


Exactly, and guess what.......I BELIEVE HIM. He held up under alot of *****ing in that committee....and did it well.


That right there, your above comment, PISSES ME OFF TO NO END.

[SuBe]

Exactly, and guess what.......I BELIEVE HIM. He held up under alot of *****ing in that committee....and did it well.


That right there, your above comment, PISSES ME OFF TO NO END.
What pisses me off is both the Grand Standing and the attitude of the American people allowing Government to Confiscate wealth based on Feelings. THAT is dangerous.

[Kelly]

What pisses me off is both the Grand Standing and the attitude of the American people allowing Government to Confiscate wealth based on Feelings. THAT is dangerous.


Well, the thing is SuBe.....you are never going separate feelings from this. You will never separate feelings from the voting booth, etc. It's just not going to happen.

Obama HAS TO GET A HOLD OF THIS, he has to start standing up to whoever (Republican or Democrat) ANYONE, who is standing in the way of transparency. Just lastnight on Leno he says he wants to stop the trend of the blame game in Washington. WELL, he needs to start calling people out on this, this is getting WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

[Marx]

Ron Paul can never be in a position of authority higher than where he is now. Being an executive is about making decisions; Ron Paul rarely makes any decisions. He simply votes "NO" out of principle. His policy proposals are so extreme they would never be enacted, and his overall stubbornness and refusal to compromise his own values for the collective well-being of this country would cause a government shutdown.

Well said J. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[ShadowBoxing]

Ron Paul is a windbag and a monday morning quarterback. He has the easiest job in the world; appeal to a base that loves to hear complaints but doesn't care if they ever hear any solutions.

[Kelly]

I can pretty much agree with that....but I do agree with some of his ideas.

[Marx]

Ron Paul is a windbag and a monday morning quarterback. He has the easiest job in the world; appeal to a base that loves to hear complaints but doesn't care if they ever hear any solutions.

Ron Paul did make some sense in the Republican debates though.

[ShadowBoxing]

Ron Paul did make some sense in the Republican debates though.
Well it's not that what he says never has any truth to it, he points out some real problems, but he doesn't offer any reasonable solution and seems to think we can just turn back the clock a hundred years. Plus, I mean c'mon, it's not like he had any competition there. He was up against a Rage-a-holic, the world's most dickish boss, and a kindly old pastor, he was bound to do well sometimes.

[BlackLantern]

Ron Paul is the epitome of that group of old guys that sit around at the barber shop or something and think they can solve the worlds problems when in reality, they are just old and cranky

[danielisthor]

Ron Paul is the epitome of that group of old guys that sit around at the barber shop or something and think they can solve the worlds problems when in reality, they are just old and cranky

Just like Grandpa Simpson.



With any luck and with any reasonble thinking by their constituants, this mess should mean the end of Dodd and Franks political careers. If they get re-elected, I think I will just lose all faith in our system.

[The Senator]

Ron Paul did make some sense in the Republican debates though.

Considering four Republicans didn't believe in evolution, it isn't really a shocker that Paul was one of the smarter, well-spoken candidates in the field. That doesn't mean his ideas were feasible or rational; it simply means his support for the Constitution was more logical than, say, Mike Huckabee's declaration that we should amend the Constitution to reflect "God's law."

[Anita18]

What pisses me off is both the Grand Standing and the attitude of the American people allowing Government to Confiscate wealth based on Feelings. THAT is dangerous.
That's why we have three branches of government. :oldrazz: It's relatively okay if one of them goes nuts.

I can't see this standing up in the Supreme Court, if it comes down to that. Well, if it does pass the Senate and Obama signs it (sigh), it'll take some time for it to trickle down to the Supreme Court and I hope the anger will have faded and reason will have come into play.

[SuBe]

Considering four Republicans didn't believe in evolution, it isn't really a shocker that Paul was one of the smarter, well-spoken candidates in the field. That doesn't mean his ideas were feasible or rational; it simply means his support for the Constitution was more logical than, say, Mike Huckabee's declaration that we should amend the Constitution to reflect "God's law."
I'm being honest when I ask this Jman, but what did Huckabee mean by "God's Law"?

[The Senator]

Considering Huckabee was a Baptist minister, I can only assume he means inserting Christofascism into the Constitution.

[SuBe]

Considering Huckabee was a Baptist minister, I can only assume he means inserting Christofascism into the Constitution.
So you don't know specifically?

