View Full Version : OT: Is a plan to have a plan a plan in itself?
Tobias
02-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Announcement by Geithner of the highly-anticipated economic plan seems to lack details to such a degree that it seems to have left many wondering if it’s a plan at all. I listened and heard many good goals, but nothing that sounded like a plan itself. Rather it sounded like a plan to have a plan in a few more weeks – or maybe longer sense he said much had to be left fluid so they can keep making changes along the way as needed.
Normally I like flexibility to make adjustments, but doesn’t there need to be a point of reference? In this case we don’t even know what the base plan is, so how can we even consider changes against that? Unfortunately it sounded like he doesn’t yet have a plan at all.
I think Geithner was so premature that he did more harm than good. Would he have not been better off taking more time to announce a well-defined plan? Wall Street doesn’t seem to like the lack of an actual plan with working details, and a CNBC early poll shows 65% of Americans think it won’t work.
Are we destined to spin our wheels because there really is not a viable answer other than to suffer through a downturn? What do you think, is there a solution we just haven’t found, or would it be wiser to acknowledge there will be no plan and to move forward on that basis?
Yes, but apparently not enough for Wall Street. A 400 point drop at one time was no accident.
Maybe it's best for all of us to have a plan in the news but not actually have one to implement. Seriously, if that's the real plan it may be brilliant.
First do no harm, but keep telling the patient help is on the way.
android
02-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Planning is more important than the plan.
93legendti
02-10-2009, 03:11 PM
I thought it was a good plan coming from a guy who has trouble doing his taxes.
As I watched the Press Conference last night, I was left with the sinking feeling that our President is in over his head. Today's Conference didn't change my mind.
I think it's more that there is no solution that can work. If there was, someone would have brought it to the front already.
Volant
02-10-2009, 03:16 PM
No.
SamIAm
02-10-2009, 03:20 PM
It is a bit like having a plan to control the weather.
My advice, find a way to operate successfully in the new economy (or lack thereof). Opportunities abound.
Tobias
02-10-2009, 03:23 PM
We are back to where we were back in mid-September when dealing with toxic assets effectively had no answer. Months later issues remain the same. This suggests there is no answer, so why not just state that clearly? :confused:
I think all have been pretty upfront that they don't KNOW what will work or how well. But the large majority of economists (Adam's list notwithstanding) believe that doing nothing is the worst possible solution. They've learned some things from the Paulson plan and won't make THOSE mistakes again, but may very well make different ones.
I've seen both positive and negative critiques of Geitner's plan. Interesting interview with Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Taleb on CNBC the other night. These were the two guys who predicted this collapse way ahead of the curve. They think that ultimately the only thing that's going to work is to nationalize the banks, clean 'em up, and then sell 'em back to the private sector. Which is I guess similar to what Sweden did, but on a much smaller scale. They figure we're gonna get there eventually anyway, after trying everything else, so we may as well do that sooner rather than later. Here's the link if anyone's interested. Almost hilarious in a sick way - the anchors keep asking for stock tips and these guys are like "you don't UNDERSTAND - the financial system is on fire - there are no stock tips - hold onto your cash for when the opportunities come back up!". No, but really, what should I invest in? An impressive disconnect.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1027496846&play=1
The only real consensus I'm seeing is that the financial "rescue" is the whole ballgame - you need the stimulus too, but if the financial plan doesn't work, the stimulus won't mean didly-squat. And if the financial plan does work, the specific details of the stimulus aren't that important as long as you're getting money out there.
I hope SOMETHING works, but we're in for plenty of pain regardless.
-Ray
torquer
02-10-2009, 03:43 PM
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth."
Mike Tyson
Ray, just the number of different programs makes me (and I presume others) nervous. If this started as a housing problem, why do we need half a dozen different programs? It's getting to the point where most of us can't grasp the combined total of everything that is being proposed (by previous admin also so this comment is not political at all).
A shotgun-blast-in-the-dark approach makes me a little more than skeptical. And I've never supported the concept that doing something wrong is better than doing nothing at all.
Ray, just the number of different programs makes me (and I presume others) nervous. If this started as a housing problem, why do we need half a dozen different programs? It's getting to the point where most of us can't grasp the combined total of everything that is being proposed (by previous admin also so this comment is not political at all).
