Economic Stimulus

We could easily get into a wasteful spending war here, and I'm pretty sure the Republicans will not fare well either. Characterizing pork spending as exclusive to Democrats is absurd. Of course there is pork in this bill!


Well, I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Dems are the only party responsible for pork spending, but we're discussing THIS bill, at THIS point in time, with a federal government under Democratic reign in all three branches. Right NOW, it's perfectly appropriate to characterize the pork in THIS bill as Democratic. Like it or not, it IS a Democratic bill.

NOW is NOT the time for pork projects. If it takes Republican hard headedness and partisan saber rattling to bring it to more debate, so be it. And if the Republicans don't get on board and this bill tanks us, what then? Blame them for not wanting to help sink the ship?

I would quote Bob's post #49 for truth, but I don't want to see soup lines and I sincerely hope we can get out of this mess. However, it won't happen with Obama still back on the campaign trail and Pelosi running around congress like she just won the damn lottery.

I'll agree with you on one point; it IS partisan politics, but it needs to be. Somebody had to slow this thing down and get it out into the open. You might want rubber stamped legislation, but many others do not.

If you want to talk about all past grievances and pork spending, then go ahead and start another thread and knock yourself out. Let's talk about THIS one right now.

If you want to talk about all past grievances and pork spending, then go ahead and start another thread and knock yourself out. Let's talk about THIS one right now.

:werd:

I was against Bush's 700 billion dollar TARP plan and have not changed my position on the Obama, Pelosi, Reid Democrat 800 billion dollar plan which is a joke and an insult to all Americans. Nothing but a spend, spend, spend bill which is typical of Democrats and in keeping with their ideology. Note: Bush's TARP plan was clearly supported and pushed by the Democrats. More Republicans were opposed to it.

The issue is this particular economic stimulus package which is far from being any form of stimulus package. It is so full of pork and earmarks it is not funny. This is the Mother of all pork bills. :runaround:

The three Republican Senators that voted for it should be ashamed of themselves. :twak:

I sent thank you emails to Senators John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) for voting against the bill. :biggrin:



Source: AP

Highlights of Economic Recovery Plan

Spending

Energy
$32 billion Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$20 billion + Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion Funding to weatherize modest-income homes

Science and Technology
$10 billion Science facilities
$6 billion High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas

Infrastructure
$32 billion Transportation projects
$31 billion Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion Water projects
$10 billion Rail and mass transit projects

Education
$41 billion Grants to local school districts
$79 billion State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion School modernization

Health Care
$39 billion Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$90 billion Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4 billion Preventative care

Taxes
Individuals:

$400 per worker, $800 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion. Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor. Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children. A $2,500 college tuition tax credit. Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time

Businesses:

An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two. Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment. Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases. Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans. Source: Associated Press

As far as Obama is concerned, how could any leader possibly be doing better in his position? 1. By giving REAL tax cuts to all people of all income levels
2. Don't spend billions our budget doesn't have. Ordinary citizens aren't even allowed to spend like this.
3. Down size government, get rid of unneccesary positions , like private companies are now doing. He is pushing for increased personal responsibility for all Americans Except for HIMSELF! as well as serious review and slashing of ineffective programs (Reagan anyone?) While CREATING hundreds more INeffective programs! He wants to require welfare recipients to earn their keep through public service. And he wants to create millions of jobs by investing in public works and infrastructure. I've said this before, but all 3 of the biggest economic booms in modern times (Germany WWII, US post WWII, and China recently) have been associated with massive infrastructure and public works projects. This money HAS to be spend. Cutting taxes alone will not do the job.:2cents:You can't do all that if you destroy the private companies that would be used for those jobs!

The plan has more than $3 billion in “neighborhood stabilization” and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which will go to benefit ACORN!

And this one put's the icing on the cake; the "stimulus" bill had $30 million allocated for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area – Pelosi’s district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. 30-million for RATS? :eek7:


After all is said & done!
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9789/crazygreenspanbernankehq6.jpg

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office.

Yesterday the Dow was at its lowest levels since 1997. :eek:


Source: AP
Major stock market indexes fall to 1997 levels

NEW YORK (AP) — The major stock market indexes have staggered to their lowest levels in more than a decade, pulled down by investors' rapidly waning confidence. The Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500 index are at the lowest point since 1997, succumbing to growing worries about a recession that has no end in sight.

Link to Article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHs5OM3gFG_DytQQZFbWfgPT08MAD96HH3F80)

Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.

Click Here (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html?s=al&promo_code=7ACC-1)

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office.

[/i]

Because we all know stocks were doing so well before Obama took office. In fact, I do remember a distinct upward trend before Obama took office, and it looked like Bush was going to lift the country right out of this recession:screwy:

Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.

Click Here
:lol::lol::lol2::lol2: That was really, really good. I especially like the radical communist, infanticide, and birth certificate parts. Oh man, thanks for the laugh!

Because we all know stocks were doing so well before Obama took office. In fact, I do remember a distinct upward trend before Obama took office, and it looked like Bush was going to lift the country right out of this recession:screwy:

I don't know about doing so well but obviously they were higher up to the weekend before Obama's inauguration. A fact is a fact no matter how you parse it.