The only reason I ask is because during the Enlightenment Movement, and the consistant thought with Classical Liberalism is that all Rights are derived from "The Creator", and these truths are "self evident". I was just wondering if it could have meant "Right to Life, Liberty and Property" that is expanded in the writings of the time. I just would have thought that "God's Law" was in reference to the Rights of Man given by God.

I don't know the context of his speech, so I have no idea what he said.

[Backdrifter]

Considering Huckabee was a Baptist minister, I can only assume he means inserting Christofascism into the Constitution.
Seems like you do a lot of that... assuming.

[The Senator]

So you don't know specifically?

The only reason I ask is because during the Enlightenment Movement, and the consistant thought with Classical Liberalism is that all Rights are derived from "The Creator", and these truths are "self evident". I was just wondering if it could have meant "Right to Life, Liberty and Property" that is expanded in the writings of the time. I just would have thought that "God's Law" was in reference to the Rights of Man given by God.

I don't know the context of his speech, so I have no idea what he said.

I strongly doubt he was referring to anything mentioned in the Enlightenment.

[SuBe]

I was just wondering.

[Backdrifter]

Every student in the country should have access to financial aid. If we had state programs, there would be no guarantee that someone in an economically stagnant state like Mississippi would be afforded the same access to aid as someone in an economically stable state like Florida or Texas. Moreover, what about students who decide to apply to college out of state? Or what about the students in the District of Columbia for that matter?

Every student should have access to financial aid? BZZZZ! Wrong. Higher education is not a right. It is a privilege.

So it's the federal governments job to babysit state run education? Hmm, I don't think that one is in the constitution.

What about students going to school out of state? Do you honestly think that the states are incompetent enough to conjure up a solution? There are plenty of intelligent people out there who could think of something. And, I am sure they would be forced to in the long run. Or, even better, schools could learn to offer more competitive tuition rates instead of relying of students to apply for scholarships and student loans to pay for what they can't afford. You know, allowing the "market" to correct itself.

But, we certainly don't want any of that free market crap in this country. We need to let Nanny Government take care of everything.

[The Senator]

Actually, I completely misspoke when I said Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to reflect "God's Law." Turns out, he actually said that we should amend the Constitution to reflect "God's standards."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx

So yes... he essentially did want to insert Christofascism into the Constitution...

[The Senator]

So it's the federal governments job to babysit state run education? Hmm, I don't think that one is in the constitution.

Nothing says that we are a Christian nation in the Constitution, either, but that doesn't prevent people from inserting Christian imagery into every level of our government, does it?

Every student should have access to financial aid? BZZZZ! Wrong. Higher education is not a right. It is a privilege.

Did I say that higher education was a right? No... Did I say every student should receive financial aid? No... so please, take your condescending bull **** somewhere else, especially if you aren't going to have the courtesy to actually understand what I write...


What about students going to school out of state? Do you honestly think that the states are incompetent enough to conjure up a solution? There are plenty of intelligent people out there who could think of something. And, I am sure they would be forced to in the long run. Or, even better, schools could learn to offer more competitive tuition rates instead of relying of students to apply for scholarships and student loans to pay for what they can't afford. You know, allowing the "market" to correct itself.

But, we certainly don't want any of that free market crap in this country. We need to let Nanny Government take care of everything.

Education is an essential human service. As a result, I do not believe that the free market should decide who has access to financial aid for college. Considering it now takes a college education to work in many professions, our government should do more to ensure that more of its citizens has access to educational benefits. It shouldn't be based on geography, or one's financial status; every student should have equal access to these loans assuming they meet certain criteria.

[Backdrifter]

Nothing says that we are a Christian nation in the Constitution, either, but that doesn't prevent people from inserting Christian imagery into every level of our government, does it?

Soo... you agree with me then?


Education is an essential human service. As a result, I do not believe that the free market should decide who has access to financial aid for college. Considering it now takes a college education to work in many professions, our government should do more to ensure that more of its citizens has access to educational benefits. It shouldn't be based on geography, or one's financial status; every student should have equal access to these loans assuming they meet certain criteria.

Yeah, I'd love to see you justify education as essential human service from your evolutionary worldview because nothing in nature says that anyone or anything has any kind of inherent rights whatsoever. So, why? Why should people have the right to higher education?

[The Senator]

Soo... you agree with me then?

Agree with you on what? Last time I checked, you seemed to support the government's constant insertion of Christofascism into our lives.


So, why? Why should people have the right to higher education?

Once again, I never said that people have a right to higher education...

