|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
this is going to be a big time challenge for "you", especially if you allow yourself to be lead by your radical rw talking heads...taking control of your thinking process and not allowing someone else to think for you and tell you what to say and do might be a difficult for you.
mac you post article after article on a variety of political topics.. oddly enough, all of them make points that you espouse as your own. So are you being "led" by these, primarily main stream to left wing, publications that you cite? Aren't they really doing the thinking and you are doing the nodding and shouting of the occassional "Amen brother"? ..... Sure seems like it.
Oh, no, he didn't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Quote:
You say you place "no blame" on any individual or party...I just went back and read some of your posts...this is going to be a big time challenge for "you", especially if you allow yourself to be lead by your radical rw talking heads...taking control of your thinking process and not allowing someone else to think for you and tell you what to say and do might be a difficult for you.
j/k and going off topic....This thought process is misguided and shallow.
Most don't need Rush and Company to speak or, more particularly, to THINK for them. Undoubtedly we are all influenced by others, but life experience and using one's own brain are huge contributors to personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890 |
Quote:
Undoubtedly we are all influenced by others, but life experience and using one's own brain are huge contributors to personal beliefs.
that's a rumor and unless you can back it up, you may bet banned 
Just pulling you leg man.... 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Quote:
Quote:
Undoubtedly we are all influenced by others, but life experience and using one's own brain are huge contributors to personal beliefs.
that's a rumor and unless you can back it up, you may bet banned
Just pulling you leg man....
I'm sure I can find a blog to reference to. 
That or my right wing handbook. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890 |
Quote:
That or my right wing handbook.
The right wing has a handbook? dang,, the lefties better get on that... PDQ! 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Quote:
You say you are not a fan of either party...then say you agree with the conservative GOP....trying to paint yourself as a middle of the road type, but admit, you are a conservative...(even though the GOP is not conservative...lol)
I am nowhere near the middle of the road.
Let me make this perfectly clear for you ...... I am a conservative. I am a Constutional Constructionist. I believe that the Constitution speaks perfectly well for itself and does not need to be interpretted for political purpose. I believe that government governs best when it governs least, and that today's governemt is an abomination with its spending and assumed powers.
I am closer to the Republican Party than I am to the Democrats, because I also do not believe that government should raise people who refues to grow up an fend for themselves ..... and I do not believe in taking from producers (who usually work tremendous numbers of hours in order to produce) in order to provide for those who merely live upon the monies taken from others.
I do not believe in abortion.
I do not believe in lifelong welfare.
I do not believe in the government creating entire generations of "adult children" who will never do more than the absolute minimum required to get the benefits the government is so eager to dole out.
I am not, and have never pretended to be "middle of the road". If you had actually read anything I have writted over the past several years, iyou would know that it's not a case of the Republican party not being "middle" enough for me ..... they aren't conservative enough for me.
Quote:
Like I said, concerning your claim that CONGRESS is supposed to be the debt commission...tell everyone how that has been working out for the American people, for the last decade or so...
The fact is, CONGRESS can't, won't and have no intention of performing as a debt commission...because most our elected officials are OWNED by special interests...bought and paid for by special interests who donate to our politicians campaigns to help them get re-elected.
So .. appointing members of the Congress to a special "Debt Commission" (and supposedly members of both bbodies will participate) will help how, exactly?  Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Congress made the mess, so appoint members of Congress to a special commission (and incur more debt as a result) because that's how we'll straighten the mess out.  Do you even read the .... stuff you type? I mean that. Really? Do you?
Now, regardless of who heads uo the commission .... what power do they have? Why isn't the President telling Congress (with his party in charge) that they MUST cut spending IMMEDIATELY? Why isn't he calling for a 10% cut in all departments immediately? (A mere drop in the bucket)
I know ... a commission sounds much more impressive .... whether or not they actually have any power or not ......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
Well written and it also expresses my political leanings for the most part. Just wanted you to know it didn't fall on deaf ears.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
I second that entire post word-for-word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
I'm with you lock stock and barrel.
What I like is how if you speak or think on a conservative platform, the left automatically paints you as a lemming to what they call the "RW media". All the while they refuse to admit the left leaning bias, that has been proved over and over in legitimate studies, present in the "main stream media exists.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh makes you a "rw zealot", but drinking the NBC cool aid and and overlooking the clear bias at CNN means nothing. Those who spout off about Fox news are the same ones who refuse to admit that what they watch is just as equally bias in the other direction. But in the liberal mind, they are automatically right and anyone who doesn't believe them is a hater of some sort.