A shotgun-blast-in-the-dark approach makes me a little more than skeptical. And I've never supported the concept that doing something wrong is better than doing nothing at all.
There's nothing about this situation that doesn't make me nervous. I think they're being a bit more focussed than a shotgun blast, but that doesn't mean its gonna work. And I know how you feel about doing nothing. Most economists disagree, but they were mostly wrong leading up to this, so while I favor them taking action, I don't dismiss your thought out of hand.
-Ray
93legendti
02-10-2009, 04:00 PM
I had a boss who loved to say: "The corollary to over promising is under delivering".
johnnymossville
02-10-2009, 04:12 PM
He's set the bar so low "Saving 4 million jobs" that anything that happens will be labeled a success. I suspect at least 4 million Americans will be left working when he's done tinkering.
93legendti
02-10-2009, 04:16 PM
He's set the bar so low "Saving 4 million jobs" that anything that happens will be labeled a success. I suspect at least 4 million Americans will be left working when he's done tinkering.
And he's said it so many different ways! i.e.
saving 3 million jobs
creating 3 million jobs
saving 3-4 million jobs
creating 3-4 million jobs
creating over 3 million jobs
saving or creating 3-4 million jobs
creating or saving 3-4 million jobs. :rolleyes:
At least the spending plan has $150 million for livestock insurance. :cool:
slowgoing
02-10-2009, 05:51 PM
Is a plan to have a plan a plan in itself?
I see meds in your future.
93legendti
02-10-2009, 06:03 PM
"The fact you have no act is an act". Singles.
cdimattio
02-10-2009, 07:52 PM
I thought this commentary from across the pond was especially depressing:
Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks
By Martin Wolf
Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.
What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.
Yet hoping for the best is what one sees in the stimulus programme and – so far as I can judge from Tuesday’s sketchy announcement by Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary – also in the new plans for fixing the banking system. I commented on the former last week. I would merely add that it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.
The banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this “progeny of the troubled asset relief programme” fails, Mr Obama’s credibility will be ruined. Now is the time for action that seems close to certain to resolve the problem; this, however, does not seem to be it.
Entire text here: http://www.ft.com/comment
DukeHorn
02-10-2009, 07:55 PM
"The American people don't want this trillion-dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported [President Barack] Obama in the election," said Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, an organization that calls for less government spending and lower taxes.
But no-bid contracts to Haliburton, et al. is just par for the course, eh?
Privatizing the military so that contractors like Blackwater get paid much better than our own troops is just great business?
Trying to dig us out of a depression is a bad thing for government but it's good to lie to the American people to put us in a war.
Love the logical underpinnings.....
As for Collins, Snowe and Specter, watch the last of the moderate Rockefeller Republicans get attacked by the "new" Republican party. Only took 15 years since I've left the Republican Party to see the last moderates go down. Thank you Newt, Ralph Reed, and the Christian Coalition.
rounder
02-10-2009, 09:16 PM
To me part of the problem is that everyone seems to be waiting for the government to come up with a plan to bail them out and make things right. How come no one is suggesting that everyone try to work a little harder and put a little more effort in. I read the paper everyday and no one seems to say (as pogo did...not that i used to read pogo) we met the enemy and he was us.
To me part of the problem is that everyone seems to be waiting for the government to come up with a plan to bail them out and make things right. How come no one is suggesting that everyone try to work a little harder and put a little more effort in. I read the paper everyday and no one seems to say (as pogo did...not that i used to read pogo) we met the enemy and he was us.
Yup, all of those people losing their jobs just need to work a little harder. That'll do it.
-Ray
Climb01742
02-11-2009, 05:08 AM
interesting take on the banking situation (and why the dow's reaction was typically self-serving):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003583.html?hpid=topnews
1centaur
02-11-2009, 05:21 AM
"By now, I hope you've learned enough not to be taken in by the self-serving floor patter. These guys won't be happy until the government agrees to relieve them of every last one of their lousy loans and investments at inflated prices, recapitalize every major bank and brokerage and insurance company on sweetheart terms and restore them to the glory days, so they can once again earn inflated profits and obscene pay packages by screwing over their customers and their shareholders. "
"Them"? The banks are a small part of the market's value. The rest of the market is justifiably worried about how bad things can get and correctly viewed what was said yesterday as not providing a lot of hope on that score. Journalists are often on the dumb side of average, but this guy takes the cake, especially with his ignorant whining at the end. If you hate business, and you don't understand markets, you really should not write about them.