[Mr. Green]

Agree with you on what? Last time I checked, you seemed to support the government's constant insertion of Christofascism into our lives.
:facepalm

[SuBe]

Agree with you on what? Last time I checked, you seemed to support the government's constant insertion of Christofascism into our lives.
:huh:

[The Senator]

:facepalm

Still waiting on a response to this:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16626687&postcount=2914

[The Senator]

:huh:

He went on a tirade about the Constitution not specifically stating that the government has the ability to control education. Then I said that the Constitution doesn't say we are a Christian nation, but that doesn't prevent politicians and governmental institutions from inserting Christianity at every level of government.

From there, I thought he implied that he agreed with me and I agreed with him on the Christian nation point, but in the past, Stewie has said that we are a Christian nation... which is why I made that post...

[Mr. Green]

Still waiting on a response to this:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16626687&postcount=2914
Ron Paul only follows the Constitution and his own principles when it is convenient for his political ambitions. Remember his claims about fiscal conservatism? Remember his claims about how earmarks are wasteful spending? Well, Ron Paul happens to be one of the biggest earmark whores in the House of Representatives. Sure, he votes against the spending bills when he disagrees with others' earmarked appropriations, but he has no problem submitting over $70 million worth of requests each year.

Remember how Paul claimed that the United States should remain isolated? Interesting he should say that, considering he voted to send troops to Afghanistan. Yeah, I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is a war worth fighting, but when a politician claims he is against military interventionism, it is nothing less than hypocritical to vote for a multi-billion dollar war overseas.

Remember how Paul claims to be an ardent defender of First Amendment rights? It is also strange that someone who actually supports the First Amendment would vote to keep the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance after claiming to be uninterested in endorsing any religious ideology over another. Last time I checked, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, and others didn't believe in a single omnipotent being. He supports school prayer and has claimed that the Founding Fathers established this country as a Christian nation-- never mind that Christianity is never mentioned in the one document he wears on his sleave, the U.S. Constitution.



Ron Paul doesn't read many bills, either. He votes against them due to his pre-conceived notion to oppose anything and everything he can for the sake of looking like a constructionist.



You really think Ron Paul would be able to end the war in Iraq on the very first day he came into power? Good luck. Remove all the troops at once, then see Iraq collapse entirely. And then lose America's reputation in the process.



This seems to be the main reason why most of his supporters support him. But he's not the only politician to propose such a thing, and it is hardly a reason for me to back him given his other extremist and unrealistic positions.



And how is Ron Paul going to pay off our national debt, exactly?



I think it would be downright idiotic for us to cut all of our defense resources from certain countries. We have legitimate national security interests in certain countries which, if we withdrew, we would find ourselves screwed and other countries would end up screwed as well. With great power comes great responsibility, and we have a responsibility to use our power and influence to ensure that certain nations do not take advantage of other nations, and that nations which have long supported us have our back pending an international crisis. We have the money, we have the resources-- therefore, it only seems right that we lend a hand wherever it is needed, as long as it is done so justly and within international law.



I agree that Homeland Security is an inefficient department and that it needs to be abolished. But at the same time, there are government programs in other departments which have dramatically helped Americans survive financially since their inception. Government should be there to help its people, not leave them fending for themselves when there are corporate interests constantly screwing people over.
I was agreeing with you. I don't see what your problem is.

Ron Paul is crazy. I hate when politicians only vote for things that are constitutional. It's unpatriotic.

And I also agree that we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Who cares about declaring war anyhow? Why, because the constitution says so? HA! Yep, if we declared war we wouldn't be able to stay in Iraq indefinitely like we're doing now, for reasons that have nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

And our national defense is stronger than ever now, I agree. I mean, okay, empires throughout history have always failed by spreading themselves too far and wide and living beyond their means. But that's the risk we need to take to keep ourselves safe from the terrorists. THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

And, when did I say Ron Paul would pay off the national debt? He's a congressman? He's not even rich enough to do that!

[The Senator]

Mr. Green, you barely addressed a quarter of the points I raised in that post... then again, if you had read my post, your response wouldn't have been so pathetic...

[Mr. Green]

So, what you're saying is, agreeing with you isn't enough? I have to agree with every single sentence?

[The Senator]

So, what you're saying is, agreeing with you isn't enough? I have to agree with every single sentence?

What I am saying is that you have made a demagogue out of a hypocrite, and that you blindly align yourself with a caricature of Ron Paul rather than the real Ron Paul. He only uses the Constitution as a political device, and has shown-- time and time again-- that he is willing to buck the document he wears loosely on sleeve for political gain.

