Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Apparently the teleprompter didn't make the facts and figures clear enough.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/49982712.html
Thank god they figured out they were wrong after throwing 800 billion dollars at it; at least now they are closer for throwing the next 800 billion dollars. :roll:
Real Estate Investor · Tampa, FL · Member since 2008 · 456 posts · 42 votes
17y
Should I sit this one out and be quiet? No, its just not possible. The reason he misread it is because he was idiot enough to start pushing for higher taxes on big business and industry who were already losing money and expect them to hire instead of lay off workers. Did you see where Microsoft wrote a letter stating they would move some of their business out of the U.S. if he expected them to be one of the major donors for this mad spending spree? I suspect they are not the only ones that will take that voyage. And of the ones who are left, I'm sure they are bracing themselves for a decrease in profit margins and hiring is the last thing on their minds.
"Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House’s top- ranking Republican, said his party will be proven right in predictions that the stimulus legislation grew government and padded the federal deficit without creating jobs."
Well it didn't exactly take a genius to see this, now did it?
Real Estate Investor · Tampa, FL · Member since 2008 · 456 posts · 42 votes
17y
Should I sit this one out and be quiet? No, its just not possible. The reason he misread it is because he was idiot enough to start pushing for higher taxes on big business and industry who were already losing money and expect them to hire instead of lay off workers. Did you see where Microsoft wrote a letter stating they would move some of their business out of the U.S. if he expected them to be one of the major donors for this mad spending spree? I suspect they are not the only ones that will take that voyage. And of the ones who are left, I'm sure they are bracing themselves for a decrease in profit margins and hiring is the last thing on their minds.
"Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House’s top- ranking Republican, said his party will be proven right in predictions that the stimulus legislation grew government and padded the federal deficit without creating jobs."
Well it didn't exactly take a genius to see this, now did it?
Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
17y
Precisely what I am referencing.
True economic policies affect the economy, but do not add to it or subtract from it, as government spending is not considered part of the economy. But when government actually "purchases" part of a business this misrepresents the economy as government had become part of the economy.
Atlanta, GA · Member since 2009 · 177 posts · 52 votes
17y
You guys are right the Obama Administration really "screwed things up" after being in office for less than a year. The genius acts of George W. Bush is a hard act to follow.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Ty Hines:
You guys are right the Obama Administration really "screwed things up" after being in office for less than a year. The genius acts of George W. Bush is a hard act to follow.
You're right. And the worst part is we have 3 more years of this to look forward to.... It's "change" alright....just not the change many bargained for.
Real Estate Investor · Payson, AZ · Member since 2008 · 20 posts · 1 vote
17y
I am not sure a Republican is the answer either. We just need someone with Common Sense and a Little bit of Ethics. I am not sure there is a Republican or Democrat that fits that bill. :wink:
Oh she's not out, it's just the Dems are threatened by her wits, intelligence, good looks, family values and last but not least, integrity.
Did I miss something?
Oh yeah, I did. Her handle on international matters.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by jawsette:
Just because you do not understand the intelligence of the average person, that does not mean that is does not exist!
You may be right. Or you may not be.
Since we have been discussing Sarah Palin, let's use her as an example. I've brought up a number of indications that she is of average intelligence, at best.
Now, it's your turn to provide some evidence that she has anything but an average (or less) intelligence.
Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
17y
I can understand one mistake trying to fix something, but to do the same time and time again for a LOT of mistakes seems to indicate some sort of plan or program.
I think he understood very well that this time period will be his only opportunity to push forward that agenda and he must act fast.
Thus he must have misrepresent the data to get that agenda across or he fully understood what was at stake and lied outright about how bad things were.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by jawsette:
I can understand one mistake trying to fix something, but to do the same time and time again for a LOT of mistakes seems to indicate some sort of plan or program.
Huh? Of course he has a plan. He's made his plan to fix the economy very clear for 6 months now. It's no secret that he has a plan or what the plan is.
He believes that his plan will work given a year or two to allow it to run its course. That part is reasonable -- you can't expect anyone (Obama or any other President) to be able to bring this country out of such a large recession overnight.