Stock Market Closing Prices - 1/16/09

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 8281.22 Up 68.73
Nasdaq Stock Market Close - 1529.33 Up 17.49
S&P 500 Close - 850.09 Up 6.35

Giving the man some credit at least Obama has sense enough to realize he inherited the economy from Bush and the do nothing democratic majority U.S. Congress. Gee :confused: ...........but wasn't he a member of the U.S. Senate. :screwy:

Or as for inheriting the mess how about we go back to Bill Clinton and his social engineering experiment with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which last time I checked was the main reason for our current financial meltdown and the stock market heading South.


Government Intensifies Mortgage Investigation

New York Times
Published: May 5, 2008

Federal agencies are intensifying a criminal investigation of the mortgage industry and focusing on whether some lenders turned a blind eye to inflated income figures provided by borrowers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service have formed a task force to examine mortgages that were made with little or no proof of the earnings or assets of borrowers, a government official who had been briefed on the matter said Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/business/05lend.html?ref=patrick.net



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

New York Times
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt



Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’

Los Angeles Times
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807



Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees

September 18, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

Surprisingly, research done by economists a decade ago in 1998, particularly by Professors Ted Day and Stan Liebowitz at the University of Texas at Dallas, predicted the current problems and tried to warn people of a different cause. Starting during the early 1990s, mortgage-underwriting standards have been consistently weakened. Many of the names involved in the forefront of those changes, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as Countrywide and Bear Stearns, have been the most prominent financial entities to become insolvent.

Others did not share these economists' concerns. The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than ‘concern about housing.'"

The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a "noble goal" -- an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans -- but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments.

Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html

A fact is a fact no matter how you parse it.

Funny, you were saying quite the opposite in the racism thread:icon16:

Giving the man some credit at least Obama has sense enough to realize he inherited the economy from Bush and the do nothing democratic majority U.S. Congress. Gee :confused: ...........but wasn't he a member of the U.S. Senate. :screwy:

Or as for inheriting the mess how about we go back to Bill Clinton and his social engineering experiment with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which last time I checked was the main reason for our current financial meltdown and the stock market heading South.


I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that Clinton had a hand in this. Although, to be fair, to deny that Bush and co. played a large part is equally insane.


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/bush-administration-weake_n_147311.html




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/21/business/21admin.600.jpg

In June 2002, President Bush spoke in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase minority homeownership.

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html




So let's put the partisanship aside for a minute and recognize that both parties have responsibility in this matter. The wheels were set in motion long before Obama stepped in office. :thumbsup:

Funny, you were saying quite the opposite in the racism thread:icon16:

:rolleyes:

I don't recall that. The problem is you did not present any facts or any prima facie proof in your last reply at that thread. You yourself conceded it was not racism which was your argument in the first place. In other words you lost the debate by your own admission so therefore, nothing further to discuss on that matter. :grinno:........:biggrin:


I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that Clinton had a hand in this. Although, to be fair, to deny that Bush and co. played a large part is equally insane.

No one said Bush had nothing to do with it. Obviously it was his watch. But that is what happens when you deviate from good ole basic conservatism or listen to bad advice. My position has always been both parties are to blame for the financial meltdown so nothing has changed in my beliefs. But liberals are always one sided about it. The only reason why you conceded on Clinton is the facts supported my argument. :eek:

Contrary to your argument and articles Bush called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae many times over from 2001-2008 and the Demos ignored the warnings so what is their excuse? :twak:



Sunday, September 21, 2008

Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.

Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:


** 2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.
Democrats blocked this reform, too.

More... Not only did democrats not act on these warnings but Barack Obama put one of the major Sub-Prime Slime players on his campaign as finance chairperson.

Source/Link (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html)

:rolleyes:

I don't recall that. The problem is you did not present any facts or any prima facie proof in your last reply at that thread. You yourself conceded it was not racism which was your argument in the first place. In other words you lost the debate by your own admission so therefore, nothing further to discuss on that matter. :grinno:........:biggrin:


:lol2: I forgot about the part in the thread where you provided a ton of evidence indicating that racism does not exist and that minorities have equal opportunity. I guess your formal logic skills are far superior to mine:runaround:

No one said Bush had nothing to do with it.

It looks like the stock market and investors don't have any confidence at this point in time with any of Obama's economic policies. In case anyone has not noticed the market has been in a downward spiral since he took office

Your post implies that the poor performance of the stock market is correlated with Obama being in office. Of this you have absolutely no corroboration, in fact everything indicates otherwise. See the DJI crash from 2007-current
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI

The index has lost around 8% while Obama has been in office, compared with the 40-45% it lost under Bush. In a much more correct statement of fact, the markets have continued its decline under Obama, NOT "the markets have been in a downward spiral since he took office.

But liberals are always one sided about it.

I love ad hominem attacks, they always strengthen your argument!


The only reason why you conceded on Clinton is the facts supported my argument. :eek:

See thread entitled "The Official Barack Obama Thread", post #17, and you'll find this beauty

I couldn't agree more. There is no question that Clinton had a hand in deregulation and other factors that played a large part in this whole mess.