The way you idolize Ron Paul is dangerous. You act as if he is this wonderful, flawless, ideal American political savior... when in actuality, he is only a politician who has succeeded in manipulating every single one of his supporters into believing that he deserves to be held on some pedestal...

[SuBe]

What I am saying is that you have made a demagogue out of a hypocrite, and that you blindly align yourself with a caricature of Ron Paul rather than the real Ron Paul. He only uses the Constitution as a political device, and has shown-- time and time again-- that he is willing to buck the document he wears loosely on sleeve for political gain.

The way you idolize Ron Paul is dangerous. You act as if he is this wonderful, flawless, ideal American political savior... when in actuality, he is only a politician who has succeeded in manipulating every single one of his supporters into believing that he deserves to be held on some pedestal...This part sounds like what a lot of people do for Obama.

[Mr. Green]

This part sounds like what a lot of people do for Obama.
I don't see any evidence of that, Sube!
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wqcPA1ysSbw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wqcPA1ysSbw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

[ShadowBoxing]

Oh NOES people pledging to help the President make the country a better place. Think of the children, dear lord, think of the children :eek:

[SuBe]

When will this "mak[ing] the country a better place" thing start?

[Kelly]

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202F7.gif

[ShadowBoxing]

When will this "mak[ing] the country a better place" thing start?
I don't know, were you planning on helping, or just b*tching.

[Mr. Green]

Oh NOES people pledging to help the President make the country a better place. Think of the children, dear lord, think of the children :eek:
Yeah, it's not like it's propaganda or anything.

And servant to the president? Really? That's not how it works in this country, more like the other way around. I guess that's the difference between a republic and a dictatorship. Who woulda thought?

[SuBe]

I don't know, were you planning on helping, or just b*tching.
Both, Mr Grumpy Pants.

[Marx]

When will this "mak[ing] the country a better place" thing start?

I don't know, were you planning on helping, or just b*tching.

Both, Mr Grumpy Pants.

:lmao:

[Kelly]

I don't know, were you planning on helping, or just b*tching.


Damn SB, did SuBe kick your dog today?


And alittle more censoring on your words please.....:yay:

[Marx]

Damn SB, did SuBe kick your dog today?


And alittle more censoring on your words please.....:yay:

Censoring? That word is clearly 'bOtching'! :oldrazz:

[Kelly]

Censoring? That word is clearly 'bOtching'! :oldrazz:



You guys make me tired......lol :hehe:

[Marx]

You guys make me tired......lol :hehe:

:oldrazz:

[ShadowBoxing]

Yeah, it's not like it's propaganda or anything.
It's not:huh: Ashton Kutcher put this video together using his own production company and Myspace. This is someone's personal video, just like "Chocolate Rain", "Ron Paul Girl", and "What, What in the Butt" is someone's personal video. Propoganda is put out by the Government to support the Government's view of things. This video is by no means directly connected to the Obama campaign or White House...yet something tells me you already knew this.
And servant to the president? Really? That's not how it works in this country
Lincoln, the first Republican, called for a Civil Religion in several of his speeches and frequently called upon the citizens to be servants of the Government. Strikingly different message than what came before him to be sure, but a message he made. Although, again, and I stress, the video you posted was not done by Obama or his administration -- although you'll have to find the part of the video where they say "be a servant of the President" because it seemed to me the entire video (which I watched) was a collection of random celebrities saying something they would do personally to help the nation ranging for "not flipping the bird while driving" to "trying to end slavery". In fact the only guy who mentioned Obama directly, I believe, was P.Diddy.
more like the other way around. I guess that's the difference between a republic and a dictatorship. Who woulda thought?
Except in this Nation you are called upon to serve your country, frequently. World War II, the Great Depression, The Civil War. Some would argue that our trend away from that practice has exaserbated problems in this country.

[SuBe]

Damn SB, did SuBe kick your dog today?


Earlier Today:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Spacemonkey3434/SBsDog.jpg

[ShadowBoxing]

Seriously though, jokes aside, if someone ever kicked my dog, they'd die.

[Kelly]

Seriously though, jokes aside, if someone ever kicked my dog, they'd die.

Truth....:cmad:

[Marx]

Earlier Today:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Spacemonkey3434/SBsDog.jpg

:lmao:

[The Senator]

It's not:huh: Ashton Kutcher put this video together using his own production company and Myspace. This is someone's personal video, just like "Chocolate Rain", "Ron Paul Girl", and "What, What in the Butt" is someone's personal video. Propoganda is put out by the Government to support the Government's view of things. This video is by no means directly connected to the Obama campaign or White House...yet something tells me you already knew this.