Climb01742
02-11-2009, 05:55 AM
i'm not sure what's so dumb about it. you don't have to hate business to believe that a great many financial services firms did a great many risky greedy things and now want the govt to bail them out. i don't think wall street will be happy until someone else gets them out of the hole they dug.
as a small business owner myself, and someone who is trying to pull every cent i can out of our capitalist system, i actually love business...business done right. there is, i think, a great deal of justified outrage at how many financial services firms behaved. the vast majority of small businesses in america managed their risk better than almost any big wall street firm. how many small businesses are leveraged 30-to-1?
i agree that yesterday's announcement was short on details and possibly solutions. but it's unfair, i think, to label justified outrage as hatred of business.
this proposed question for today's house hearings captures the disconnect well:
This question is for Mr. Pandit of Citigroup. When you sold your hedge fund, Old Lane Partners, to Citigroup for $800 million in 2007, you pocketed $165.2 million cash. At the time, you did not reinvest any of that cash in Citigroup’s stock; you invested the after-tax proceeds into Old Lane, which you’ve since shuttered. Since then, your biggest purchase of Citigroup stock amounted to $8.4 million, when it was trading at $9.25 a share. (It closed Monday at $3.95). Only a fraction of your net worth appears to be in the company you run. Why? And why should taxpayers be willing to make a bet on a company that so far you seem unwilling to bet on yourself?
Journalists are often on the dumb side of average, but this guy takes the cake, especially with his ignorant whining at the end. If you hate business, and you don't understand markets, you really should not write about them.
I'm surprised to hear you say this. Not on the substance, but I remember during the various discussions in the media and on the forum leading up to the original bailout, I remember finding you to be one of the voices of sanity around here and Peralstein to be one of the voices of sanity in the media. And you guys were generally saying the same things! I remember at least a few times hearing him say something on the tube and have you say pretty much the same thing the next day here. Or hear you say something here and then hear the same thing from him the next night on the tube. I don't claim to remember the specific topics or issues where this happened, but I remember observing that pretty specifically and making enough of a mental note of it to sit up when I saw what you just wrote.
Just an observation...
-Ray
paulh
02-11-2009, 07:03 AM
A man, a plan, a canal.... Panama!
1centaur
02-11-2009, 08:06 AM
That paragraph is so bad I could disassemble it line by line and take pages to do so. Nobody wants me to take the bandwidth, so I'll summarize:
It was the huge and diverse MARKET that went down, a market made up of a globe full of investors who are working to correctly price the future. This is not a tiny group of wild-eyed blind and greedy fools pricing their own futures. Moreover, the idea that any meaningful subset of this market is driven to earn "obscene" pay packages and screw over the people with whom they work/trade AND the people that employ them is utterly mindless drivel that betrays a worldview detached from any kind of reality. That is sloganeering, that is not observation. When Ken Rogoff commented yesterday in agreement with the market's reaction was he looking to make obscene profits and screw over everybody too?
The existence in this world of some people (not whole institutions, some people) who placed greed above all does not justify this guy's broad brush comments, not by a long shot. That he managed to make that leap strongly suggests a bloody-minded hatred of "them" that undermines anything else he might say. A more level headed approach would be to understand that ignorance of the whole picture, sloppiness, seeing the world with blinders on explains a whole lot more than excessive greed. It's tempting to point fingers, but it's not very accurate. There was a whole army of people working on mortgages and structures and pricing and I bet very few of them thought any of this could happen, so it's difficult to say they were screwing anyone, let alone the people responsible for continuing to pay them.