That said, I disagree with his approach. I think it's wasteful and doesn't address the core problems of the recession.
So, while I'm not going to fault him for not having a plan (he clearly does), I think it's a really bad plan.
Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
17y
And according to his advertised plan, The infusion of cash need will only be this amount and the recession will only get to this level because it is only this bad.
Insert your own numbers here if you wish and you will find that it has taken more money than expected, the economy has gotton worse than expected, and it is reported to have been worse than previously stated.
Wrong on all three major points to his plan. So I'll ask again, did he and or his staff totally misread things or did his "plan" plan to take advantage of things to get his socialist agenda of government ownership and or control of business past the american public as a whole.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by jawsette:
So I'll ask again, did he and or his staff totally misread things or did his "plan" plan to take advantage of things to get his socialist agenda of government ownership and or control of business past the american public as a whole.
In my attempt to keep my responses constructive (and because I'm only posting a follow-up in this thread because I've been part of it and don't want to just disappear), let me start with: You pose a reasonable question.
Here is my rationale for my beliefs...
Many, many financial experts, economists, and fiscal analysts have consistently underestimated the scope and breadth of this most recent recessionary trend, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that Obama and his advisers also underestimated the scope of the financial crisis as a whole.
Also keep in mind that these underestimations have taken place during both Obama's administration and Bush's administration, so it doesn't appear to be a partisan "mistake."
Given those two things, my assumption would be that this was a miscalculation on the part of the current administration, coupled with poor choices for how to deal with the crisis (in my opinion).
If there's evidence that this is more of a conspiracy than that, I'm open to hearing it. But, barring any evidence other than stupidity of our politicians (which is rampant among both political parties), I'm hesitant to assume there is any conspiracy going on. (this also fits Occam's Razor)
It seems to me that if Obama wanted to change the face of the country, his best strategy would be to solve the financial crisis, declare himself a hero for doing so, and then capitalize on his status as someone who can solve all our problems. Purposefully driving us deeper in financial crisis doesn't seem like as good a strategy.
Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
17y
Now that constructive type of response is greatly appreciated, and voted for!
To answer you question of evidence for the changing of the face of the country you have to look no further than to understand that this is the first time in our history that the government has owned a part of several businesses. That is unprecedented and does change the face of the country from government making laws to government controlling business and controlling people (employees).
This changes the face of the country from a republic of people control to a socialist one of government control.
I do believe that the problems actually started to rear their heads because of one party controlling almost all aspects of the checks and balances of government and thereby pushing their policies through without any opposition. Then a wild swing to the other party controlling everything and doing the same thing. And now back again the other way.
These wild swings have never been experienced before in such great magnitude and has set the stage for someone to take advantage of this as the only time that he can push his socialist policies through.
It is the socialism that I disagree with, not the democratic/republican systems or beliefs. Actually it is a benefit for one party to "check" the other party so that these wild changes do not occur and the people as a whole can rely upon a fairly consistant overall policy.
I think it would be very interesting to have the two parties put forth their men to run for the president with the loser becomming the Vice President. This way both parties can check each other and no one secretly wiretape or videotape anyone as a policy without it comming out almost immediately as the VP would keep the pres in check from any and all illegal activities.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by jawsette:
These wild swings have never been experienced before in such great magnitude and has set the stage for someone to take advantage of this as the only time that he can push his socialist policies through.
Have you read "Rich Dad's Prophecy"? You'll want to. We're in the middle of it. My theory is that the wild swings are the baby boomers in a panic mode over their impending retirement and the wild swings in economic decisions they have made are being reflected in their political decisions as well. Obama was smart in that he didn't run his campaign on anything factual - he ran it on "hope". Anyone with half a financial mind in them could have seen this coming. All you had to do was look at the thought patterns, behaviors and rhetoric of early 2000s REI seminar junkies to see how to make money off them. Frankly I'm loving it. Obama's rapidly increasing my wealth and his followers are all to willing to assist.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
I personally agree that the government taking over the auto companies, the banks, or any other private institution is absolutely the wrong strategy and the wrong precedent to set for this country, regardless of the depth of the current financial crisis. In my opinion, let them all fail, let some greedy entrepreneur (I mean that in a good way) build a new, profitable model for creating these commodities, and let the system work itself out, even if it takes a couple years.
