|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 3, 2:49*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:07:15 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 8:55*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Dumbass - Believe it or not, nearly all bills are too long for the congressmen to read. As for doing nothing: read what Warren Buffet said in the article in the first post of this thread. There were times when doing nothing was better, such as the Clinton/ Gingrich years. This is not one of those times. thanks, K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not according to the CBO's assessment. *Nothing would've been better than the Obama/Pelosi spending bill. What? Now you're just making stuff up.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No. Here is one of many articles addressing the subject. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/ |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
Scott wrote:
Here's something serious for you to consider. Check the level of the market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the day the spending bill was signed into law. Check the level the day they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000 earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. I LIKE cherries! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:49 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:07:15 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 8:55 pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32 pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40 pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00 am, Bill C wrote: When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Dumbass - Believe it or not, nearly all bills are too long for the congressmen to read. As for doing nothing: read what Warren Buffet said in the article in the first post of this thread. There were times when doing nothing was better, such as the Clinton/ Gingrich years. This is not one of those times. thanks, K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not according to the CBO's assessment. Nothing would've been better than the Obama/Pelosi spending bill. What? Now you're just making stuff up.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No. Here is one of many articles addressing the subject. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/ There used to an idea presented in Economics texts about a thing called "Fiscal Policy". The idea was that the government might sometimes run a budget deficit to battle recession and later run a surplus to combat inflation. There are problems with that, and they're real, but the general concept seems to have disappeared into a sea of perpetual deficits. Now, everyone wants to use the same policies to fight every problem. But maybe not. Nobody's pressing for a balanced budget these days. If there were a magic wand that made it so, you couldn't find a single person in DC willing to use it. Not this year. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
"LawBoy01" wrote in message
... But if you have the money, go buy stock. Maybe you ought to consider - Obama is presenting himself and another Roosevelt. Roosevelt's tactics extended the depression for 10 years. Buying stock now might be exactly the wrong thing. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
"Scott" wrote in message
... The markets have spoken: Obama/Pelosi spending bill is NOT going to stimulate anything other than big govt and big debt. Scott, you don't understand. The idiots here think that "giving him a chance" means that we shouldn't criticize plainly socialist policies put into effect to drive the US into such a depression that the socialists feel that they can then gain complete control of the country. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
... There used to an idea presented in Economics texts about a thing called "Fiscal Policy". The idea was that the government might sometimes run a budget deficit to battle recession and later run a surplus to combat inflation. There are problems with that, and they're real, but the general concept seems to have disappeared into a sea of perpetual deficits. Now, everyone wants to use the same policies to fight every problem. Yet you seem to be alright with running not just constant deficits but increasingly huger ones as well. But maybe not. Nobody's pressing for a balanced budget these days. If there were a magic wand that made it so, you couldn't find a single person in DC willing to use it. Not this year. Nor any other. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:27:37 -0800, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote: Scott, you don't understand. The idiots here think that "giving him a chance" means that we shouldn't criticize plainly socialist policies put into effect to drive the US into such a depression that the socialists feel that they can then gain complete control of the country. The socialists, Democrat and Republican, are in control of the country. We are only arguing about how socialist and where the money is spent. We just don't like to call farm subsidies, federal agencies supplanting private enterprise, subsidies by industry, subsidies buried in tax code, etc. socialism. We have lots of jargon to use instead. But unless you are at least ten years older than I (born 1949), you've pretty much lived in a socialist country of one stripe or another all your life. You really need to learn to live with it, otherwise you'll die a bitter man... Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 2, 1:03*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
