A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STOP THE FEAR MONGERING



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 3rd 09, 03:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,859
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 04:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,048
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 04:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,048
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 05:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 05:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 05:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 05:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 07:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 769
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 08:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Paul G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,393
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 09, 08:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.