Blogger Michelle Malkin, in a story on the conservative Web site TownHall.com on Wednesday, said that if Hughes "had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too."
"The soul-fixer dutifully asked her name, gave her a hug and ordered his staff to meet with her. Supporters cried, 'Amen!' and 'Yes!' " she added.
"How does a 61-year-old homeless woman who's living in a pickup truck with her son JUST HAPPEN to get a ticket so she can VERY PUBLICLY ask Prez. Obama for a HOUSE? Anyone? Who pushes her up on stage? She's right at the front of the crowd. Did she just happen to get a seat there?" asked reader Erik E.
I don't know, Erik but as is the usual with the right, you have demonstrated a complete lack of taking any sort of responsibility and completely missed the point.
What a fucking shock.
33 comments:
Why don't you tell us what the point is. You claim that everyone else misses it so you must know it.
Funny. Have you read this entire blog, rld? That's the point or several of them anyway. So not only have missed the point but you have missed the point about the point.
If I may, Markadelphia, the point is that conservatives have spent the last eight years fucking up this country and now they are blaming poor people for it. How classy!
who on here blamed poor people for fucking up the country?
That was back in the whole Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac debate a while back. And the right wing party line has always been that the poor are poor because it's their fault. If they could only pull themselves up by their bootstraps...
i would like mark to answer rld's question above :) because i'm really interested to see how he would do that. . :) to be 100% fair to SW while agreeing with elizabeth, i don't think he (is sw a he? i think so..) or anyone else in the last few posts, specifically blamed the poor for f-ing up the country, but the general message is -- it's nothing to do with our previous polititicans or their policies and the poor are trying to leech off society, not to survive or get a life if they could. no, they're flipping burgers under-age and not paying house insurance. Injecting a little perspective, in 2005 (according to tax-returns) the top 1% of Americans made 22% of all income. Whereas, the bottom half of America (the least earning 50%) made 12% of all income. So, please let's not blame the 12%ers for everything gone wrong. How about the 78%ers ? did some of what they did during the last ten years, help f-up the country? joanne.
I would like everybody but rld,last,sw,etc., to detail how it is that the policies of the Bush Administration are directly responsible for the current economic crisis. Details, please. Here is your chance to prove for the record that your position is grounded in fact and that you are not simply "yipping the purely political line". (joanne - I'm not even sure what that means, but I kind of like it, particularly since it shades of my beloved "yippy dogs").
Spare me the standard responses that are commonplace for so many of you..."It's obvious"..."I won't waste my time because you'll never listen"...a link to some argument formulated by Dr. So-and-so..."It happened on his watch"...
Your words. Your arguments. I'm ready to be enlightened by your wisdom.
To help you in your task be aware that I am ready to play against your arguments with factual information related to personal deficit spending, overly aggressive monetary policy, HUD mortgage policy, and regulatory failure. Hint - one of those actually is directly related to the Bush Administration.
Failure to comply will result in you being taunted and jeered until my throat is hoarse, branded as hypocrites and partisan yippy dogs, guilty of the very evils you so righteously decry on this blog.
In other words, you are the Sean Hannity of your half of the political spectrum.
okay pl, i like what you wrote and i encourage others to respond based on their individual reactions and feelings, but personally speaking we covered some ground (in detail) in another economy-related exchange.
It sounds like -- you feel, that other than the initials mentioned, the others (including me) are baseless, no prob. but to me, it's the opposite. if anyone has to prove how and why the economy has gone from a 10 trillion surplus (i don't care about individual people in power, i'm not a Clintonite or a Reganite, i like characteristics of both on personal levels - but Reagan started the underlying deregulation of financial markets followed by Clinton hugely accelerated by Bush, which have led to the make-believe economy that's now crash-landing) i don't care about politicians, i care about the facts, so to me -- i don't have to prove that the country went from an X trillion surplus in 1999 (i don't want to hear the 9/11 justification either -- that was another failure of policy, on the previous adminstration's watch, which proceeded to enact post 9/11 policies that were written and in place ten years earlier, did not deal with security or the problem, which is again policy-related...
i don't have to prove that the country is in its current economic state because of political decisions affecting the economy, creating a free-for-al till it crashes, then it's nationalised by the same corrupt decision drivers -- that's a fact.