As for the debt commission, IMO it is just another political ploy by this incompetent administration. He is supposed to be so smart, but he appoints commission after commission to handle his duties. It is all a way to deflect the blame away from himself. The guy has no clue.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
before I switched parties 2 yrs ago
I have known you a lot longer than 2 years, so the BS flag gets tossed on that one.
Richard Nixon might have been the last republican you voted for.
Peen...put your money where your mouth is....wager?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
So .. appointing members of the Congress to a special "Debt Commission" (and supposedly members of both bbodies will participate) will help how, exactly?
YTown...what you wrote above...it got voted down.
I'm not sure what the make up will be of the debt commission the CONSERVATIVES oppose, but it's being led by former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson and former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles.
As for "you" being conservative...great...me too. One of the key reason's I left the Republican party 2 yrs ago was over their lack of "conservative" policies...the GOP talked it but did not walk it.
I realized, this GOP is not conservative in any way and to be honest, the Democrat party has been more fiscally conservative over the last 15 years than the Repubs.
The "conservative" GOP party left me...
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Quote:
You say you are not a fan of either party...then say you agree with the conservative GOP....trying to paint yourself as a middle of the road type, but admit, you are a conservative...(even though the GOP is not conservative...lol)
I am nowhere near the middle of the road.
Let me make this perfectly clear for you ...... I am a conservative. I am a Constutional Constructionist. I believe that the Constitution speaks perfectly well for itself and does not need to be interpretted for political purpose. I believe that government governs best when it governs least, and that today's governemt is an abomination with its spending and assumed powers.
I am closer to the Republican Party than I am to the Democrats, because I also do not believe that government should raise people who refues to grow up an fend for themselves ..... and I do not believe in taking from producers (who usually work tremendous numbers of hours in order to produce) in order to provide for those who merely live upon the monies taken from others.
I do not believe in abortion.
I do not believe in lifelong welfare.
I do not believe in the government creating entire generations of "adult children" who will never do more than the absolute minimum required to get the benefits the government is so eager to dole out.
I am not, and have never pretended to be "middle of the road". If you had actually read anything I have writted over the past several years, iyou would know that it's not a case of the Republican party not being "middle" enough for me ..... they aren't conservative enough for me.
Quote:
Like I said, concerning your claim that CONGRESS is supposed to be the debt commission...tell everyone how that has been working out for the American people, for the last decade or so...
The fact is, CONGRESS can't, won't and have no intention of performing as a debt commission...because most our elected officials are OWNED by special interests...bought and paid for by special interests who donate to our politicians campaigns to help them get re-elected.
So .. appointing members of the Congress to a special "Debt Commission" (and supposedly members of both bbodies will participate) will help how, exactly? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Congress made the mess, so appoint members of Congress to a special commission (and incur more debt as a result) because that's how we'll straighten the mess out. Do you even read the .... stuff you type? I mean that. Really? Do you?
Now, regardless of who heads uo the commission .... what power do they have? Why isn't the President telling Congress (with his party in charge) that they MUST cut spending IMMEDIATELY? Why isn't he calling for a 10% cut in all departments immediately? (A mere drop in the bucket)
I know ... a commission sounds much more impressive .... whether or not they actually have any power or not ......
One of the BEST quotes I have seen on here....didn't think I would find many that agree with me
I take it you like Ron Paul's Conservativeness as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Quote:
As for "you" being conservative...great...me too. One of the key reason's I left the Republican party 2 yrs ago was over their lack of "conservative" policies...the GOP talked it but did not walk it.
I realized, this GOP is not conservative in any way and to be honest, the Democrat party has been more fiscally conservative over the last 15 years than the Repubs.
The "conservative" GOP party left me...
That's crap.
President Obama is nothing even close to resembling a conservative. Bush didn't execute conservative policies either.
Anyone who blows $1 trillion on a bailout is not a conservative. That means that both Bush and Obama are the exact opposite of conservatism.
