A.I.G....unfreakinreal

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

if you're concerned that it doubled in eight years to $400 billion aren't you the least bit concerned that this year it will quadruple to $1.8 trillion?
QUADRUPLE

Of course I'm seriously, desperately concerned. But all Bush had to do was hold onto what Clinton started, and our deficit would have started to go down. Instead, he spent. And the deficit DOUBLED. Up into trillion-land.

When you look at recent times (the last 40-50 years), turns out the GOP have not been the financial conservatives when in the White House. I didn't know that.

The spending under Bush and under Obama - what they are spending it upon - are different, don't you agree?

What do you think should be done instead, regarding the current US financial situation?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot[B

]?? How is the bailout like what got us here? [/b]

The stimulus package isn't "across the board" budget increases, so I don't know why you are using that as a "for example"?

Do you agree that spending is what ends recessionary times?

I think our healthcare system is an overpriced disaster run by insurance companies and having little to nothing to do with medicine, I think sometimes receiving medical care in the US can be dangerous to the patient, and I am not that thrilled with Obama's plan.

I remember when the Dow first got over 1000, then again when it got over 5000. When it hit 5000, all anyone could talk about was how unbelievably artificially inflated it was, and how desperately it needed to fall and correct to reality.

it's not insofar as bailouts are concerned-i'm thinking of the entire increase in spending as the reason we are where we are. we can't keep operating under deficits, and from what i've read, our horrible debt is the biggest reason our economy is in a shambles. facing future record deficits doesn't help the situation one bit, if anything it only will prolong the pain, and cause further problems down the road.
the adding towards budgets, in a time of lower tax revenue, and running ahead of cost of living increases, imo is yet another recipe for disaster. now is a time for govt to tighten up, not unilaterally increase spending.

and anyone who thinks the market has just been going thru corrections imo should agree that a stimulus package is no way to 'fix' that. you can't fix what is essentially already broken.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Of course I'm seriously, desperately concerned. But all Bush had to do was hold onto what Clinton started, and our deficit would have started to go down. Instead, he spent. And the deficit DOUBLED. Up into trillion-land.

When you look at recent times (the last 40-50 years), turns out the GOP have not been the financial conservatives when in the White House. I didn't know that.

The spending under Bush and under Obama - what they are spending it upon - are different, don't you agree?
What do you think should be done instead, regarding the current US financial situation?

no
obama is using the same approach bush used back when he wanted his war. ramp up hysteria, make everyone think the sky is falling, so that you can push your agenda thru with barely a whimper of protest. obama preached public works as a way to increase jobs, but only a small portion of his total budget will go towards that. the rest is just bigger govt. bigger govt only means a bigger expense in the end, and we can't afford that. govt is an expense only-and that expense grows every day.

[Riot]

obama is using the same approach bush used back when he wanted his war. ramp up hysteria, make everyone think the sky is falling, so that you can push your agenda thru with barely a whimper of protest.

I don't think the financial crisis is exaggerated or the extent and severity is being lied about by the Obama administration.

Obama's agenda (education, health care, etc) is why he was elected. I better see changes there, that's why I voted for him as President

What Obama wants to do with that (platform, campaign promises type of stuff) has been readily separatable from what the administration is doing with the financial crisis as far as I can see - I can separate them out, see which is which.

The administrations answer to the financial crisis is far more than healthcare, education, other platform promises.

But when you have thousands of unemployed people (California just went over 10%), and many are highly educated and successful in technology and business, putting them back to work, and the government putting money into, the grossly underfunded and understaffed area of education is terrific in my view.

The US is not the brightest bulb in the world box regarding education. We should die of embarassment over that, with our potential resources. That must change, asap. Getting all of our children a great education should be number one. We are not first on the "quality education" list when compared to other countries. It's embarassing, that 18-year-olds can't read n thy rite lyk this cuz thy txt Seriously - I remember when I tried to hire receptionists when I had my private practice, I was appalled at the void between some of their ears.

The health care industry is fairly financially sound, but you bet, I think there needs to be major shakeups (although I'm not convinced any national healthcare system can work in the US within the next 20 years), so I don't mind that getting serious attention, either.

obama preached public works as a way to increase jobs, but only a small portion of his total budget will go towards that.

Yes, but that portion will create jobs, no? And our crumbling infrastructure is getting to lethal threat (to the public) level.

Do you think public works (infrastructure improvement) should be a more major focus, receive major $$ of government anti-recessionary funding?

(If so, tell the govs who are refusing bailout money because the feds are telling them they must spend it on infrastructure in their states to stick it)

the rest is just bigger govt. bigger govt only means a bigger expense in the end, and we can't afford that. govt is an expense only-and that expense grows every day

I agree with you, I prefer less government control, smaller government when the choice is there. I think the Peoples Republic of California is the perfect smaller example of what should be feared in that regard - across the board.

But I won't choose smaller or less "just because" - that depends what we are talking about.

I think we have to look at exactly what that "rest" entails if we want to start cherry picking what is good and beneficial given the economy, consideration for the future of the country, and what isn't.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't think the financial crisis is exaggerated or the extent and severity is being lied about by the Obama administration.

Obama's agenda (education, health care, etc) is why he was elected. I better see changes there, that's why I voted for him as President

What Obama wants to do with that (platform, campaign promises type of stuff) has been readily separatable from what the administration is doing with the financial crisis as far as I can see - I can separate them out, see which is which.

The administrations answer to the financial crisis is far more than healthcare, education, other platform promises.