To me, anybody else needs to prove other factors have contributed to the plundering of the economy. if we talk about WAR/S -- that's a political decision. If we talk about POVERTY or INEQUALITY that too is a political decision. We've talked about social inequality on the blog before. Everyone has a viewpoint. The fact is that the polarisation of wealth decreases opportunuties for the majority, because the majority of wealth and with it effective decision making power belongs to an ever-decreasing minority, while the majority lose purchasing power or access to the same educational or economic opportunties, because salaries have remained static since the 70s while the standard of living has risen by inflationary rates.
Social inequality also increases the more that corporations hoard wealth in the hands of fewer individuals who in many but not all cases, have zip to do with the wealth or success of the company and its resources, increasingly powerful institutions (because of their huge increase of capital thanks in large part to government decisions) that are not required to reinvest stratospheric profits (Exxon-Mobil) in communities, whether it's the communities they operate in abroad or the communities that could be subsidised to the same degree by our government, which is instead subsidising Exxon-Mobil with huge unwarranted tax cuts or breaks, none of which is then reinvested in people or job-creation, instead, a CEO receives 250 million or whatever it is the last one received for a year. He also has nothing to do with his company profits which are much more to do with plundering other countries' NATIONAL resources by paying illegal (in the US) and corrupt commissions in huge kickbacks, often running in the hundreds of millions per commission, to princes in gulf kingdoms or front companies that don't exist in these same kingdoms or dictatorships in africa etc. This perpetuates injustice abroad (undemocratic 'regimes') whose people resent the United States for backing their rulers for the money and co-operation.
anybody needs to tell ME actually -- though this is definitely not a request -- why politics and policies haven't created extreme deregulation of the economy, increased poverty, corruption across the political and economic corporate board, wars and foreign insecurity. All the facts point to the opposite. If someone thinks otherwise, great their life, i'm not here to educate them. But i dont need to prove the facts to them either. in my opinion which they can ignore -- they should stop watching ten minute doses of one TV channel daily or listening to opinion driven radio and get a wider education, through simple stuff, like reading. Joanne.
Thanks Joanne. I appreciate your passion. And I appreciate that you helped illustrate my fundamental point quite nicely.
Anybody else?
I would point specifically to the amount of money spent in the Iraq War as being a contributing cause, not the only cause, to the current economic crisis. If we had used that money towards the problems we have now, the deficit would same less horrible than it is.
I also agree with Mark's general point about how the Bush administration did not seem to have any oversight of Wall Street or the banking industry. To be fair, this started under the Clinton Administration but Bush also turned a blind eye and let the free market do whatever they wanted.
I don't believe your first point actually applies, as fundamentally this isn't a deficit issue. Whether or not the deficit seems better or worse doesn't alter the dynamics of what is occuring.
However, your second point is spot-on. The Bush Administration is 100% guilty of failing to take regulatory steps that could have mitigated the impact of this problem.
President Obama assumed power on January 20th 2009 in an essentially debt-ridden and economically bankrupt America.
The federal budget deficit was $1 trillion dollars.
For every $1 the US generates in GDP, $6 are owed in ‘public debt’ to China, Japan and the Arabian Gulf states to name the main foreign creditors.
The US Congressional Research Office’s: ‘Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11’ – ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ [The War in Afghanistan,] ‘Operation Noble Eagle’ [paying for Security of Bases worldwide using Private Contractors] and ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ [ The War in Iraq ] cost the United States: $900 billion dollars by the end of 2008.
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the US nearly $15 billion per month.
2.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2008. Sales of new homes dropped to their lowest numbers since 1991. The Economy is shrinking at a current almost 1% annual rate. All Markets (not just housing) that back consumer debts – credit cards, car and student loans for example – have been frozen since early 2008.
It is this atmosphere of the worst financial crisis – possibly ever – in the history of the US, that President Obama inherited from President Bush.
The situation is unprecedented in US economic history, because America began deregulating its markets in the last twenty years, most dangerously and myopically during the last ten years. Banks dropped cash or other collateral assets, such as gold, tied to huge loans and futures trading. Enchanted with billion-dollar hedge fund profits and silenced by big bonuses, banks dropped oversight of the most exotic and experimental ‘derivatives’ deals, which were good on paper only mathematical calculations meant to insure massive debts, linked to each other in a chain of payments and defaults. US consumer spending and lending overstretched to breaking point.
However well-meaning and urgent the focus and efforts may be, the Economy is a potential pyramid which might collapse. The US had an almost one trillion dollar federal deficit in 2008. The Bush Administration spent one and a half TRILLION dollars bailing out banks and insurance companies, trying to revive the banking sector, without success. The markets continue to fall.