The Republicans are not the party all but promising to raise taxes. The Republicans are not the party who tried to ram through a horrible medical insurance bill that would have probably woud up costing trillions when all is said and done. The Republicans are not the ones who have turned the welfare system inrto a lifestyle choice for so many.
Personally, I want government to stay the hell out of my life as much as possible, and to stay the hell out of my wallet as well. I do not want the governemt to raid my wallet to pay for bailouts, and welfare programs, and help for people who refuse to help themselves .....
I should not be paying for college educations for those who receive college handouts as opposed to loans ...... I should not be paying for housing for people who thnk that financial independence is somehow owed them if they have a few kids and work 20 hours per week ...... I should not be paying for foreign governments .....
What I should be paying is the same fair share expected of every other wage earner in this country. My taxes should not go to cover someone else's "Earned Income Tax Credit" .... which is, in essence, more government handourts for those who contribute absolutely nothing to this country's tax base ......
The only time in my memory that either party has been even remotely financially responsible is when we had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress. (Clinton's second term) Was that the Democrats, or the Republicans? I left the Republican Party ..... but not to become a Democrat because frankly, I don't believe in their platform. As a conservative, I cannot. It opposes that which I believe in, which is the right of each member of society to rise or fall as his own efforts dictate without the government impeding his every step, and to enjoy his successes without government stealing away the fruits of his labor, and without penalty. Tell me that the Democrats even remotely resemble this description. The unfortunate thing is that there really is no party anymore that does.
As far as the Debt Commission ..... what is the budget for this commission? Obviously they will have to study the budget in detail ..... probably requiring hundreds or even thousands of staff members. There will be other support personnel. How much is this going to cost? Has rthe President even once put a dollar amount on this enterprise? Of course not. The PR aspect is more valuable than the money spent.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123 |
Tell me mac, how much as the deficit been reduced since Obama took office?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Considering that the commission is not expected to release its findings until after this fall's election ..... I would assume that we can just figure on getting every penny of the estimated minimum of $1.75 trillion in additional debt this year .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,081
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,081 |
eryze: Dawg, I read posts like this all the time... from folks who fall on both the left AND the right. I read them on fansites like this one, I read them on sites that deal with my profession (in their "tailgate sections"), and I read them in the comment sections at sites like Politico(dot)com. Both sides seem to point the exact same fingers at each other, and both sides use the exact same criteria to assail their so-called 'opponents.' Both accuse the other of tunnel-vision, spin, and (as you put it) "automatic painting." In essence, you are doing the exact same thing as those folks whom you seek to slam with your post. And on and on and on it goes: Left/Right, Wrong/Right, Us/Them, Browns/Steelers, R/D, UM/OSU, Lima Senior H.S./Shawnee H.S.... it's all tribalism, without any regard for the (potential) merits of anothers' p.o.v. You make up your minds, and then defend to the death your right to not change your position... citing the exact same character traits in your opponents as your reason for behaving just like them.Since both cast the exact same stones at the others, BOTH lose credibility with folks who are true independants. You listen to Rush, Shawn, Glenn? So what? I really couldn't care less where another Dawg gets his 'political entertainment.' It's all good with me. You wanna listen to Olberman or Colmes? Knock yourself out. Fox? MSNBC? CNN? Ultra RW blogs? It's all spin, baby. Spin, and nothing else. Each is pandering to a consumer base... and each is tryin' as hard as they can to win a buck from you and me. I've heard all of them... and I listen to none of them on a regular basis.Why? For the most part, ALL OF THEM bring about as much game as the average poster here in the Tailgate... so why would I bother with more than the occasional 'check-in' with any of them? They want to sway my opinion, so that they can wring the last ounce of support from me that their contracts, affiliatons and endorsements will allow. So I stay far away from all of them. I read articles, but rarely read OpEds. I really just want news. I can make up my own mind about what I've taken in. That's not to say that you don't do the same, but Dawg... I gotta admit- you seem to have already made up your mind about this POTUS, after only one year in office. It took me almost 4 full years to make up my mind about Bush43. Be as consevative as you want... but PLEEEZE don't paint the Diehard Left as any more banal, dogmatic and underhanded as the Diehard Right. BOTH are flip sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. So... as far as your post was concerned, I had no real problems with it. It was pretty much "the usual"... ... until you said this: Quote:
He is supposed to be so smart, but he appoints commission after commission to handle his duties. It is all a way to deflect the blame away from himself.