The Dow opened at under 7000 today. The high was over 14,000. Nothing the matter with the economy. Nothing at all. STOP THE FEAR MONGERING! you're an idiot |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 2, 9:05*pm, Scott wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is better. How many times did you vote for Bush? -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's your point? You're reciting the Republican party line. All I need to know about your judgment is how many times you voted for Bush. It's like knowing how many Nigerian emails you've eagerly responded to. -Paul |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 2, 3:46*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message ... There was NO need for the panic mongering after 9/11 and we'll be paying that pice for generations, and I think the same for this. What? Are you saying that we shouldn't have elected an avowed socialist into office and then act surprised when he is destroying our system of government? Tom I don't like him, would have preferred he not be elected, but he's not going to destroy our system of government any more than Al Q or other terrorists are going to conquer the US. A large portion of the money he's spending may very well be the best approach too. My point is that he, along with the earmark brigade in Congress are creating panic conditions so that they can rush stuff through that would never get through the regular process. Noone is buying that the actions so far are going to stabilize or fix the situation, or that there is a long term plan in place. He's generating no confidence at all from the people in the markets, business, or the general public by the current approach. Hate to say it to Tom , but Madoff was reported to the SEC as early as 2001 and nothing was done, the trail of existing laws and regulations not being enforced, and the government willfully failing to follow the law ran all through Bush's administration. Wouldn't you call that destroying our system of government? When anyone, especially the people who have the power, willfully choose to ignore, break, or circumvent the existing laws of our country then they are already outside of, and destroying the system. I sincerely hope that Obama doesn't get everything he wants because I think it's wrong, but I do sure as hell hope that what he does is incredibly successful for the good of the country. I have no use for the folks on the liberal left side who wanted the biggest possible disaster for the country under Bush, and I have no use for the folks wishing the same for Obama. We are getting killed due to greed and the folks who were supposed to be providing oversight being enablers of this **** so the last thing we need is more total lack of oversight and enabling but that's exactly what's going on and what the panic mongering is designed to allow to happen. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19524.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19539.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19556.html Good read he http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...insurance-loss Some quotes: Some argue that the treasury has gone too far in its rescue. "If AIG had been pressured to put some of its divisions into bankruptcy, this crisis could have been averted," said Eli Lehrer, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. AIG's shares closed unchanged last night at 42 cents, valuing the business at $1.2bn. A year ago, the shares were $46. In a renewed effort to prevent AIG from collapsing, the US government yesterday provided it with access to $30bn of emergency aid. This takes the amount of taxpayers' funds advanced to AIG to more than $150bn. The whole thing, and the concept of "too big to fail" is a really good reason for bringing back Teddy's trust busting and monopoly control. Sorry but no matter how you slice it the vast majority of this mess lands right in the laps of the "greed is good, get rich NOW" folks, and their government lapdogs who were primarily Bush appointees and institutions. Kurgan was pointing out years ago that the bubble was going to burst, was pointing at how it was going to burst, and had the cause pinpointed too, and said it all here in public. Not much mention of Obama in it either. Obama is whipping up the fear and using it to advance his agenda, and so are the Congressional scum. Noone is advancing the good of the Country as a whole, or responsibility. I don't think America wants the truth, and can't handle the truth of the situation which is that the vast majority of us and our instant gratification, materialistic, greed based culture caused it, and we sure as hell don't want to hear the real solution, if there is one, and I've actually seen it in a few stories, is that we are going to have to learn that we can't have it all, that it's going to be a long, hard, struggle full of sacrifices to dig out of this, and our standard of materialistic living will have to drop, period. They can't just print more money and make this all go away which seems to be the current answer because that's politically safe, and instead of learning the greed is bad lesson the Congress critters are grabbing every dollar they can find and chanelling it to their friends and donors. Gee what a shock that the people we elect suck as bad as we do as a Nation. They do truly represent us though. Bill C |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BBC documentary exposes the Zionist jew conspiracy and the NeoCon war mongering - using our countries to carry out Israel's dirty work. Australia needs to stop supporting these racist terrorists, Israel. | Midex | Australia | 0 | May 6th 07 03:52 PM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Tom Keats | Social Issues | 5 | August 4th 04 07:55 AM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Pete | Racing | 1 | August 3rd 04 06:13 AM |
Aren't bicycles suposed to stop at stop signs? | Ken | General | 85 | September 22nd 03 11:22 PM |
The Fear | dannyfrankszzz | UK | 33 | August 29th 03 09:47 AM |