Contrary to your argument and articles Bush called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae many times over from 2001-2008
and the Demos ignored the warnings so what is their excuse? :twak:

I'm not going to deny that Bush wanted reform, and he was probably right about that. Good for him, seems he got at least one thing right. Still doesn't absolve him and the Pubs from their stake in this mess.

Look, it goes much farther back. Here's a thought: let's just substitute the words "federal government" whenever we use the words "bush", "clinton", "reagan", et al, to assign blame for our economic ills. The Republican party hasn't looked like "Republicans" for a long time now. To me, they're just a slightly different flavor of Democrat. It's basically the illusion of a 2-party system.

Let's not forget the contribution of "the American consumer", who bought into this in the first place. How anyone in their right mind thought we could sustain that level of "growth" in the economy is beyond me. Any fool knows you can't continuously spend more than you make without having it bite you dead square in the fanny eventually.

At this point, partisanship (if it's even real) is only going to postpone the inevitable if it even slows it down at all, but rubber stamping this stuff is not good, either. Some of us may not like it when the "opposition" throws up a roadblock or two, but some of this legislation needs to be slowed down and examined.

In the end, it gets passed anyway and we all suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, paying for these bills will probably put us under, maybe even for good.

If we think the govt needs to take care of us, even those who will not take care of themselves, then they'll have to take all of our money and spend it for us. If you think the US govt knows how to spend your money better than you do, then I guess you deserve this.

Rome is burning, guys. The Circus Maximus is on Capitol Hill.

:shakehead

Every time Obama opens his mouth the stock market continues its downward spiral. Obviously his quasi State of the Union speech or coming out party yesterday evening did not help or have anyone fooled. The Dow finished up the day at 7270.89, down -80.05 (-1.09%) after a roller coaster ride and dipping to a low of 7114.30 before rebounding somewhat thanks to Mr. Bernanke. It would have been worse if Fed Chairman Bernanke didn't weigh-in and reassure investors. The bottom line is Obama's B.S. speech had no impact except to drive the market down today.....again. Inspirational and brings hope my rear end. This man is nothing but a train wreck. Obviously, there is ZERO confidence in him from Wall Street to Main Street.


Source: Liberal rag LA Times
Stocks rebound on Bernanke's economic assessment

February 25, 2009
Reporting from New York -- Soothing words from Federal Reserve chief Ben S. Bernanke helped the stock market rebound Tuesday from a plunge to 11-year lows, but investors worried that the rally could be only a short-lived bounce.

By telling Congress that policymakers did not plan to nationalize banks, Bernanke relieved at least temporarily a swirling fear that the government could assume control of major institutions.

Link to Article (http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-markets25-2009feb25,0,739472.story)


It is no surprise even liberal commentators like MSNBC's Chris Matthews of Hardball are having their doubts. "Chris Matthews Calls the Dow Jones Obama's Scorecard"

9kn3a2Cd-ZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kn3a2Cd-ZQ


Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid if you believe otherwise. :loser:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/koolaid.jpg

:shakehead

Every time Obama opens his mouth the stock market continues its downward spiral.

Someone has been listening to Sean Hannity!:rofl:

If any one person can make a speech about plans on what we need to do that can immediately reverse global trends and recession, then I will give all my life savings to him.

It doesn't matter who was/is the President and what the speech was about, nothing is going to change the simple fact that the markets are going to go down for the next year.

I also find it rather perplexing.
On the one hand, you say you are against the bail out plans. That suggests you prefer to see the companies and banks simple fail and go out of existence. That in turn would have a devastating effect on the Dow Jones. Is this a case of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't?

On a slightly related note, I saw the last half hour of that speech on our news channels here and the one thing stands out most in my mind, is that lady in the green behind Obama who seemed to want to be the first to stand up and applaud. The rest of it is just the usual stuff we see whenever a political leader addresses the parties.

If any one person can make a speech about plans on what we need to do that can immediately reverse global trends and recession, then I will give all my life savings to him.

Obviously you won't be giving that to Obama. :grinno:......:lol:

Would you like my PayPal account number? :grinyes:

But seriously talk is cheap. Other than the people that voted for Obama and the liberal media nobody else believes his economic recovery plan(s) will work, therefore the lack of confidence, doubt and the continuing sell off.


It doesn't matter who was/is the President and what the speech was about, nothing is going to change the simple fact that the markets are going to go down for the next year.

The market has been going down and I repeat in a downward spiral since Obama was elected on November 4. The profoundly negative market and investor reaction was way before his inauguration. As I recall on or about Nov 5 and 6 the Dow Jones dropped nearly 10%, immediately after the presidential election. The Dow dropped over 486 points on November 5, and 443 points on November 6, closing below 8,696. It is been going down ever since. The loss has been well over 2000 points since the election to present. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just look at your stock, IRA and 401K plan portfolios, if any. :eek:


I also find it rather perplexing.

On the one hand, you say you are against the bail out plans. That suggests you prefer to see the companies and banks simple fail and go out of existence. That in turn would have a devastating effect on the Dow Jones. Is this a case of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't?

I'm not against bail out plans or any economic stimulus packages just the ones that won't work or are stuffed with pork or partisan spending packages in disguise. Obviously the TARP with Bush still in office had an effect on the Dow Jones but Obama himself had a much greater effect. Nothing but gloom and doom. As the leader of this country (not yours) he sets the tone and pace. Keep in mind the stock market is a measure of confidence in the future. Trying to cover his rear end all Obama talks about is saying how bad things will be before it gets better or fails to adequately explain how his plans will work. This is no way to instill confidence or reassure the American People. This is a serious flaw which indicates his lack of leadership concepts.


On a slightly related note, I saw the last half hour of that speech on our news channels here and the one thing stands out most in my mind, is that lady in the green behind Obama who seemed to want to be the first to stand up and applaud.

That is Madam Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) who was one of the architects of the latest 800 billion dollar pork stuffed economic stimulus package so obviously she will be clapping any time she gets a chance.

As for Obama he can give all the hope inspiring speeches he wants with his cohorts like Pelosi, Reed and Biden along with others. And they can applaud all they want but reality will not yield so easily.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not defending Obama or attacking your position on him and his plans; just pointing out that the current climate is such that nothing anyone is going to say or do is going to have any immediate effect on our markets.

A recession is typically taken to be official after 6 months of decline in markets. Once a recession is official, it "usually" lasts at least 18 months before any real change is noticed. Following this, it seems to me that Obama's election and inauguration occured during this period and would suggest that the reality is that the current market decline has little to do with his taking the helm; instead merely doing what it does during such a situation.
i.e continue to fall.
Add to this the fact that one of the key problems here is lack of liquidity in companies (and banks) and that the Libor rates are still so high means that companies who rely on banks to maintain cashflow are going to suffer even more.
i.e lose market worth.

You placing all the blame on Obama for the continued decline equates (to me) to the Obama supporters saying unequivocally that he will get the U.S out of recession.

Recession isn't something that can be reversed overnight no matter how confidence inspiring (or not as the case may be) that any plan or person may be.


As much as I don't like the idea (or perhaps more correctly, the implications) of nationalising banks and companies, I can't ignore the fact that what we need to stablise our respective economies is cash to helps small and medium sized businesses to keep running and right now, the only body with that much cash, is our respective governments. This isn't just about bailing out the big firms, something else that I am also torn on as, well, if the largest employers in your country is simply left to die, what does that mean for their employees?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not defending Obama or attacking your position on him and his plans; just pointing out that the current climate is such that nothing anyone is going to say or do is going to have any immediate effect on our markets.

A recession is typically taken to be official after 6 months of decline in markets. Once a recession is official, it "usually" lasts at least 18 months before any real change is noticed. Following this, it seems to me that Obama's election and inauguration occured during this period and would suggest that the reality is that the current market decline has little to do with his taking the helm; instead merely doing what it does during such a situation.
i.e continue to fall.
Add to this the fact that one of the key problems here is lack of liquidity in companies (and banks) and that the Libor rates are still so high means that companies who rely on banks to maintain cashflow are going to suffer even more.
i.e lose market worth.

Yeah I recall you got that some of that advice from your sister. :uhoh:.....:lol: The last time I checked you were always an Obama supporter so therefore not impartial in your comments either.

The people that will get the U.S. out of recession will be the 57 million that voted against him. Many of his supporters don't even have a pot to piss in. None of his supporters are taking heed of what he said. We might once we become confident that he and his administration can do the job.

And I would not confuse the recession with the economic meltdown caused by two simple words.....Fannie and Freddie or companies like the U.S. automakers that created their own mess.

Yeah I recall you got that some of that advice from your sister. :uhoh:.....:lol: The last time I checked you were always an Obama supporter so therefore not impartial in your comments either.

The people that will get the U.S. out of recession will be the 57 million that voted against him. Many of his supporters don't even have a pot to piss in. None of his supporters are taking heed of what he said. We might once we become confident that he and his administration can do the job.

And I would not confuse the recession with the economic meltdown caused by two simple words.....Fannie and Freddie or companies like the U.S. automakers that created their own mess.

Actually, I was neither an Obama supporter or a McCain opposer. When I posted, it was mostly to do with the (more outspoken) attackers, most of whom were attacking Obama whilst seemingly ignoring similar flaws of their own prefered candidate. When I submitted articles and links, they were to highlight and reflect the fact that similar things could be found on their own candidate as they were condemning Obama for. or otherwise pointout a fallacy or flaw in their arguments.

For the record, my sister is works in a private bank dealing with individuals who have seriously huge amounts of cash. I'd trust her with my money if I had enough to open an account at where she works.

Incidentally, it seems that a recession in the U.S tends to follow a different pattern than in the UK. Economists tend to give the 18 months I gave in reference to our markets so the time frame may be different in the U.S.

Is it possible to seperate recession with the meltdown (as you put it)?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not defending Obama or attacking your position on him and his plans; just pointing out that the current climate is such that nothing anyone is going to say or do is going to have any immediate effect on our markets.

A recession is typically taken to be official after 6 months of decline in markets. Once a recession is official, it "usually" lasts at least 18 months before any real change is noticed. Following this, it seems to me that Obama's election and inauguration occured during this period and would suggest that the reality is that the current market decline has little to do with his taking the helm; instead merely doing what it does during such a situation.
i.e continue to fall.
Add to this the fact that one of the key problems here is lack of liquidity in companies (and banks) and that the Libor rates are still so high means that companies who rely on banks to maintain cashflow are going to suffer even more.
i.e lose market worth.