To which I counter: This guy is doing nothing that every other modern-day President hasn't also done. "Smart" or stupid, 'sharp' or 'dull,' each and every one of them has appointed commissions... to add insight, bring a fresh perspective, break congressional gridlock, add another voice to the discussion, bring expertise into the mix.... any number of commissions, for any number of purposes, for any number of reasons, by any number of Presidents. Why is it that this particular President seems to be doing it because he's an incompetent, clueless "blame-deflector?" Were there other incompetent, clueless "blame-deflectors?" If so, who were they... and what is your criteria for calling them as such?
Can we infer from your post that he's the first and only President in the last 50 years to fit this definition? If so why? If not, who else fits the mold, and why?
Was Kennedy cluelss?
Was Johnson clueless?
Was Nixon clueless?
Was Ford clueless?
Was Carter clueless?
Was Reagan clueless?
Was Bush41 clueless?
Was Clinton clueless?
Was Bush43 clueless?
Interesting... 5 Democratic and 5 Republican Presidents in the last half-century. ALL appointed commissions. Were they all clueless, or just the present POTUS? Were only the Dem Presidents? Were only the Rep Presidents?
Maybe now you'll see why your message is falling on deaf ears here. A little follow-up might help to solidify your case. Please tell us all why you believe that Barack Obama, above all others I have mentioned, has no clue... when he's done the exact same thing that NINE other Presidents have done?
You speak with so much assertiveness... you MUST have facts to back those assertions. Let's hear them.
Here's your chance to make me turn away from my present POTUS... for the very first time in my 53-years worth of life.
Anxiously awaiting an intellegent, cogent response,
Clemdawg
(a true independant)
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
Tell me mac, how much as the deficit been reduced since Obama took office?
squir...ytown...all DTers...Here is a good read...
Did Deficits Explode Under Obama?
Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits. This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable. America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. Moreover, if deficits are perceived as the problem, that means both spending restraint and higher taxes are solutions. The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.
In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.
But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.
Click the link below to view the bar graphs...
web page
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit...is the title of this story from CATO...
Note the trend line of second bar graph, titled...Obama Inherited the FY2009 Deficit...and the use of CBO projections...
ALSO...NOTE..the source of this info is THE CATO INSTITUTE...A RW THINK TANK...
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Here's a link to the full article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094 It concludes: So what's the final score? Let's use an analogy. Obama's FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher. That having been said, Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor's. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids. This is where Obama's critics should be directing their attention. Big government won't work any better for Obama than it did for Bush. America's fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. If Obama wants to rejuvenate the economy, he should abandon the Bush policies of big government and interventionism and instead go with free market policies that actually work. **** Amen to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
More from the CATO institute...
Defending Obama…Again
web page
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
I caught a lot of flack from my Republican friends for my post blaming the FY2009 deficit on Bush instead of Obama. Well, I must be a glutton for punishment because I can’t resist jumping (albeit reluctantly) to Obama’s defense again. I’m venting my spleen for two reason. First, FoxNews.com posted a story headlined “Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents” and noted that:
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history. In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion …That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.
This story was featured on the Drudge Report, so it has received a lot of attention. Second, Bush’s former Senior Adviser wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal eviscerating Obama for big budget deficits. Given Bush’s track record, this took considerable chutzpah, but what really nauseated me was this passage:
When Mr. Obama was sworn into office the federal deficit for this year stood at $422 billion. At the end of October, it stood at $1.42 trillion.
I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total — about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.
There are some subjective aspects to this estimate, to be sure. Supplemental defense spending could boost Obama’s share by another $25 billion, but Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending, so I didn’t count that money but individual readers can adjust the number if they wish. Also, Obama used some bailout money for the car companies, but I did not count that as a net increase in spending since the bailout funds were approved under Bush and I strongly suspect the previous Administration also would have funneled money to GM and Chrysler. In any event, I did not give Obama credit for the substantial amount of TARP funds that were repaid after January 20, so the net effect of all the judgment calls certainly is not to Bush’s disadvantage.
Let’s use an analogy. Obama’s FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far more angry with the starting pitcher. That having been said, Obama since that point has been serving up meatballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor’s. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.
Last edited by mac; 02/22/10 09:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac.. are you going to address the part of the article you selectively left out that Reckon posted, that said this... Quote:
That having been said, Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor's. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.
Or are you just going to keep posting new stuff?.. I mean it's the same article, the same institute, the same author that said all of the other things you agree with..... so would you like to address it?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
mac ... let me make this as clear as I possibly can .......
President Bush pushed through a massive $1 trillion bank bailout because "it's an amergency, and life as we know it will end unless we do so.".
I criticized that President, and felt that the market needed to find its own bottom, without wasting hundreds of bliions of dollars after hundreds of billions of dollars on an abomination of a porkfest disguised as "help" for the American people .......
The President Obama said tha country "urgently needed" an additional $1 trillion in "stimulus" .......
Pay for it? Why? The last guy didn't ........
That one I lay at President Obama's feet.
That's $1 trillion of debt and deficit spending in fiscal 2009 that goes to no one except President Obama and the Congress. You cannot possibly blame that trillion dollar abomination on anyone but them. The previous trillion dollar abomination ... sure ... but not this one. This is his baby, and his responsibility.
Because of that fact, at the very minimum, $1 ttrillion of fiscal 2009's projrected (almost) $2 trillion deficit is the direct responsibility of this current President.
Next year's budget deficit (fiscal 2010) is projected to be at $1.7 trillion. Projections almost always miss low ..... so if the deficit winds up at ot above that amount, at whose feet should we lay the blame for that one? I'm just curious ...... because I need to know if I have to dig out President Bush's address in Texas when I need to complain .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
ytown, let me help you out with an answer... President Bush and his RWer cronies singlehandedly caused the recession, the housing bubble collapse, the market collapse, high unemployment, and our poor healthcare system. Until such time as we are dragged out of this mess by higher taxes, any and all spending or regulation, no matter how intrusive, no matter how lavish, no matter how huge and ridiculous... is his fault because it is simply trying to fix the problem Bush created regardless of who actually signs the bill and prints the money... most of the indicators that I see say that we should start to see real positive growth early in 2011.... this will obviously be the result of whatever it is that Obama did or is about to do, thus he will have saved us... it will obviously be HIS $1 trillion in debt that saved us, not the $1 trillion that Bush signed.  So there is your timeline for fighting this battle for the next two years... you can see it coming.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
... Meanwhile any terrorist attacks that occurred within 9 months of President Bush taking office, must be strictly laid at the feet of Bush and Bush alone ... and not at any policies or (in)actions made by previous administrations. I also love the fact that the people who try to justify Obama's ridiculous spending by pointing out Bush's ridiculous spending completely ignore that most people were completely AGAINST Bush's spending in the first place ... but if Obama does it, then somehow WE'RE the hypocrites. You know, since it was bad when GB did it, but not when Obama does it at 4-times the cost. On the bright-side, mac has dropped his overused "Neo-con" broom-sized paintbrush in favor of a "RW'er" one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123 |
I also recall mac screaming for accountability from the president when Bush was in office. He was always saying the buck stopped with the president. Now that Obama is office, the president gets a free pass on everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
The President Obama said tha country "urgently needed" an additional $1 trillion in "stimulus" .......
Pay for it? Why? The last guy didn't ........
That one I lay at President Obama's feet.
That's $1 trillion of debt and deficit spending in fiscal 2009 that goes to no one except President Obama and the Congress. You cannot possibly blame that trillion dollar abomination on anyone but them.
YTown...You are referencing the same article referenced below by CATO, written by a former Bush adviser (Karl Rove).
The following from CATO article, Defending Obama, Again....
...............Bush’s former Senior Adviser wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal eviscerating Obama for big budget deficits. Given Bush’s track record, this took considerable chutzpah, but what really nauseated me was this passage:
When Mr. Obama was sworn into office the federal deficit for this year stood at $422 billion. At the end of October, it stood at $1.42 trillion.
Given Bush’s track record, this took considerable chutzpah, but what really nauseated me was this passage:
When Mr. Obama was sworn into office the federal deficit for this year stood at $422 billion. At the end of October, it stood at $1.42 trillion.
I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total — about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget..............................
YTown...click the link to view the pie chart... web page
Now..notice that according to the CATO Institutes pie chart, 96% of the 2009 budget is Bush's responsibility while 4% is referred to as Obama add ons. Again, not my info...but the info from the CATO Institute.
YTown...concerning the stimulus bill...would you rather the United States had fallen into the next great depression?
Here is a summary of the proposed stimulus bill, written on Jan 15, 2009...SUMMARY: AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT
The economy is in a crisis not seen since the Great Depression.
Credit is frozen, consumer purchasing power is in decline, in the last four months the country has lost 2 million jobs and we are expected to lose another 3 to 5 million in the next year.
Conservative economist Mark Zandi was blunt: "the economy is shutting down."
In the next two weeks, the Congress will be considering the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. This package is the first crucial step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and begin the process of transforming it for the 21st century with $275 billion in economic recovery tax cuts and $550 billion in thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.web page
Do take special notice to this...Conservative economist Mark Zandi was blunt: "the economy is shutting down."
What would you want Obama to do?...end the Bush tax cuts upon taking office in Jan. 2009, to pay for his stimulus bill?
Last edited by mac; 02/22/10 08:52 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
it depends on whether or not you believe that we would have gone into a depression. I do not. Banks are in business to loan money. That is their profit mechanism. If a bank made poor choices in its loan practices, then they will be ripe for takeover by someone else. (as actually happened with NCB/PNC ...... only the government actually wound up paying for PNC to acquire NCB) We spent a trillion dollars to "unfreeze" lending .... when lending would have thawed on its own. Bush and the Congressional Democrats and Republicans were wrong to push through that pork fest bank bailout package. Then along comes Pesident Obama. he decides that the way to get the economy going is o spend money on ... something. "Shovel Ready" they called it. In this area, most were road projects already scheduled to be done. Only the funding source changed. We also threw money into the "Cash for Clunkers" program ...... This took buyers who might be buying in a year or 2 and gave them incentive to buy now. Did it create aything? Not really. It did move some iron on car lots I guess though. Instead of the manufacturers saying "Man, we better up the incentives" though, the government bought the incentives. Good economic decision? Doubtful. Then there was the first time home buyer tax credit. Now we're "helping" those with no down payment to afford their own home ..... Umm ... excuse me .... but isn't this how we got into this mess to start with? The whole point of "stimulus" is to generate more economic activity than the cost of the government money spent. Did that happen? Almost $2 trillion .... and what did we get to show for it? "But we prevented disaster!". Really? Prove it. No one can. My contention is that we could have done nothing at all. Some banks would have failed. FDIC wuld have protected the depositers, as iis its mission in life. Another bank would have come along and picked the bones of the failed bank. They would have purchased assets, assumed liabilities, and everything else that happens when a business fails and a competitor buys them up. If we had not passed the "Stimulus" bill, many of the projrects (mostly road resurfacing in this area) would have been paid for by other means. Many were already on the books. The government spent a couple billion on the cash for clunkers program. It did move some iron ..... but many people did not qualify because of the car they currently own ..... and a broad based manufacturer rebate rogram probably would have been even more successful. That would have happened if the government had done nothing ... because it's how the auto industry reacts to excess inventory in danger of becoming distressed merchandise. Did it help? Maybe some. Was it worth it? I don't know. Do you? How about the 1st time home buyers program? Bad debt killed us before .... so let's throw some money at people without 20% down so they can get loans ...... That'll work. We gave people money for education .... despite the fact that the Pell Grant pogram will loan money to damn near anyone with a pulse. We gave most people a $300-$400 tax cut ...... spread out over the year. That $6-8 per week ahould have really gotten the ball rolling ...... wonder why we're still over 10% unemployment? Good thing we extended Unemployment benefits too, huh? Oh yeah ... we also "invested" $20 billion to give food stamp recipients a little extra (13% more) ...... no sense having them suffer while people working for a living are ..... Oh never mind ..... Oh .. we did spend $2 billion to help keep police and firemen on the jobs ...... or 10% of what we paid in increased food stamp benefits. Guess it's a good thing since police and firemen might be down signing up for food stamps ...... With almost $2 trillion in 2 year wast ... err ... invested ...... what are the results? Are we rolling along? Has the economy recovered? How's the jobs picture? What changed? Not much. The economy tanked .... unemployment spiked ...... the market fell ..... housing dropped ..... all things that happen in a recession ..... Now we're staring to show slow indicators of recovery. Did we have to spend $2 trillion to get here? I don't thik so ... and neither do many other people. Sometimes it's better to take your lumps .... get over it ... and move on. These last 2 administrations make FDR's administration look miserly. Oh .... and you completely disregarded what I said about the deficit, because you wanted to try and make your article relevant. I don't give a damn about the 2009 deficit. That belongs to Bush and the Congress. (both Democrat controlled) 2010, which is expected to go close to $2 trillion I lay directly at the feet of President Obama. It's his baby. His, and the Congress ... which is a Democrat controlled body, and enjoyed a filibuster proof majority until just recently. Now go ahead and talk about 2009 again ,,,,,, really .... it's all very intreresting to argue that t's all Bush's fault .... especially when I agree that it's largely his fault .... That doesn't change the fact that THIS President has a 2010 budget creating the largest ever deficit. I bet it sets an all time record. Yea us.  Quote:
What would you want Obama to do?...end the Bush tax cuts upon taking office in Jan. 2009, to pay for his stimulus bill?