President (OB) wants to investing A NEW trillion dollars. This would be in addition to the United States’ ELEVEN trillion dollar debt -- more than $6.5 trillion of which is owed to foreign parties and the US taxpayer.
Sara was right. What's your fundamental point that i nicely illustrated for you PL? The above is part of a (longer) research paper i wrote in December 2008. i copy / pasted / tweaked. joanne.
My point is simply that our Rhetoric-in-chief Obama is leading the charge of individuals, some of whom post regularly on this blog, who cannot, or perhaps choose not to, separate the realities of the current financial crisis from their hatred for the Bush Administration. Any discussion of the financial crisis with these folks will ultimately evolve into statements that are of the flavor "The policies of the Bush Administration led us into this crisis", which is a sentiment that is at best only partially true. And so, in my opinion, folks who do this fall into one of three categories:
a) They are unable to understand the difference and believe they are stating an undeniable fact.
b) They totally understand the difference but choose to disregard it when opining on the topic.
c) They have a partial understanding of the difference but omit the "gray area" from their statement.
The only people to whom I will cut some slack are those from category c) who omit the gray area unintentionally. Everybody else I consider to be dangerous because they either intentionally make false/exaggerated/misleading statements on the subject or they make grandiose statements presented as fact without actually understanding what they are saying.
I particularly consider them to be dangerous when they are the leader of the free world and have a virtually unprecedented bank of good will with which they are free to advance policies I find disturbing.
(For the record, I'm lumping about 3/4 of your treatise into the "factual, but irrelevant to the issue" bucket. The point about de-regulation, as previously noted, is granted.)
okay.. im glad.. to know where ur coming from. and you put it well. the 'at best' (en bold :) is debateable. but we can let that one rest 4 now :) im zipping it & signing out 4 now. marko, ou-es-tu ? jt.
I would also add that there has been a general spirit of deregulation since the Reagan years. Mark pointed out Graham Leach Bliley a while back. It was driven by Republicans, signed by Clinton, and supported vigorously by President Bush. With the barriers down between banks, financial services, and mortgages, the economy was ripe for horrendous cascade which we saw last year.
The fact is that the polarisation of wealth decreases opportunuties for the majority
Please explain to me 'j2' how any of Bill Gates wealth is money that somehow would've flowed to you (or me). I'd like a concrete example of this alleged 'fact'.
For every $1 the US generates in GDP, $6 are owed in ‘public debt’ to...
No, that isn't possible. Not even the deficit is MULTIPLIED. You must've cut & pasted something incorrectly.
Now, other than inequality, what WAS M's point? It is apparently too obvious for me too.
Foreign Owners of US Debt (the total debt, being 11 trillion dollars, but 7 trillion of that is owed to foreign countries, namely China, Japan and now more and more the Arabian Gulf States, and to a lesser degree taxpayers, who buy US debt in Treasury Securities and other debt bonds.) Foreign countries own around $6 for every one dollar generated. In other words, for every dollar we make in the US, we (being the government / the nation -- but, make that the government because it's their unwise and short-term focused spending that is hugely increasing the debt) owe 6 to the outside world.
This debt is being generated by Corruption (inclusive of corruption within war-spending) cronyism and bad economic practises, including the practise (or policies) of giving corporations over the last few years, hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year in tax cuts or breaks, that is no way equalled in the same generous policies towards other sectors of society. Employment has not increased as a result, wages have decreased in real terms (i'm not talking about for the top 1 or 5%, for whom wages have massively increased) the same expenditures (health, education, living expenses etc.) exist for the majority which the government has not subsidised in any comparable way, the same way that it subsidised corporate profits. Capital is being polarised into much fewer hands, this is strategic, because those fewer hands finance election campaigns, and that is decreasing opportunities to access money legally and the survival services or opportunities it buys. For the growing & getting poorer majority (statistically) that is. joanne.
J, let me ask you, why does the government set TAX - policy? Isn't is because the government manages allocation of tax wealth for public needs or services?
So, when the government taxes more than 80% of the country at far far higher levels (with regard to actual income) and in no way comparable levels, to corporate wealth, why would it do that? It says to generate jobs and stimulate national economic growth and wealth. It is writing wealth-monopolising policies for the richest sectors -- who were hardly failing in the 90s under another administration -- and bailing out these same sectors with taxpayer money when they fall.
Even though all odds are stacked in their favour (for the good and BAD times.) What the government claims it is doing by having a very one-sided tax policy, isn't what is happening. Capital gains tax (tax on profit made on stocks or equity) is far far lower than tax on actual income, which most ordinary people make.