You placing all the blame on Obama for the continued decline equates (to me) to the Obama supporters saying unequivocally that he will get the U.S out of recession.

Recession isn't something that can be reversed overnight no matter how confidence inspiring (or not as the case may be) that any plan or person may be.


As much as I don't like the idea (or perhaps more correctly, the implications) of nationalising banks and companies, I can't ignore the fact that what we need to stablise our respective economies is cash to helps small and medium sized businesses to keep running and right now, the only body with that much cash, is our respective governments. drunken monkey, you are apparently being true to your name. You must be drunk to believe the government has all the money it needs for these "bailouts" Obama has NO intention of helping our economy, or paying for these programs, all he wants is to destroy our economy and control our Lives! This isn't just about bailing out the big firms, something else that I am also torn on as, well, if the largest employers in your country is simply left to die, what does that mean for their employees?It means they will go on to find even better jobs!:grinno:



Quote From BNaylor:
That is Madam Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) who was one of the architects of the latest 800 billion dollar pork stuffed economic stimulus package so obviously she will be clapping any time she gets a chance.

That is a question thats been on my mind since the unveiling of this economic destruction plan. Just who put it together ansd When???

That is a question thats been on my mind since the unveiling of this economic destruction plan. Just who put it together and When???

Well, in addition to all that he (Obama) just released his proposed FY 2010 budget plan. 3.55 trillion dollars. Ouch! Much of which can be classified a redistribution of wealth program.

And as an usual occurrence the Dow drops another -88.81 points to 7182.08. :rolleyes:


Source: Liberal Rag LA Times

Obama's budget plan: At a glance
The president outlines his $3.55-trillion budget for 2010.

Link to Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget-qanda27-2009feb27,0,2672026.story)

I had some fun today. A local talk show host in Portland sponsered a "Portland Tea Party" other cities have done them, we went to downtown Portland with tea and protest signs for the stimulus package, and dumped the tea in the Willamette river!

It was great!

You can see pics of it here:

http://www.victoriataft.com/

I had some fun today. A local talk show host in Portland sponsered a "Portland Tea Party" other cities have done them, we went to downtown Portland with tea and protest signs for the stimulus package, and dumped the tea in the Willamette river!

It was great!

You can see pics of it here:

http://www.victoriataft.com/

Thanks for sharing that. Kind of a moot issue since the stimulus package passed but I can see that concerning the proposed budget. The battle lines are being drawn again as usual.

In the meantime..........You go girl!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:


And for anecdotal info Dow drops again on Friday. It looks like it is headed below 7000. :banghead:

7062.93 -119.15 (-1.66%) Feb 27


Also, this is interesting and has the liberal/demo bloggers in an uproar since the article mentioned "redistribution of wealth". Keep in mind the New York Times is the liberal media.



Source: Liberal Rag New York Times

The combined effect of the two revenue-raising proposals, on top of Mr. Obama’s existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on households with income exceeding $250,000 a year, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers.

Link to Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26budget.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp)

Thanks for sharing that. Kind of a moot issue since the stimulus package passed but I can see that concerning the proposed budget. The battle lines are being drawn again as usual. Of course you know,this stimulus package isn't the ONLY one Obama wants. He is trying to spend even more. Maybe these protests will help thwart any more of these bogus bills!

In the meantime..........You go girl!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:


And for anecdotal info Dow drops again on Friday. It looks like it is headed below 7000. :banghead:

7062.93 -119.15 (-1.66%) Feb 27


Also, this is interesting and has the liberal/demo bloggers in an uproar since the article mentioned "redistribution of wealth". Keep in mind the New York Times is the liberal media.

[/i]

Why is Biden and that other guy looking so mad in that picture? could it be they're thinking how much THEIR taxes will be going up???:iceslolan

Check this one out :lol2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cqr-OcJ_CI&eurl=http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/02/stimulusol_xr.html&feature=player_embedded

Check this one out :lol2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cqr-OcJ_CI&eurl=http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/02/stimulusol_xr.html&feature=player_embedded

I believe the Obama/stimulus supporters are already on that drug!:shakehead

....and be sure to remain aware of the side effects!

That was a good vid.

all he wants is to destroy our economy and control our Lives!

in respose to my posing the question of what to do if one of the largest employers is left to die:
It means they will go on to find even better jobs!

BNaylor, this is the type of drivel that anti-Obama people post that I post against.

Incidentally, to further qualify my earlier statement; only the Government has the means to act as guarentee towards the loans that small to medium sized businesses need to keep the/your/our economy moving.

I don't think ANYONE wants the nation's biggest employers to die. The thing is that BHO's package has so much included that has NOTHING to do with the stimulation of the economy it is criminal.

BNaylor, this is the type of drivel that anti-Obama people post that I post against.