What you don't seem to get is that I believe that government should get the hell out of the way ... get the hell out of our pockets .... and let the economy recover on its own. You talk about Conservatives ... that's the real conservative way to correct things. Cut spending .... cut taxes responsibly .... end tax "credits" for those who do not pay taxes to start with ..... require personal responsibility from our citizens ..... and then you'll see the econmy take off. Why, if I had the (between) $4000 and $5000 I paid in federal taxes on my meager income to spend and invest, I could have helped stimulate the economy without any incentive orr help from the government. Even half of that would have had a stimulative effect. But no ..... I'm one of the "lucky ones" who works 60-70 hour weeks ...... to take home 2/3 of my pay on a good week so the government can "stimulate" someone else's pockets.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Then there was the first time home buyer tax credit. Now we're "helping" those with no down payment to afford their own home .....
Umm ... excuse me .... but isn't this how we got into this mess to start with?
A young lady I work with just purchased house last year and filed her tax return last week. She is getting $8,000 back due to this credit - normally she gets about $500-700 she said. Now, she has a descent job and I'm not sure what she put down on the house, but wow - an 8k tax return for someone who probably clears 50k per year max? I just had to smile and act happy for her, when inside I was fuming knowing that this money came from everyone's tax dollars but not everyone could benefit from the program.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
What you don't seem to get is that I believe that government should get the hell out of the way ... get the hell out of our pockets .... and let the economy recover on its own.
From my point of view...RWers had no problem when the last admistration was spending billions/trillions of American taxpayer dollars on "nationbuilding" Iraq and helping the Iraqi people...but if this administration tries to help Americans, by stimulating America's economy, RWers see it as all wrong. That stinks of politics, IMO...read this...
Paul Krugman: Teetering on the edge
February 6, 2009
A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate here in the U.S. about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.
It's as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened - yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there's a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.
Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what's at stake - of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.
It's hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we're in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the U.S., but around the world.
Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving - a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, because they aren't selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy's few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits America's trading partners.
Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions - the Federal Reserve's usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates - has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.
It's no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we're headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that "absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation's output relative to potential levels will be the largest - in duration and depth - since the Depression of the 1930s."
Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the '30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.
We're already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.
As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.
And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a "lost decade" of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s - and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation's exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?
Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won't have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that's why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective - to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts - are so destructive.
So what should Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.
It's time for Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation's future at risk. The U.S. economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
You totally dismissed a recently posted article because of it's "right winger" author bias, yet you post a Paul Krugman article (to go along with your Olberman video clip)? You give new meaning to the word hypocrisy.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890 |
Quote:
She is getting $8,000 back due to this credit
I was under the impression that the 8k tax credit was more like a reduction of taxible income.. Meaning, if you made 50k in total, an 8k tax credit would reduce that to 42k.. (of course, from there you take other deductions as you would normally)
So was I wrong about that?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac, I'm growing very weary of reading your posts which are one line of introduction, then a big hefty article written by somebody else and a link.... heck many of them are articles you are posting for the second or third time to try to drive your point home because people had questions or raised points about them the first time you posted them.