So there is only one way for ordinary people (by ordinary, i mean normal or less than ordinary income generating folk) to afford anything -- that way is DEBT. Which the banks have been making more exorbitant profit on, this was the whole reasoning behind derivatives, creating new ways (calculations) to load on much heavier debt to transactions and sell them, supposedly insured by the banks when they weren't really.
Except, when a bank goes bankrupt -- there is a bail-out. When I or joe the plumber go bankrupt, no bailout, nothing, no survival safety nets that were in place in the 90s for example (for credit card debt) -- Bush completely removed them on request by the banks. In every advanced democracy in the world (the whole of western europe for example and the UK where i am) there is a 'get-out' clause in extreme circumstances, a person can apply to have their debt wiped out but the courst decide. Not in America anymore. So an ordinary person without a hope in hell, MUST repay their debt and die doing so. Donald Trump or Goldman Sachs just write it off, as they've both done, the first many times with his companies. Bill Gates has never done that, so he's much more responsible :)Joanne.
Foreign countries own around $6 for every one dollar generated. In other words, for every dollar we make in the US, we (being the government / the nation -- but, make that the government because it's their unwise and short-term focused spending that is hugely increasing the debt) owe 6 to the outside world.
I don't know your source, but the simple mathematics of this don't make sense. You don't generate a multiple of the debt, and certainly not of GDP. Foreign held debt has to be a fraction thereof (even if substantial), it cannot be a multiple. This is simply wrong.
Isn't is because the government manages allocation of tax wealth for public needs or services?
NO, NO, NOOOOooooo!!!!!!!
The govt collects taxes in order to spend on the things that govt must do (defense, justice, etc.). Social policy 'engineering' (and the right will do this too, though not as thoroughly as the left) is NOT what I want from my govt; even if I thought there was a hope in hell that it could be done properly.
Fuck the reallocation of wealth. Not only is that NOT the U.S. govt's job, that is the very definition of socialism. I don't need to be leveled, up or down; just leave me the hell alone. Our system has NO constitutional provision for this - thank the god I don't believe in!
You are also incredibly wrong about taxes in the previous. The corporate tax rate (nominal and actual) is greater than what the bottom 40% of income earners have to pay. Now, to the extent that corporations, not even just the biggest ones, get special breaks written into the tax code - well no argument from me that is wrong. That's the problem with the tax system, and no amount of whining will ever change it. It is political reality that the wealthy, be they individuals or groups will seek preferential treatment. The fault is in having a govt empowered to give it to them.
Do realize that all corporations are ultimately owned by people, and people pay taxes. Thus taxing the corporation as an entity means you are taxing it's owners twice - once for the business itself, and then again as dividend income or capital gain on stock. But that is probably lost on anyone who has a reflexive reaction to the word "corporation".
j2 you are wrong about bankruptcy in the U.S., we still have it. What we have never had is what you used to have in jolly ol' England - debtor's prisons.
But people who make bad decisions need to suffer the consequences of that. That applies to corporations as well, don't get me wrong. I don't believe in bailing either out. This whole load of debt we are about to pass down to our kids and grandkids is an awful legacy. They will have every right to write very nasty things about us in their histories of these times.
Well pl, what and who do you think is responsible for the current economic crisis? You've only told people what it isn't.
At the end of 2008 the US Admin pledged $8.5 trillion to end the 08 financial crisis by easing frozen credit (Bloomberg News & the Economist 25th November 2008.) IN 2008 --this was the cost of bailing out financial institutions.
This (at the end of 2008) took 'public debt' (direct and indirect) -- being owed to the taxpayers and foreign creditors (owners of out debt) who receive interest when they buy it (in treasury notes,) which adds to the public debt -- in 2008 to over 400% of GDP.
But, on top of existing public debt in 08 -- and the new 8.5 trillion dollars of pledged debt -- there's also approximately 6 trillion dollars of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt, 80% of which is controlled by the Federal Finance Agency, meaning it's public debt. The nationalisation of AIG's debt (the world's largest insurer) and liabilities for Medicaid and Social Security -- mean, for every one dollar generated in GDP, the US owes $6 (or 600% of GDP) in public debt, more than 65% of which is owed to foreign creditors, the rest to the US taxpayer. This amount will likely go up due to new bailouts, although the US will probably print money rather than borrow it all from Japan & the Arab Gulf (China is being less forthcoming these days.)
We don't know how much of America's private debt will continue to be nationalised -- so we don't know to what new levels that 600% of GDP will rise.