I see your point and point well taken but members are entitled to their opinions whether drivel or not, good, bad or indifferent. And you are entitled to post your point in opposition so carry on. :biggrin:

BTW - There are a lot of anti Obama people that participate in this forum. :lol:

BTW - There are a lot of anti Obama people that participate in this forum. :lol:
Big change in the left/right complexion here since I first came on board. It is much more friendly to differing ideas than in '04, '05, '06, '07....

I'm fiscal conservative social libertarian. Smoke, stick, injest, fondle whatever the hell you want as long as you don't force me to participate or make me pay for it (or to pay for fixing you after you f yourself up).

Obama is not fiscally responsible 800 billion bailout followed by 3.7 trillion budget. An idiot would have a hard time believing that is fiscally responsible. He's a social liberal as he wants you do smoke, stick, injest and fondle what you want but he expects me to pay for it!

BTW - There are a lot of anti Obama people that participate in this forum. :lol:

Big change in the left/right complexion here since I first came on board. It is much more friendly to differing ideas than in '04, '05, '06, '07....

Ahh the good ole times. Most of them left however once Taranaki was out. Nobody's heart around here could bleed like his.

It was also fun to watch him and Yogs duke it out.
Left vs Right THE SHOWDOWN!

:lol:

This forum is coming back. Don't forget the Flatrater v. Taranaki duels.

You can't buy entertainment like this. :popcorn:

Back to the topic. Socialism is not upon us but here. We are now a full European Democracy Welfare State.

I can't count the number of times teriyaki and I bumped heads. He would pull out the http://tv4u.com/commercials/classic_commercials/images/ban_deodorant_commercial.jpg in a minute.

in respose to my posing the question of what to do if one of the largest employers is left to die:

Where are we to draw the line? I see where Los Vegas is currently dying on the vine. The gambling industry has had the feeling it was exempt from the economic cancer. Vegas and the gambling industry there is responsible for well over 900,000. General Motors is directly responsible for 1.2 million jobs. Are we now going to bail out Vegas?

I want MY 40 acres and a mule!

I guess that is the biggest problem in the current climate.
Our respective governments are responsible for keeping the country alive but at the same time, it isn't fair for the people to have to pay for solutions.
Then again, if the employers aren't kept afloat, the country dies.
If small/medium sized (manufacturing) businesses don't get their loans to fulfill their current guaranteed orders because banks aren't keen to lend, the country dies.
Government provides backing for banking loans, the people voice complaints.

Perfect catch 22.

I understand that there is somewhat of a stigma attached to the idea of socialist ideals but there is something to be said about the "common good".

Now I admit that I have not looked into the details of the proposed plans with your government's cash injection but as an outsider, I am a bit at a loss as to what else is there to do but to try and provide banks with cash/guarantees.

Here it seems the Marxists want to tax those businesses that provide the employment. The small businesses aren't the ones that will get the bailouts. Even MORE will lose their jobs...they will buy FEWER cars....the big three will need even more help.

Again, I'm not familiar with the bailouts as proposed by your governments for the businesses.
In the UK, so far, only banks have been given money so to speak but that in itself isn't/wasn't the complete solution. One of the problems that have been high-lighted here in the UK is based around this.
On the face of it, there have been quite good plans made to support those businesses following the cash injection but even then, the banks are still hesitant to lend.
i.e having good plans in place doesn't automatically mean that the banks will follow through and lend.

In the UK, small and medium sized (manufacturing) businesses are the ones that have been hit the harded following the banking/lending collapse and are also the ones that have the biggest impact on immediate local communities. That is why they have been the focus. With reference to the automotive industries, this equates to the third party suppliers of small parts that aren't made the automotive manufacturer.

With regards to the industry I work in, large housing developments in my area are still being built but have been slowed down because their windows/doors suppliers can't fulfill the order because they can't get their loan to fulfil their commitments.

Swings and round abouts as they say.

I'm fiscal conservative social libertarian.



When did you become pro-choice?:grinno:

I guess that is the biggest problem in the current climate.
Our respective governments are responsible for keeping the country alive but at the same time, it isn't fair for the people to have to pay for solutions.
Then again, if the employers aren't kept afloat, the country dies.
If small/medium sized (manufacturing) businesses don't get their loans to fulfill their current guaranteed orders because banks aren't keen to lend, the country dies.
Government provides backing for banking loans, the people voice complaints.

Ding ding, we have a winner. Banks aren't lending, meaning smaller businesses have no way of obtaining inventory, people can't get loans for cars and homes, etc...The only way to solve this problem in the short term is with huge injections of capitol to entities that lend, otherwise known as banks. Otherwise, the economy will essentially crumble and what we are seeing now will seem like paradise.

Of course the big problem with this is that it doesn't seem that the banks are being held accountable for how they are spending the money given. How do you solve that? Unfortunately, the best solution is more government involvement, and perhaps temporary takeovers. Scary thought for sure, but what other recourse is available? Banks HAVE to start lending again in order to jump start the economy...lending is the foundation upon which modern economic systems are built.:2cents:

Today I heard that AIG is asking for MORE bailout money.
I got on the phone and called the corporate offices of AIG, GM, I e-mailed citigroup because I couldn't find their corporate number.
I voiced my concern and asked them to STOP taking taxpayer money.
If anyone wants those corporate numbers to call, PM me and I will give them to you.

