millerx Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Not sad...not an excuse it's a fact. Live w/ it! Bush was a Prez for 8 years. He's done but his economy is what we must deal with NOW, so Obama has to clean it up. All Facts, not opinions! Come on man....even your Hero Limbaugh mentality can deal w/ that!??? No??? Jeebus.... Sorry if I step on toes here,but... Regardless of whether you think you are right, why does your rant have to come with pointed finger? Does that help relieve or exacerbate the problems? (Hint: the real answer is you were just fishing ) Not all the answers come from one particular side of our crappy two-party system, NOR, ALL THE PROBLEMS!!. Hell, even the CURRENT President recognizes that and states that he wishes to find common ground... Jeebus... Edited February 10, 2009 by millerx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think confidence is the big problem overall. People are afraid to spend thier money. No one is buying a new car. No one is looking at a new house as they don't know when we will hit rock bottom. I think the best thing that Obama and this admin can do is make us confindent enough to spend some of our money. Who has money to spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I usually prefer to disagree with Muck, but I really think that the mortgage refinancing is the most targeted way to fix this issue. I really don't see how a bunch of government projects alone are going to save several million people who's ARMs are going to get a little further out of reach every year for the next 10 years. We're going to continue to see a steady flow of bankruptcies and foreclosures and economic woes as everyone plays it close to the vest waiting for it to blow over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The bill is da-bomb-a. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I usually prefer to disagree with Muck... Now, you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary... You don't usually prefer anything, including disagreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Just read this, OH MY GAWD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Just read this, OH MY GAWD! Government prescribed euthenasia reduces cost for social security, medicaid and other government handouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Screw the public... I just wish the politicians would listen to the freaking economists about this. The politicians don't have to listen to the public or the economists because they know that at every election, the public will continue to reward/reinforce their behavior and actions with their vote. They don't have to be accountable because the public really doesn't hold them accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Geithenr's speech on phase 2 of the recovery plan "To get credit flowing again, to restore confidence in our markets, and restore the faith of the American people, we are fundamentally reshaping the government’s program to repair the financial system. Our work will be guided by the lessons of the last few months and the lessons of financial crisis throughout history. The basic principles that will shape our strategy are the following: We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action. We believe that action has to be sustained until recovery is firmly established. In the United States in the 30s, Japan in the 90s, and in other cases around the world, previous crises lasted longer and caused greater damage because governments applied the brakes too early. We cannot make that mistake. We believe that access to public support is a privilege, not a right. When our government provides support to banks, it is not for the benefit of banks, it is for the businesses and families who depend on banks… and for the benefit of the country. Government support must come with strong conditions to protect the tax payer and with transparency that allows the American people to see the impact of those investments. We believe our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible. We believe that the United States has to send a clear and consistent signal that we will act to prevent the catastrophic failure of financial institutions that would damage the broader economy. Guided by these principles, we will replace the current program with a new Financial Stability Plan to stabilize and repair the financial system, and support the flow of credit necessary for recovery. This new Financial Stability Plan will take a comprehensive approach. ..." I didn't wantto post the entire speech. Please click the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 no specifics in his speech. and continuing problem with this administration. they have and give no specifics. no answers. we skrewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 We've had a liberal congress for two years. Bush bears some of the blame, more for not vetoing the crap legislation that came across his desk than anything else. Let's also not forget who supposed to be be regulating Freddie and Fannie, and who was getting money from them. That congress gave Bush just about everything he wanted. What did they do that was liberal? Stem cells. Health care for kids? Are you against those? Any others? Make a list please that we can look over. Every election year whatever democrat is running the National Review says they are the most liberal member of congress no matter who it is. I question this "liberal" label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The problem is people have stopped pumping money into the system