Also, with regard to (individual) bankruptcy in US, please read this... i'm pasting a line out of it which kind of sums it up... i have to go now! :)
joanne
" Now many of those people will have to work out repayment plans suitable to creditors instead of having debts erased by a judge, according to the new law, which takes effect in six months. "
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Major_US_bankruptcy_reform_bill_signed_into_law
what and who do you think is responsible for the current economic crisis?
Is it possible for you to consider that there might not be anyone (or thing) to blame?
j2, according to the figures I found (with just a moments research), US GDP is 14+ trillion dollars and US national debt is a bit under 11 trillion dollars. As you can see, you cannot get $6 of additional debt for every additional $1 of GDP - you should understand that that ratio just doesn't make sense. No one would lend to ANYONE if every 6 dollars lent was only worth 1 dollar of future economic activity.
Yes, there was a change a few years ago to bankruptcy law that was probably a bit more favorable to creditors - that hardly means that bankruptcy is unavailable, nor that it is the best solution. Much better to not spend yourself into bankruptcy - as our govt seems wont to do.
Nor do I see where you agree (or disagree for that matter) with what I said about people taking responsibility for their decisions.
good morning. dear j, us national debt is NOT 11 trillion, that's the figure on paper, it hasn't been updated since the economic crisis began and it is ASSUMING that the us government can repay ALL its debt (by printing 12 trillion tomorrow -- or borrowing it in longterm new debt -- that's the debt without the bailout funds or new foreign borrowings or housing debt or social security debt) without any consequences, if the chips are called in. that's what the banks assumed and kept saying on paper all the time this was building up, that they could take care of, no sweat, pay all their debts -- if the credit default swaps were called in. it's a mirage. that figure has gone up by a minimum of 5x since the beginning of this crisis. i like all your other comments, i agree about personal (individual) responsibility, i'm certainly not against corporations, just the free ride and system stack-up in their favour, when it should be fair to everyone (i'm including taxation and the government provision of public services in the same way the gov makes sure a v small minority of earners have all the laws they need to grab opportunities and succeed.) joanne drinking coffee.
j2, the 11 trillion does indeed include SS, since that is where all of 'excess SS collections' have been parked (in Treasuries) over the last 20 or so years. The bailout is looking like a trillion or two (oh, Everett Dirksen how we could use you now) and there is NO way the US govt is going to cover ALL of the bad housing market debt. As for CDSs they will be written down to their value (0), not cashed out at face by the govt. The worst that will cause is some corporate tax loss, but not further massive bailout. You simply can't get to 75 trillion dollars in debt, or that each additional dollar of GDP creates 6 dollars of debt. Not even each bailout dollar can create 6 more of debt. I just don't understand why you think so. If you have a link to some source material, I'd be interested to see it.
BTW, the CDSs, as with other derivatives are matched counter-speculations. In other words, you bet on one thing, I bet on the opposite. We can each bet around a million dollars, but the net of the exchange can only be the delta between our two positions - not the sum of them.
i know what CDs are :) but thanks for the clarification j. and i know what i'm talking about re the 1:6 debt ratio, let's wait till that one comes out. agreeing to agree on some things. C-Span surveyed (for the 2nd time, 1st was in 2000...) all the US Presidents and their performance -- based on a number of criteria -- with historians across America, today. Here are top 10 and bottom 10 according to the experts...
http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/presidential-leadership-survey.aspx
joanne
btw... CDs INSURED derivative deals / sales, they were the (virtual / merely caluculative) written means by which Banks underwrote (insured) lucrative debt deals, including mortgages and massive derivate debt-sales (for example, the sale of insurance on the subprime mortgage debts.) Thats what i've said all along, in this posting and previous with PL, so i just re-read your point above.. don't quite get it. They were NEVER '0' value -- in reality yes, but in theory no -- because they were meant to EQUAL the value of risk involved in the transaction, guaranteed by the bank or insurance company -- CDs were revealed as '0' value, when the banks couldn't pay the CD premiums, as investors cashed in when the crisis became real, because they were actually tied to nothing, virtual calculations, not assets.
CDs were vital to the derivatives market -- and its crash. See the following good article for whoever wants... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/business/25gret.html .joanne.
joanne, seriously, you cannot add $6 of debt for every $1 of GDP. Since you aren't pointing to any source material I'll have to take it that this is simply a delusion on your part. Each time I ask, you wave your hand and say "oh, look at that! what IS that?"... this time with presidential ratings.