I figure, if the politicians won't listen, maybe the CEOs will:dunno:

AIG (not AGI) ;) kills me. They are given millions and go and spend it on vacation for their top execs...grrr! Not that others haven't done that either. :rolleyes:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1433/captiveaudiencecu1.jpg

I am sure the poor fool in the pic above was executed for asking that question; fortunally we are not to that point yet! The Q & A section below will help those interested; understand what the spending bill means to them. No big screen or 27” wheels in the package for me! What a disappointment!

How will the stimulus plan help me?
Here are some answers to questions about what the stimulus plan might mean to taxpayers and consumers.

Q: Will I get a tax rebate like last year?
A: No. Taxpayers won’t receive checks this year. This plan involves a payroll tax cut, where employers will withhold less in taxes (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/your_money.html?cxntlid=linkr), meaning there will be a modest bump up in take-home pay until an income threshold is met. The cap is $400 for single filers and $800 for joint filers whose adjusted gross income falls below $75,000 and $150,000, respectively.

Q: What if I’m self-employed?
A: You must adjust your quarterly tax filings to capture this credit.

Q: I don’t earn a lot. How else does the stimulus plan help me?
A: The stimulus plan includes a temporary expansion of the earned-income tax credit for families with three or more children, and it allows more low-income families to receive a refundable child tax credit this year and next. For recipients of food stamps, the dollar amount of this assistance will increase by 14 percent.

Q: What about people who are disabled or living on their Social Security checks?
A: The Social Security Administration will be sending a one-time $250 “economic recovery payment” within 120 days for people in this category.

Q: I’ve lost my job. How does this help?
A: If you’re eligible for unemployment benefits this year, you no longer will have to pay federal taxes (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/your_money.html?cxntlid=linkr) on the first $2,400 of these benefits. The bill also extends unemployment benefits that would’ve phased out in March through December, and it raises the average weekly benefit by $25 a week, to $325.

Q: I’ve lost my health insurance. Where do I get coverage for my family?
A: If you lose your job this year and choose to take Cobra coverage to keep your family covered on health care, the government will now subsidize up to 65 percent of the costs of your premium for nine months. If you lost your job any time after Sept. 1 and elected not to receive Cobra coverage but now want it, you can contact your former employer and it should be available. Help on Cobra premiums will be available to any worker laid off from Sept. 1, 2008, to Dec. 31, 2009.

Q: I need to buy a car. Does the stimulus plan help me?
A: It doesn’t provide the steep tax credits some prominent economists had advocated but will allow you to deduct from your federal taxes (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/your_money.html?cxntlid=linkr) the state sales tax that are associated with buying a car, truck, motorcycle or recreational vehicle. This benefit phases out for single tax filers who have adjusted gross incomes above $125,000 or joint filers above $250,000.

Q: There’d been talk of a $15,000 tax credit for home purchases. Is this in the stimulus?
A: No. The stimulus plan expanded an existing program for first-time homebuyers, but didn’t expand it to everyone. It raised by $500, to $8,000, the tax credit for first-time buyers who purchase a home. Before, this credit had to be repaid if a home was sold within three years of purchase. That repayment no longer is required.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/02/18/economic_stimulus_q_a.html
Anyone looking for a good banker, check this out:

Miami (http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/904842.html) banker gives $60 million of his own to employees! (http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/904842.html)

More bad news on the stock market today. And as predicted the Dow went under 7000 points today. The Dow dropped another -299.64 points. :banghead:

6763.29 -299.64 (-4.24%) Mar 2



Anyone looking for a good banker, check this out:

Miami (http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/904842.html) banker gives $60 million of his own to employees! (http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/904842.html)



Wow!

I have a good bank named USAA Federal Savings Bank although they are not that generous. :grinno:

I hope your sons in the military are members. Mine are too.

For recipients of food stamps, the dollar amount of this assistance will increase by 14 percent. 14% :wtf:I have never heard of military men & women getting that kind of a raise! Who else would you expect to benefit the most from the "stimulus" plan! Totally INSANE! Another sad day on Wall Street, due to the lack of confidence in our economy & leaders! :crying:

Todays (global) stock drop is caused more by the 60 odd billion loss in the last quarter. You can't really pin this one on economic faith (or lack thereof) or on your leader.

14% :wtf:I have never heard of military men & women getting that kind of a raise!:crying:

Our military and federal civilian workforce can kiss any decent pay raises good bye at least for FY 2010 per Obama's proposed budget. Military limited to 2.9% and civilians to 2.0%. See link.

Obama Budget Would Limit Pay Raises for Civilian Workers, Military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022601716.html?hpid=topnews)
Source: Washington Post

Military limited to 2.9% and civilians to 2.0%How do you get food stamps, quit working? I hope our fine members of the military don't see how much of an increase the food stamp recipients are getting! That would not do much to boost the moral of those whose who are risking their lives everyday, for the ones who prefer to do nothing!

I hope our fine members of the military don't see how much of an increase the food stamp recipients are getting! That would not do much to boost the moral of those whose who are risking their lives everyday, for the ones who prefer to do nothing!

It's not just military members. A lot of us who go to work every day, pay our taxes, obey the laws, and support this country now have the pleasure of having our federal government piss on our heads while spending money on things like swamp mouse protection and abortion on demand.