You should know that the only reason why anyone would support Obama would be because the government told them to do it. So even if this was independently produced, why, Kutcher and his team were simply brainwashed by Obama into making this pledge...

[ShadowBoxing]

You should know that the only reason why anyone would support Obama would be because the government told them to do it. So even if this was independently produced, why, Kutcher and his team were simply brainwashed by Obama into making this pledge...
You're right. No one would even vote for Obama OR McCain if we had this Government approved brain-tick removed, they'd vote for Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich.

[Marx]

You're right. No one would even vote for Obama OR McCain if we had this Government approved brain-tick removed, they'd vote for Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich.

That just scares the hell out of me!

[Kelly]

That just scares the hell out of me!


Can you imagine a debate between those two, with O'Reilly as the moderator....lmao.

[Marx]

Can you imagine a debate between those two, with O'Reilly as the moderator....lmao.

Oh. Dear. Lord. :wow:

[ShadowBoxing]

That just scares the hell out of me!
Though I must admit, Mrs. Kuinich...kinda hot.

[Hobgoblin]

Earlier Today:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Spacemonkey3434/SBsDog.jpg

Thank you, I needed that laugh. :woot:

My two cents: People put politicians on pedestals. Its a fact. Obama is put on a pedestal by his hard core supporters. Dubya was put on a pedestal by his. Same with Ron Paul. I dont understand the blind devotion, but there it is. How about we, I dunno, keep a critical eye on all politicians?

By the way, isnt this the Economy Thread? I'll push it back on track. When is it safe to start buying stocks again? I heard Pat Buchanan say a few weeks ago he would buy GE stocks if he were a young man. (Ironically, he said Obama had no right to be giving stock advice.) So, what do you think? Should we start buying or does the market have more falling to do?

[The Senator]

Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich are two sides of the same coin. They are so extreme and irrational in their political views, it is hard to classify them.

[SuBe]

I personally wouldn't buy any stocks until the Obama Administration decided what their Policy will be with Capital Gains and Corporate Taxation. He is talking about increasing Capital Gains up to 20%, which means if and when that becomes actual Law, People will start pulling money out to insure they only pay 15% on their Investments. Corporations will start to grow if he cuts Corporate Taxes, something he has said he might be open to. If he does, stock prices will increase also.

I'm not a Stock Market Guru, but that is what I believe.

[danielisthor]

Seriously though, jokes aside, if someone ever kicked my dog, they'd die.

my sentiments exactly.

[ShadowBoxing]

Strangely, my stocks have done rather well through all this.

[hippie_hunter]

You should know that the only reason why anyone would support Obama would be because the government told them to do it. So even if this was independently produced, why, Kutcher and his team were simply brainwashed by Obama into making this pledge...

The point is that it's okay to be an Obamamaniac but it's not okay to be a Paulophile? :huh:

[Kelly]

I've been too scared to look.....

[hippie_hunter]

According to Liddy, he was given Approval from the Treasury Department and Chris Dodd to give the bonuses in the first place.

FUN FACT: In political donations AIG gave out last year during the election, 70% of it went to the Democrats. The people that got the most were Obama and Dodd.

[SuBe]

Dodd #1, Obama #2

I love Fun Facts

[Mr. Green]

Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich are two sides of the same coin. They are so extreme and irrational in their political views, it is hard to classify them.
:huh:

How is taking troops out of Iraq an extreme view? The vast majority of this country is against the war in Iraq.

How is opposing warrantless wiretapping of our phones extreme? Isn't it more extreme to support that type of thing?

How is obeying the constitution extreme? Isn't that what politicians pledge to do in the first place?

Sure, supporters of each politician want considerable change, but our government's actions RIGHT NOW are extreme and unrestrained. I think considerable change is needed.

[hippie_hunter]

Dodd #1, Obama #2

I love Fun Facts

I love how the Republicans are going to have a field day with Dodd in 2010.

[The Senator]

The point is that it's okay to be an Obamamaniac but it's not okay to be a Paulophile? :huh:

I was mocking how nearly every single Paul supporter thinks that the government is conspiring against its citizens, actually. It is interesting how every time someone supports a governmental policy, it is only because the government is releasing propaganda to make it seem like that is so. Never mind the fact that people are independently able to make their own decisions.

However, I would say that Paul's supporters are actually worse than most of Obama's most blind fanatics, given their susceptibility to inane, unproven conspiracy theories they take as 100% truth...