CDSs are useful up to a point, just like any other derivative. The problem usually comes when people trade them as though they have inherent value, which they do not. It devolves into nothing more then gambling - just with a lot of math as cover. The correct answer is to let the people who did this rot in their own liability. But the message was sent several years ago with Long Term Capital Management bailout - you won't be allowed to fail no matter how weak your fundamental business is and even if you aren't a significant entity.
The govt can no more insure a world with no losses then can Bernie Madoff.
The only delusion juris, is when you look at all the economic-political evidence over 20 years and conclude, in a federal republic like the US where all the so-called 'checks and balances' have been eroded through mainly executive corruption, resulting in extreme centralised power, capital concentrated to its highest levels in a dysfuctional casino-styled financial sector and a military budget that is inflated several times over natural levels, again due to corruption (see general accounting surveys every two years) creating a national security state that doesn't deliver security, through ECONOMIC SECURITY or in the most critical regions around the world, but again due to corruption, props up allies that are worse than useless or bad and in the process, a tiny minority (hey but that's democracy! Not criminal abuse of power...) take large commissions on trillions being unaccountably spent(hence many budgets are 'black') including on our agencies, contractors and weapons systems, creating the highest national debt rates in history. we are light years ahead of the competition with our military hardware and we still have zero intelligence when it most matters.
All of that is no one's fault -- our decision-makers are unaccountable for cumulative failure on vital fronts.
According to presidential historians across America, C-SPAN 2nd Historian's Presidential Survey -- they do point the finger of blame. They just judged the previous President 3rd LAST amongst all presidents (above James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover) in the 'Economic Management' category, with a score of 25/100 and 6th last overall as President, in ten categories. But referring to that as you say, is me changing the subject and is irrelevant to someone who thinks nobody's to blame, the evidence doesn't matter and conclusions based on it are meaningless.
With regard to my sources juris i talk to people who know exactly what they're talking about, i trust them -- you don't have -- so here's the deal, just think i'm delusional and you're not.
The Economy's okay -- there are highs and lows, we're experiencing the latter. I don't agree with you. EVEN with the GDP and overall deficit being 1:1 ON PAPER, that is still at unacceptably high levels. And we're only at the beginning of this crisis. Your answer is (and i'm simplifying & paraphrasing) it's terrible it's awful but that's the just way it is. My answer -- is that extremely short-sighted and irresponsible leadership has created an economic pyramid that God forbid, may collapse due to damage done leveraging PUBLIC wealth -- it doesn't belong to the people who leveraged it -- to the highest deficit levels in history. joanne.
joanne, no disagreement from on the power accretion both to the federal govt in general and the executive in particular. That is exactly what I'd like to see rolled back. A govt that doesn't have the power to grant favors is one that won't be as inclined to corruption.
However, I'd love to know what the "natural level" of defense spending is and how that is determined. And why is it that you think security both here and abroad should be deliverable on the cheap.
The derivatives debacles wouldn't have been nearly as painful if we, as a country/govt would just let the market function. Don't bail the bastards out. Of course, that goes back to the point above that we do agree on.
Historians judging Presidents on "Economic Management" is like monks judging nurses on their sexual skills - they don't know what they are talking about. First, you have to assume that historians understand economics, then that Presidents actually manage the economy. Piling one absurdity upon another isn't much of an argument in my book, even though it does entertain the masses.
it's terrible it's awful but that's the just way it is.
Fair, but might I add "and doing more of the same is not going to improve the situation." The current philosophy on the bailout is "Capt, there are rocks ahead, if we don't change course we'll crash into them. Don't be silly helmsman, all we need is more speed".
that was a good reply, so i will be brief.
'might i add' "monks judging nurses" -- did u make that up?? Creative. i haven't heard it b4. Got monks, Y nurses? (apart from being on the male wish-list.) Response not required.
the final point, i semi-agree w u on, also liked the visual way u put it, but at LEAST OB is spending it on PEOPLE, THEIR MORTGAGES and THE INFRASTRUCTURE. Isnt that what FDR spent money on, in the New Deal stimulus? It's better than spending it on the successor to the F-22, when the entire world doesn't have an equal yet, to the F-16. joanne.
Nurses have skills, but not the one the monks are judging them on. And of course the monks would be poor judges of that particular one. I just wanted to make a silly parallel to the historians/president bit. Glad it amused you.
In case you hadn't heard, the latest tactic of the defense industries is to tout the number of jobs they provide, implying of course that cutting the defense budget will put people out of work. Nicely boxes in the liberal (read 'dove') supporters of the stimulus.
Post a Comment