like we used to. This is a complete re-boot of the economy (like the difference between the old Battlestar Galactica and the new one). Since people aren't spending, the Government is making up the difference like it was still Lorne Green at the helm instead of coming up with a way to deal with the new way. They are delaying the inevitable and ultimately making it worse unless people start spending like Dirk Benedict was still humping everything in the galaxy again. If people don't start spending again soon and no money is flowing through the system, then we'll all have to get used to Starbuck being a woman instead. God, I love bad metaphors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 That congress gave Bush just about everything he wanted. What did they do that was liberal? Stem cells. Health care for kids? Are you against those? Any others? Make a list please that we can look over. Every election year whatever democrat is running the National Review says they are the most liberal member of congress no matter who it is. I question this "liberal" label. Questioning the liberal label makes you a socialist. Deny you are socialist, and that means you are a stinking commie. Pinko scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry if I step on toes here,but... Regardless of whether you think you are right, why does your rant have to come with pointed finger? Does that help relieve or exacerbate the problems? (Hint: the real answer is you were just fishing ) Not all the answers come from one particular side of our crappy two-party system, NOR, ALL THE PROBLEMS!!. Hell, even the CURRENT President recognizes that and states that he wishes to find common ground...Jeebus... If stepping on toes means you disagree w/ me, step as hard as you want. If finger pointing is blaming Bush for our economy, guilty as charged. The Prez always gets the credit/blame. If you think I was fishing, you don't know me very well. I post what I feel and what I posted is what I feel. I leave the fishing up to those here who are more clever than me, plus it's not worth the wear and tear on my fingers. In the future I'll be more careful about what I say so as not to offend you, your thoughts, and beliefs. NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If stepping on toes means you disagree w/ me, step as hard as you want.If finger pointing is blaming Bush for our economy, guilty as charged. The Prez always gets the credit/blame. If you think I was fishing, you don't know me very well. I post what I feel and what I posted is what I feel. I leave the fishing up to those here who are more clever than me, plus it's not worth the wear and tear on my fingers. In the future I'll be more careful about what I say so as not to offend you, your thoughts, and beliefs. NOT! I'm not offended in the least... never have been, never will be. It's not in my make-up to take others' views on things personally. I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and the right to express it. I probably misused the fish analogy. Never the less, my point was that your previous rants in this thread do seem to have an antagonistic slant to them. My intention was to demonstrate that you could have made just as salient a point with out the partisan pointed finger. I too post what I feel, and I feel like it is time for both sides to quit taking every single issue and spinning it so that they can only assign blame to the opposing side. We had over a full year of this going through the elections. It's over! Let's move on. (Maybe it's just me, but, I for one am sick of it) Argue about the current and future issues all you want... or whose policies you think will lead us in a better direction going forward. But no good can come from the blame game. If you're on a sinking ship, do you sit and argue about who caused it to start sinking (and hence, go down with it) or work together to mange the problem most effectively. If this was the Battlestar Gallactica and it was being sucked into a blackhole, what would you rather do? (Thanks for the bad analogy idea, TimC. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 While you're right about commercial construction lagging downturns and upturns by 12 to 18 months, I think there's spare capacity that could be harnessed much quicker than 18 months out. We are definitely looking at 2010 and 2011 with trepidation and we have some aces in our portfolio that other firms don't have. We are good through 2010, 2011 scares us a little bit, though the local economy really is still pretty good. My point was only that anything thrown at construction really won't stimulate the economy for a few years. It won't be a quick pick me up, and in most cases it really probably just help maintain current production levels two years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 For all of you who voted yes, tell me what you think about this: Wall Street executives have pleaded economic ruin, secured hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance and been pilloried for their business excesses. But none of that has curbed their appetite for doling out political donations - or the willingness of politicians to accept the largesse. A Washington Times analysis found that executives and employee-funded political action committees of banking companies that received bailout money have donated more than $2 million to members of Congress and other politicians since lawmakers approved the federal rescue of America's financial system in October. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...to-politicians/ Hopenchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 For all of you who voted yes, tell me what you think about this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...to-politicians/ Hopenchange. Isn't GM having to lay-off 10,000 employees in order to meet the guidelines of their bailout? I thought the only reason we were bailing them out was to save jobs. It's not like GM is the only car manufacturer that sale cars here. I'm sure most of the 10,000 jobs they are being forced to cut will not be union jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Screw the public... I just wish the politicians would listen to the freaking economists about this. Which economists? Weren't there economists advising the pres and congress the last 8 years, running the Fed and Treasury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Isn't GM having to lay-off 10,000 employees in order to meet the guidelines of their bailout? I thought the only reason we were bailing them out was to save jobs. It's not like GM is the only car manufacturer that sale cars here. I'm sure most of the 10,000 jobs they are being forced to cut will not be union jobs. Are they doing it to meet the guidelines or to pressure congress to give them money? The $Billions went to wall street pretty easy. The loans to the car makers show a lot of people how people who do real work in this country(VS the investment classes) get less respect. I'd rather see the govy buy all of GM's stock, fix the company and sell it back at a profit. What's their stock worth these days $3 billion. I know it won't happen but it makes more sense to me than a bailout. I can see a temporary nationalization for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Are they doing it to meet the guidelines or to pressure congress to give them money? The $Billions went to wall street pretty easy. The loans to the car makers show a lot of people how people who do real work in this country(VS the investment classes) get less respect. I'd rather see the govy buy all of GM's stock, fix the company and sell it back at a profit. What's their stock worth these days $3 billion. I know it won't happen but it makes more sense to me than a bailout. I can see a temporary nationalization for profit. It's raining men! Hallelulah! It's raining men! are you thinking? Do you really think fedgov could run GM at a profit? If they tried to take over a lemonade stand they'd end up with union labor. Give a bureaucrat a clapboard doghouse and in ten years you'd have a guilded exotic animal farm, complete with maintenance and clerical departments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Are they doing it to meet the guidelines or to pressure congress to give them money? The $Billions went to wall street pretty easy. The loans to the car makers show a lot of people how people who do real work in this country(VS the investment classes) get less respect. I'd rather see the govy buy all of GM's stock, fix the company and sell it back at a profit. What's their stock worth these days $3 billion. I know it won't happen but it makes more sense to me than a bailout. I can see a temporary nationalization for profit. It's raining men! Hallelulah! It's raining men! are you thinking? Do you really think fedgov could run GM at a profit? If they tried to take over a lemonade stand they'd end up with union labor. Give a bureaucrat a clapboard doghouse and in ten years you'd have a guilded exotic animal farm, complete with maintenance and clerical departments. ya, I gotta go with WV on this one... not to mention, can you name one thing the government has taken over, only to give it back later? It's like the old saying "once you go government, you never go back! ...no...wait...was that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 this thing goes way back before bush. bottom line is we are leveraged to the hilt. we've pushed every option over the last 25 years to boost wall street, including creating financing schemes that were built on poor financing schemes. there is no more liquidity out there, period. how a nation that is in debt to the max thinks that things will improve by either (a) more government spending of money it doesn't have or ( getting credit markets flowing so people and companies can borrow even more is beyond me. we are living in a new world friends. this isn't a thing that fixes itself and suddenly we go back to double digit growth and the life of luxury. this is unfortunately a boring, long term problem living in a hyper, short term world. we are broke. all of our creativity that created the bubble of growth over the past two decades is shot. we have arrived back at reality and this is way beyond a disjointed "stimulus" plan that has to be rammed through in the first 2 weeks of a new presidential administration behind the threats of catastrophe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Give a bureaucrat a clapboard doghouse and in ten years you'd have a guilded exotic animal farm, complete with maintenance and clerical departments. Rather craps on your own argument, WV. If we could hand GM (the clapboard doghouse) over to a bureaucrat and in 10 years have something people will pay to see, most of us would settle for that. ya, I gotta go with WV on this one... not to mention, can you name one thing the government has taken over, only to give it back later? It's like the old saying "once you go government, you never go back! ...no...wait...was that it? So you've never heard of privatization then? Edited February 11, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts