• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

Then its partial unemployment not a stimulus check at all. Partial unemployment is for people who are employed but have had their hours cut. They are people who if they could work their normal 40 hr. week schedules would not need unemployment and are only suffering due to work cuts.
 
It is true firms only supply to the point where their product or service is demanded and yes us demanding less means they will supply less. I also have to think when companies are losing investors hence cash flows they also begin to supply less as they fire employers and cut back on buying long term assets like machinery while weathering this storm. Right now downsizing is the trend for most businesses who want to stay afloat and lose the minimal amount of money to do so. Until investors gain some kind of security in the market things will get worse. I know people aren't going to invest these stimulus checks and most will simply pay off debt which is why they don't exactly serve their purpose, but hey paying down debt is a start.
 
Do you know what I get a kick out of. The OP of the thread was banned for having multiple accounts, in order to bolster his argument.

Just pointing out, ;)

Wayne
 
Really well thats retarded, lol Don't worry this is my only account and to be honest i hated both of our presidential choices so my posts are not to support anyone actually- just to point out Bush is a butthead who had no clue how to adjust interest rates and inflation to direct consumer and firm behavior.
 
danielle said:
It is true firms only supply to the point where their product or service is demanded and yes us demanding less means they will supply less. I also have to think when companies are losing investors hence cash flows they also begin to supply less as they fire employers and cut back on buying long term assets like machinery while weathering this storm. Right now downsizing is the trend for most businesses who want to stay afloat and lose the minimal amount of money to do so. Until investors gain some kind of security in the market things will get worse. I know people aren't going to invest these stimulus checks and most will simply pay off debt which is why they don't exactly serve their purpose, but hey paying down debt is a start.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, people aren't going to use these checks, for what they are intended. And, I hate the stimulus idea. But, Something had to be done. As long as people aren't out buying washing machines, fridges, cars, etc. Then the country will not recover. It's the whole supply and demand. If there is no demand, then supply stops. Cash flows, stop. People get laid off. Investors pull out and so on and so on.

I agree with you, to a point, but the country needs to be brought out of this particular recession by building from the ground up.

Everyone has an opinion as why we are in this mess. I think that many opinions could hold a little water. Problem still, is that we are in this mess. We all already know what the problem is and I think we need to work on fixing it, instead of pointing all kinds of fingers. A lot of people are to blame. From the top down!

Once it is fixed then we can blame.

Wayne
 
danielle said:
Really well thats retarded, lol Don't worry this is my only account and to be honest i hated both of our presidential choices so my posts are not to support anyone actually- just to point out Bush is a butthead who had no clue how to adjust interest rates and inflation to direct consumer and firm behavior.
Click to expand...

I wasn't accusing you of that at all! LOL! I was just pointing out, because I was doing some archive reading. LOL!

Wayne
 
Oh sorry man I wasn't sure, lol!! Well I'm with you we need to build up without getting stuck on whos fault it was or wasn't, but I fear the same mistakes could be repeated if people don't assess first how and why we got her. We have to bail out these companies- they are our economy, but we have to put our foot down and say we want to know how our money will be spent and what will be done to protect our markets from failure again.
 
danielle said:
Oh sorry man I wasn't sure, lol!! Well I'm with you we need to build up without getting stuck on whos fault it was or wasn't, but I fear the same mistakes could be repeated if people don't assess first how and why we got her. We have to bail out these companies- they are our economy, but we have to put our foot down and say we want to know how our money will be spent and what will be done to protect our markets from failure again.
Click to expand...

I agree!

The economy has been equated to a living, breathing thing. As long as it is nurtured and fed, it grows and is happy. Everyone is happy! One thing goes out of kilter and it and the darn thing, pitches a fit. We will survive and in the end, we will probably be none the wiser. This whole mess has happened before and it took a world war, to pull us out of it. What's it gonna take this time? I dunno and I think?!?!, I am scared to find out!

Wayne
 
danielle said:
Honestly something had to change and I was elated to hear about the resignation. We see the effect little regulation has had and if all these private companies want government money they have to be willing to adhere to more stringent rules. Our tax dollars are being spent on fancy vacations, big bonus checks to people who were not doing their jobs in the first place, and vacations. I'm glad our government is saying enough is enough otherwise our markets will never turn around. I am usually against government regulations in business and believe a huge reason American markets have been so efficient in the past is because we allow monetary incentives to drive innovation, hard work, and honesty which gives itself to our economy two fold. However, the real deal here is this- banks got greedy during our housing boom and began to push loans forward knowing full in well people could not pay these back. They assigned at first low interest rates to these loans that doubled within a year or two bundling these shakey loans and selling them to wallstreet. Wallstreet in turn rebundled these loans into bonds with a AAA rating the highest possible indicating these were low risk investments so investors ate these up not knowing the true risk involved which is highly unethical. In the meantime inflation rates soared as our American economy looked stronger and stronger, but Bush kept our interest rates the same- big mistake. Homes that went for $100,000 now sold for $400,000 with higher rates of interest on loans the bank kept givng out knowing wallstreet would buy them all up. Had our government cut inflation rates and looked into these mortgages walltreet was buying like candy we wouldn't be in half the mess we are now- but government DID NOT intervene welcome to our depression!!
Click to expand...
Wasn't it the Clinton administration that loosened the mortgage regs and pushed for low income home ownership? In a sense encouraging banks to do what they did.
 
Yes Clinton pushed for low income home ownership however he also manipulated inflation rates so a $100,000 home didn't skyrocket to $300,000 in a year. However, none of this encouraged banks to give out high risk loans and sell them dishonestly to wallstreet bundled as low risk bonds for investors to buy. The two have nothing to do with each other.
 
danielle said:
Yes Clinton pushed for low income home ownership however he also manipulated inflation rates so a $100,000 home didn't skyrocket to $300,000 in a year. However, none of this encouraged banks to give out high risk loans and sell them dishonestly to wallstreet bundled as low risk bonds for investors to buy. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

I think you are manipulating data to try and make it say what you want instead of what it really does.....and no, I don't think you are a better judge of the economy than Bush. :)
 
Well thanks K, but my data isn't manipulated search inflation rates from 2000-2008 and you can visually see them creep up more and more every year and then compare them to interest rates. As far as me being a better judge of the economy than Bush I don't know where I stated that and I don't soley blame Bush for the state of the economy since he had a slue of aides helping him make these decisions, and no idea banks were using these loans to cash in. However, any idiot would question why at a time when the price of homes was growing exponentially by the month in some cases more people were buying homes- it just doesn't make sense at all. We demand as consumers what we want to purchase. The things that shape our demands are necessity, price, and availability. A home is always going to be a necessity, but when the price shoots up hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single year why were more people buying? they were buying because banks allowed this and could sell these high risk loans off to wallstreet and no one questioned this. So its not all Bush's fault at all- between banks greediness and the boom we were seeing in construction, manufacturing, and realestate Bush and his aides thought everything was hunky dory as our economy showed higher rates of false growth- again why didn't anyone listen when economists started to scream this bubble is going to burst? Like me Bush is no economist, but when a panel of them tell you something is off, beg for investigation, and point out the plausible backlash the economy would suffer when the bubble burst what mutard doesn't at leat look into it?
 
You know, President Bush was not a great President by any means. He was mediocre at best and a flawed man. But he did not cause this mess all by himself. He is the figurehead, blamed for everything that goes wrong, but if you think a single man is capable of causing a mess like this alone, you really need a course in civics. (By "you", I'm not referring to anyone specifically).

Another thing to consider is that the ecomony, the government, this country is a massive entity and moves very slowly. Nothing is immediate. The effects of laws and policies enacted under the Clinton administration were not felt until well into the Bush administration. The effects of policies enacted under the Bush administration won't be felt until well into the Obama administration. Nothing is immediate.

A third thing to consider is the media. The media spins things to tell us what to think and how to feel. They don't just give the news. The media loathed Bush from the beginning. And the media adores Obama. Seriously, if the media hates you, you can do no right. And if the media loves you, unless you SERIOUSLY screw up and they can't gloss it over, you can do no wrong.

Otherwise intelligent people have referred to Bush as evil, the devil, Hitler...people who have never met him and have no earthly idea what a horrible stressful job he had. Everyone's an armchair quarterback yayying and booing a game they themselves have never played. Everyone is flawed, and he is no exception. I do know one thing though....I would not wish the position of POTUS on my very worst enemy. Even if the media adores you, it's no cakewalk.
 
Last edited:
(Edit: The following was placed in quotes to indicate that it was not directly my words. I made the bad judgement to copy paste an email I had received in its entirety. While the intention was to comment on Democrats in general the first comment was in bad taste and inappropriate. I did remove that line by request.)

YOU VOTED????

**********

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon
of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15%
isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of
spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is
offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys
will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know
that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and
thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will
rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten
years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about t he slaughter of millions
of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to
make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away
to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get
their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my rectum that it
is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money." Margaret Thatcher
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Brent, I can't believe you said that. I mean really. I was going to send it to all of my Democrat friends so they could see the kind of thing you were saying about them. But I couldn't think of any.

Virtually anyone can be a Democrat. Just simply quit thinking and vote that way. But if you want to be a GOOD Democrat, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare the below and see how you rate.

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology is in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that Clinton never had sex with that woman.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, and not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinmen are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe Obama didn’t hear anything his pastor said.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
 
What great posts!!! Thanks for sharing those with us.

You hear what's coming down the pipe possibly next week???? Pay for Performance Act of 2009. Where the Secretary for the Treasury, Tim Geithner, will be able to determine the pay and compensation "based on performance" for people working for a PRIVATE company in the PRIVATE sector. I can understand why one would like it a "little bit," being that they are currently "targeting" those companies that took the "bail-out" money. But, BOY, isn't THIS a slippery slope.

Now... the FIRST question is... "WHO" will be the person determining poor/adequate/excellent performance??? Not that person's boss... not that person's supervisor, but none other than the SAME Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner!!!

Second question, "WHEN" will the government then determine that they need to expand those new found powers to the REST of the private sector.

Three months into this administration... and this is the price we pay??? How much is this all gonna cost???

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/31/pay-for-performance-act-of-2009.php

ADD onto this that during his speech last night, Obama said that the US GOVERNMENT would back GM car WARRANTIES!!! Boy, isn't this a little much???? Shouldn't the government be doing much more IMPORTANT things? Micro-Management to the HILT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top