But when you have thousands of unemployed people (California just went over 10%), and many are highly educated and successful in technology and business, putting them back to work, and the government putting money into, the grossly underfunded and understaffed area of education is terrific in my view.

The US is not the brightest bulb in the world box regarding education. We should die of embarassment over that, with our potential resources. That must change, asap. Getting all of our children a great education should be number one. We are not first on the "quality education" list when compared to other countries. It's embarassing, that 18-year-olds can't read n thy rite lyk this cuz thy txt Seriously - I remember when I tried to hire receptionists when I had my private practice, I was appalled at the void between some of their ears.

The health care industry is fairly financially sound, but you bet, I think there needs to be major shakeups (although I'm not convinced any national healthcare system can work in the US within the next 20 years), so I don't mind that getting serious attention, either.



Yes, but that portion will create jobs, no? And our crumbling infrastructure is getting to lethal threat (to the public) level.
Do you think public works (infrastructure improvement) should be a more major focus, receive major $$ of government anti-recessionary funding?

(If so, tell the govs who are refusing bailout money because the feds are telling them they must spend it on infrastructure in their states to stick it)



I agree with you, I prefer less government control, smaller government when the choice is there. I think the Peoples Republic of California is the perfect smaller example of what should be feared in that regard - across the board.

But I won't choose smaller or less "just because" - that depends what we are talking about.

I think we have to look at exactly what that "rest" entails if we want to start cherry picking what is good and beneficial given the economy, consideration for the future of the country, and what isn't.

the portion that goes to job creation is far outweighed by the costs of the total package. there's no way the govt can create enough jobs to bring in the tax revenue to offset the price.
the federal govt has become a bloated caricature of what it was intended to be. you can't continue to add to the fed, and expect it to also have less affect on daily lives-that's an impossibility.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the portion that goes to job creation is far outweighed by the costs of the total package. there's no way the govt can create enough jobs to bring in the tax revenue to offset the price.the federal govt has become a bloated caricature of what it was intended to be. you can't continue to add to the fed, and expect it to also have less affect on daily lives-that's an impossibility.

Okay, see your concern clearly now.

[Danzig]

i just find it ironic that the govt is telling everyone to tighten their belts, while they loosen theirs. a huge hubbub about the aig bonuses, but what about the bonuses going to freddie and fannie execs? ah, not quite as big a deal there... and then there's congress getting their raises as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's agenda (education, health care, etc) is why he was elected.

do you seriously believe this? Maybe my memory is faulty but I don't remember Education being a critical issue in the last election and Health care was hardly mentioned though McCain's plan that was scoffed at by Obama is actually the one they are attempting to adopt.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759906029901559.html

And the idea that Govs are turning down federal stimulus money related to infrastructure is unfounded. Most have said that they dont want the money that will change permanently state laws regarding unemployement ins and other state social programs. The Federal money will drastically expand these programs which the state will be on the hook for in 2 years when the money runs out. It is a bad longterm deal for states and will dramatically increase the size of their expenditures without a real revenue source which to fund them. Basically it is like the govt making a downpayment on your new Mercedes (which you cant afford) but then leaving you to make the payments (which you cant afford). This way the Congressional Democrats and Obama administration can claim credit for helping the needy yet put the individual states on the hook for failing to maintain them. Only in politics can you get money for nothing but the reality is that the Federal govt's money always comes with strings.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html

[Riot]

do you seriously believe this?

Yeah. I believe alot of crap you don't.

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

i remember it differently. Republicans weren't whining about where is the change. Republicans ridiculed people for not looking at the details, for getting caught up in a cult, for not looking at his marxist history, not looking at his total lack of experience. Republicans did this not because they thought he wouldn't change anything as president, but because they feared the changes he might make as president.

So far we've been 100% correct. These first two months have been nothing short of a disaster. A person hell bent on destroying the country would not have been worse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah. I believe alot of crap you don't.

I just have a hard time thinking that the reason Obama won wasn't almost entirely due to the mess in Iraq, McCain's age and running mate selection, Obama's public speaking skills and George Bush.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

can you give and example of a Republican complaining about there being no change?

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

do you mean that the change he wants is socialism and some people still believe in America?

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."



~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I just have a hard time thinking that the reason Obama won wasn't almost entirely due to the mess in Iraq, McCain's age and running mate selection, Obama's public speaking skills and George Bush.

i don't think any but the selection of palin made more than marginal differences.

outside of missouri, i don't know what competitive state you could argue she may have helped him win. on balance she was clearly a negative where the election could have swung.

people's minds were made up about iraq and bush long before the election. those weren't issues that changed meaningful votes.

i think the election was over when the economy tipped over in september. palin was just a bonus.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

can you give and example of a Republican complaining about there being no change?

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

do you mean that the change he wants is socialism and some people still believe in America?

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."



~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

awesome.

you finally found a spot where your quote makes sense. congrats.

and you guys keep at that socialism angle.

it's bound to work one of these days.

[Danzig]

a plan for another trillion in spending to be unveiled tomorrow.

hey, a trillion here, a trillion there...no problem. anyone remember when a million was a lot? or when people gasped at a billion? chump change.

[Riot]

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Riot

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

how can Rezko go to jail for his dealing with Blogo but not for his dealing with Barackovich

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

Arent all Illinois politicians corrupt? Or does it just seem that way?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

how can Rezko go to jail for his dealing with Blogo but not for his dealing with Barackovich

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?