I'm not suggesting that the food stamp program is a complete waste. I know people in this area who receive food stamps who legitimately need them and are qualified for them. IMO, the increase is out of line, however. I'll be lucky to get a raise at all this year. 2.9% sounds dandy to me. But, I'll probably still have a job.

To be fair, BO warned us this was how it was going to be. This comes as no surprise to anyone who was paying attention. :dunno:

I'm beginning to think this woman had it right, after all. She knew something we all didn't. :dupe::silly:

P36x8rTb3jI

I'm beginning to think this woman had it right, after all. She knew something we all didn't.


Sorry but no cigar and no such thing as a free mortgage. :grinno: She along with others that are this naive will find out it will not be easy. The same hassles like when you apply for any mortgage.

You will have to qualify to get a break on the existing mortgage. This gov web site (still under construction) will have the details.

http://www.financialstability.gov/

economy is in a fluctuating stage and it will be stable soon as the experts are looking for it seriously.

Home Loans (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html)

Why is your link to the AF rules/guidlines?

Why is your link to the AF rules/guidlines?

:lol:

Most likely a spammer Alex.

It sounds like this person is only interested in pushing loans and not in our discussion.

Frickin' Spammer-Troll!

So...let's say you're unemployed. (like me) Do you ask a rich guy, or a poor guy for a job? Right...the rich guy has the jobs. So if BHO taxes the daylights out of the rich guy...isn't he more likely to have fewer jobs available?!? So...with unemployment going bonkers in an exponential way...doesn't it make sense to help those with the potential for making more jobs available?!?

"Why is 'common sense' so uncommon?" ....Fred Thompson

Obama Policies Feed Market Panic: :loser:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1091/dowjones.jpg
Since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20.4 percent.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8498/errorstickerbo8.jpg


Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:40 PM

By: Greg Brown

All week, negative headlines have competed with the slumping market ticker, including early news Thursday that General Motors might well go bankrupt despite billions in taxpayer loans. (Newsmax graphic)
Since Barack Obama was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, stocks have tumbled to record lows — with investors losing an estimated $2.5 trillion in market value.
The trend continued Thursday, with the Dow closing down 281 points, a 4.1 percent drop for the day. Since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20.4 percent.
All week, negative headlines have competed with the slumping market ticker, including early news Thursday that General Motors might well go bankrupt despite billions in taxpayer loans.
As selling sped up, Citigroup traded at one point under $1 a share, General Electric dipped under $7, and international financial names like Barclays saw declines of nearly 30 percent on the day.
"Everybody is so bearish right now that you would expect to be in the midst of a counter-trend rally," Steven Goldman, market strategist at Weeden & Co, told CNNMoney.
"But the implosion in the banking and insurance sectors is just overwhelming."
Obama has moved aggressively on economic and fiscal policies. But investors — if the market is any indication — are giving his initiatives a chilly response.
On Feb. 17, Obama signed a stimulus bill worth $787 billion — the largest spending bill in history. But the Congressional Budget Office indicates only 20 percent of the funds will be spent this year, and the nonpartisan group suggests that the package could do more economic harm than good.
Obama also gave the green light to an omnibus $431 billion House Democratic spending bill laden with close to 9,000 pork-barrel spending items.
Plus, Obama revealed that he plans increase marginal tax rates on those earning more than $250,000.
The new taxes will yield more than $1 trillion in government revenues, but some economists believe the news of increased taxation will suck the wind out of any economic recovery.
In the middle of the market meltdown Thursday, Obama spent the day talking about a massive increase in healthcare spending, including a proposal in his budget that sets aside $634 billion in a 10-year reserve fund to pay for expanded care.
The drumbeat of bad news was too much for stocks, including:
• U.S. bankruptcy filings surging 31 percent in 2008.
• More than 600,000 Americans filing claims for jobless benefits for a fifth straight week, the worst performance since 1982.
• U.S. factory orders falling for a sixth straight month in January, official data showed.
• One in every eight U.S. households with mortgages ended 2008 behind on payments or in foreclosure, reported the Mortgage Bankers Association.
"The auto industry is effectively being wiped out or nationalized, however you want to think about it," Rick Campagna, portfolio manager at Provident Investment Council in Pasadena, Calif., told Reuters.
"Now you're talking about a good portion, if not all, of the banking sector being wiped out. It's just getting relatively dire."

Click Here (http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_selloff_dow_crash/2009/03/05/188936.html?s=al&promo_code=7B9D-1) for source.

of course, that is all to do with Obama and nothing to do with major companies' reports coming out declaring losses in the last quarter.
:rolleyes:

It's ALL GWB's fault!

On the economy:

Liberals blame Bush and the Republicans.

Conservatives blame Obama and the Democrats.

When liberals and conservatives actually agree on an issue or feel bipartisan in nature they blame Bill Clinton. :lol:

Hey we have to blame somebody. It is the American way. :rolleyes:

Haha, I know exactly what you are saying Bob. Everyone freaked out on Bush because of unemployment rates, declining economic situations, etc. Honestly, one person is not going to cause the state our economy is in right now.