Seriously, if you can't have a discussion in your own words, if you can't formulate your own thoughts, if you can't defend your own opinions, then what's the point of this really? You have posted articles from a variety of sources, which is fine... then people question something in the article or raise a counterpoint to try to flush out your opinion and you respond by reposting the article or posting a different article. In the end, I suppose copy/paste is a hell of a lot easier than thinking.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
You totally dismissed a recently posted article because of it's "right winger" author bias, yet you post a Paul Krugman article (to go along with your Olberman video clip)?
You give new meaning to the word hypocrisy.
jfan...so you believe Krugman is not qualified to comment on American economic issues?
Just some recent background on Krugman...
...In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in Prospect Magazine's 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals.
...........................................................................................
jfan...Obviously Krugman is well qualified to comment on America's economic issues. My guess is you dislike his honest opinions. BTW, Krugman has critisized the Obama administration too...
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac, in all fairness, google search Krugman and look at his articles over the years... every single one that I've ever seen has been far left.... Remember who votes for Nobel Prize Winners, primarily Europeans and intellectuals... so it's not a big surprise that they love a guy who espouses higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations, a high academic pedigree.... and anybody who consistently blasts conservative thought.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
DC...is Paul Krugman qualified to comment on American economics?
I would not expect a RWer to agree with everything Krugman has to say...but hey, this economy was run by RWers for 8 years...do you really want more of the same?
The point is...America's economy was in deep do-do and the Bush admin with it's RW economists began the process of stopping America's slide into the next great depression. The Obama administration was surely not going to follow the advise of some of the same RW economists who helped create the mess.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,123 |
Quote:
Quote:
She is getting $8,000 back due to this credit
I was under the impression that the 8k tax credit was more like a reduction of taxible income.. Meaning, if you made 50k in total, an 8k tax credit would reduce that to 42k.. (of course, from there you take other deductions as you would normally)
So was I wrong about that?
My friend bought a house last year and also said he is getting an 8k tax return.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
this economy was run by RWers for 8 years
No it wasn't. They had majority control + the WH from 2001-2007. Then it was bi-partisian controll from 2007-2009. (Rep. in the WH, Dems with majority contol in both houses of Congress).
Are you trying to tell me that from 2007 on with the democrates in complete control of both houses that they have had no role in the economy???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,890 |
Quote:
My friend bought a house last year and also said he is getting an 8k tax return.
Wow.. I had the wrong impression of that I guess.. thanks
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
My contention is that we could have done nothing at all.
Some banks would have failed. FDIC would have protected the depositers, as iis its mission in life.
IMO, this would be fine if there were a few bank failures. But unfortunately, bank failures seem to exhibit a domino effect. Since 2007, there were nearly 200 bank failures (compare this to 2004-2006 where only 4 banks failed). This completely shakes confidence, and starts runs on banks/investment firms. More banks fail. More people pull money back. More fail. That is exactly the direction we were headed in, just like in the beginning of the Great Depression. And the solution then was also to allow the market the "re-set." But it kept going like a chain reaction.
Because of this chain reaction, its not as simple as banks that made poor loans are affected. Once confidence is shaken, people start taking money out of any bank/investment firm, no matter how fiscally sound the bank.
Further, if this chain reaction would have kept going, the payouts from FDIC would have far exceeded the $200 billion used to stabilize the system. FDIC has an upper limit, so that individuals would probably be protected, but businesses wouldn't necessarily. That $200 billion didn't disappear; half of it has been paid back already. You are right that these bailouts didn't necessarily unfreeze lending, but instead they may have prevented total banking system meltdown.
http://www.calculatorplus.com/savings/advice_failed_banks.html
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
From my point of view...
And here is the key to the whole thing... mac you don't live on this world so frankly your point of view is rather............... pointless  
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
I don't think there would have been the chain reaction you are citing and that others were citing. Because they were looking at the Great Depression as their baseline. And the reason there were runs and domino effects in that time was because there was no FDIC and people were losing everything.
But with the FDIC backing people could take that isurance and go to other banks which would in turn do better not worse. Would we lose more than 4 banks...yes...but others would be there to take over for them and prosper from them. And I do not believe there would be the dominoe effect that was feared.
The main reason is there was no reason for it to domino. The main driving force for the domino effect in the late 20's was the fact that people were losing their entire savings. EVERYTHING. But that would not have happened in this case.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama to sign executive order to
form debt commission
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Maddog/PDVD_000Z.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)