I'm guessing a lot of us here believe that as well.
That said, I'm still hesitant to assume that the taking over of the private industries is a "sinister plan" by the current administration.
Obama came in and made some very rash decisions; instead of stepping back, spending a few months analyzing the problems and trying to figure out the best solution, he felt the need to jump and start doing something -- ANYTHING -- from day one to try to solve the problems.
That was very, very poor judgement on his part, and in my opinion was aimed more at keeping him popular ("hey look, at least he's doing SOMETHING!") than it was to solve the problems.
This is Obama's biggest character flaw in my opinion -- he wants to be liked, and as others here have said, he's used to being liked.
I wasn't a fan of W., but I can give him credit for the fact that he would happily have the world pissed at him as long as he was doing what he thought was right. This is a difficult (but important) thing for a President to do.
Given that Obama felt the need to SOMETHING, and given that the big autos, the banks, and other industries were practically begging for bailouts (and giving ultimatums that the economy would collapse if he didn't), it seems to me that Obama just followed the path of least resistance. He did what GM told him to do, without really thinking about it.
Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see anything sinister there...just lazy. Again, he took the path of least resistance, hoping it would keep him popular, and not having proper regard for long-term consequences.
Obama is doing what I often claim Bush did -- he's making short-term decisions that are likely to hurt this country long-term because he feels the need to do something BIG to protect us. In Bush's case, it was taking away some of our liberties to keep us safe. In Obama's case, it's taking away some of our capitalism to keep us solvent. The Patriot Act was passed without enough thought, and the stimulus bill was certainly passed without enough thought.
BUT...
I don't think Bush did what he did out of any sinister plans to ruin the country, and I don't think Obama is either. They're just two people trying to do the best job they can when dealing with some of the biggest problems in the world.
Altus, OK · Member since 2008 · 2k+ posts · 690 votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
I personally agree that the government taking over the auto companies, the banks, or any other private institution is absolutely the wrong strategy and the wrong precedent to set for this country, regardless of the depth of the current financial crisis. In my opinion, let them all fail, let some greedy entrepreneur (I mean that in a good way) build a new, profitable model for creating these commodities, and let the system work itself out, even if it takes a couple years.
I'm guessing a lot of us here believe that as well.
That said, I'm still hesitant to assume that the taking over of the private industries is a "sinister plan" by the current administration.
Obama came in and made some very rash decisions; instead of stepping back, spending a few months analyzing the problems and trying to figure out the best solution, he felt the need to jump and start doing something -- ANYTHING -- from day one to try to solve the problems.
That was very, very poor judgement on his part, and in my opinion was aimed more at keeping him popular ("hey look, at least he's doing SOMETHING!") than it was to solve the problems.
This is Obama's biggest character flaw in my opinion -- he wants to be liked, and as others here have said, he's used to being liked.
I wasn't a fan of W., but I can give him credit for the fact that he would happily have the world pissed at him as long as he was doing what he thought was right. This is a difficult (but important) thing for a President to do.
Given that Obama felt the need to SOMETHING, and given that the big autos, the banks, and other industries were practically begging for bailouts (and giving ultimatums that the economy would collapse if he didn't), it seems to me that Obama just followed the path of least resistance. He did what GM told him to do, without really thinking about it.
Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see anything sinister there...just lazy. Again, he took the path of least resistance, hoping it would keep him popular, and not having proper regard for long-term consequences.
Obama is doing what I often claim Bush did -- he's making short-term decisions that are likely to hurt this country long-term because he feels the need to do something BIG to protect us. In Bush's case, it was taking away some of our liberties to keep us safe. In Obama's case, it's taking away some of our capitalism to keep us solvent. The Patriot Act was passed without enough thought, and the stimulus bill was certainly passed without enough thought.
BUT...
I don't think Bush did what he did out of any sinister plans to ruin the country, and I don't think Obama is either. They're just two people trying to do the best job they can when dealing with some of the biggest problems in the world.
Again, just my $.02...
I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people said when Hitler got into power and look what happened there.