Specific to climb's comments, again the issue is "bailout" as a definition. Most shareholder wealth in the bad banks is gone, an incredible number of those jobs are gone, so I don't see this whole thing about being bailed out/saved by the government at the selfish level. That's a popular feeling, but not an accurate one. Everybody's focused on bailing out the system. The market is not Wall Street, per se, it's an aggregation of fear and greed. Fear won yesterday, but not fear of not being allowed to screw everybody again, since 99.8% of the market votes were not made by anyone who screwed anyone else in the first place.
Enough of a ballpark?
Climb01742
02-11-2009, 08:14 AM
wasn't yesterday's sell-off lead by banking stocks? everyone from bofa, citi to suntrust and keycorp? and the knock-on effect of... if banks aren't bailed-out, then consumer credit won't loosen up?
1centaur, clearly you know more than i, but beyond that, our filters are different. as with any filter, there is some distortion, tilting toward our ideological predispositions on both sides?
and not every viewpoint of yesterday was so dire:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/10/obama-geithner-stimulus-bank-bailout
as always, isn't there some validity to differing opinions?
Viper
02-11-2009, 08:32 AM
Journalists are often on the dumb side of average.
It was true in high school. I joined the school paper and was shocked by the level of ignorance. If nearly ten out of ten movies Hollywood produces are sheer bubble gum, the same is true for news articles. All the print that fits.
There was an epsiode about this on The West Wing, War Crimes:
"There's another episode ... where a foreign correspondent (Michael O'Keefe) temporarily assigned to the White House because he's been kicked out of the Third World country that he covers and considers the White House to be real low rent because as he says 'No news ever happens here, it's just gossip' clearly referring to Gary Condit and Monica Lewinsky and what kind of diet are you on right now and that kind of thing. Does a whole speech about how the real news is happening on the other side of the world, well at some point I'll get around to rewriting and reshooting that scene because it's preposterous." ~Aaron Sorkin
Most shareholder wealth in the bad banks is gone, an incredible number of those jobs are gone, so I don't see this whole thing about being bailed out/saved by the government at the selfish level.Nor do I, but it still doesn't address the problem.
On Fast Money yesterday they made a point that as long as we believe in the assumption that some institutions are “too big to fail” we will box ourselves in a way that keeps us from moving forward because we spend all our efforts on solving that problem.
Most agreed that letting banks fail should not be off the table regardless of their size. We don’t specifically need Citi, Bank of America, or Merrill Lynch, we just need banks. And there are others in adequate shape. They mentioned that after taking their medicine that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley emerged better off than they would have otherwise. Unfortunately others would be shown insolvent if they did the same.
If banks are a small part of the problem, why are we jumping through hoops to keep some of them alive? :confused:
GoJavs
02-11-2009, 08:43 AM
I thought it was a good plan coming from a guy who has trouble doing his taxes.
As I watched the Press Conference last night, I was left with the sinking feeling that our President is in over his head. Today's Conference didn't change my mind.
Funny. That's the same exact feeling I had the last 8 years. :)
Viper
02-11-2009, 08:49 AM
Funny. That's the same exact feeling I had the last 8 years. :)
If this were a McCain Tarp deal, Adam would be, most likely, thrilled by it's potential while demonizing it's detractors. Bias is bias is bias as bias is. As President Obama effectively pointed out at his press conference, "Republicans? They effed up this economy I inherited and it's funny, the notion I should listen to only their perspective today, when it's failed for the past eight years."
Now he didn't say it quite like that, I did, but he has a valid point.
Does anyone here think that CEOs and board members of these banks are either all Democrats or Republicans? Or does anyone think that only the Republican CEOs screw over the public while the benevolent Democrat CEOs give their bonuses to the homeless? Or the other way around? :confused:
To turn banking into a political tick for tack is counterproductive for all of us. We can do better. :beer:
Tobias
02-11-2009, 09:10 AM
Is a plan to have a plan a plan in itself?
I see meds in your future.That ship has sailed. :rolleyes:
We need a president that is presidential, a leader of the United States of America.
This partisan nonesense and complaining about what he inherited is not productive.
This country needs a Ronald Reagan.
Tobias
02-11-2009, 09:20 AM
We can do better. :beer:All evidence to the contrary.
I didn’t expect much lasting change, and now I’m thinking nothing changed. We seem as fractured a society as ever; maybe more so. It’s freaking sad. :(
1centaur
02-11-2009, 09:25 AM
climb, our filters are different but the objective reality of that paragraph is not about the filter, it really is about reality. The words used described something that does not exist.
Further, even if banks sold off first, that means nothing in the context of that paragraph. It's not banks that are selling their own stock off, it's other institutions. Banks move first because investors think first of the bank values when they hear news that affects banks, but there were major currency moves yesterday as well that also reflected the disappointment. I am not saying the disappointment was justified - we should all know that neither Rep nor Dem really knows what to do here, they all just have theories - but the disappointment was real, widespread, and utterly unrelated to some fantasy about greedy bad people not getting bailed out.
rps - yes I think we are getting to the point where we need banking, not specific banks. A de novo bank is an attractive thought, but the infrastructure/people already reside in those big troubled banks, and if all the bad assets on their balance sheets were just liquidated at 1 cent on the dollar it would hit a lot of smaller banks and have other effects, a la Lehman.
rps - yes I think we are getting to the point where we need banking, not specific banks. A de novo bank is an attractive thought, but the infrastructure/people already reside in those big troubled banks, and if all the bad assets on their balance sheets were just liquidated at 1 cent on the dollar it would hit a lot of smaller banks and have other effects, a la Lehman.A while back I kept hearing numbers in the range of 20 to 25 cents on the dollar, but more recently 40 to 45 cents. I don't know if they are just making these up, but I'd expect that private money would step in at a reasonable price where they can turn a long-term profit. Hasn't PIMCO indicated willingness to act when the price is right?
1centaur
02-11-2009, 09:38 AM
Wildly different prices for different types of securities, but the fire sale aspect would dominate - nobody is reasonable when everything must go. Have to suspend MTM accounting under those circumstances, I think.
We seem as fractured a society as ever; maybe more so. It’s freaking sad. :(I can’t decide if it’s due to biased media (at both extremes) or Internet; which allows nut jobs to congregate and propagate misinformation.
Back to bikes and banks. :beer:
Wildly different prices for different types of securities, but the fire sale aspect would dominate - nobody is reasonable when everything must go. Have to suspend MTM accounting under those circumstances, I think.Did Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley go through it, or were CNBC commentators misrepresenting any real accomplishment there? Or maybe the magnitude of those two banks’ problems?
1centaur
02-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Did Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley go through it, or were CNBC commentators misrepresenting any real accomplishment there? Or maybe the magnitude of those two banks’ problems?
I believe the iBanks wrote off/sold off some of their exposure earlier than the commercial banks, their risk managers being a little more tuned in than average, but I am not familiar with what they held and hold vs. others. I suspect their size in prime-loans and related securities would have been lower than is typical for commercial banks, FWIW. One of the big overhangs is the potential for prime loans, which exist at many times the size of subprime, to default at higher than modeled rates. If big commercial banks liquidated a hundred billion of prime-loan-based investments, I wonder what they would get paid. Almost all commercial banks, good and bad, have a lot of this type of investment on their balance sheets.
michael white
02-11-2009, 12:14 PM
[QUOTE=SamIAm]It is a bit like having a plan to control the weather.
QUOTE]
this is spot on.
however, people in New Orleans might say there are a few ways we coulda/shoulda been planning better . . .
1centaur
02-11-2009, 01:41 PM
I hope this link works, as it shows how widespread the disappointment was. Some of the comments at the end are interesting.
BTW, you will note one of the quotes here comes from Axel Merk, just to make sure we keep talking cycling :)
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/10/economists-react-treasury-announcement-fails-to-satisfy/#comment-130795
Tobias
02-12-2009, 10:35 AM
Did Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley go through it, or were CNBC commentators misrepresenting any real accomplishment there? Or maybe the magnitude of those two banks’ problems?I heard mention these two by the nature of their business have less exposure to consumers.
Tobias
02-12-2009, 10:48 AM
Donald Marron, former Painwebber Chairman and CEO, made some very interesting comments this morning on Squawk Box regarding banking problems.
He said:
The government wanted banks to take funds, but that many smaller banks refused because they feared they would seem weak in their communities.
Painwebber would have never gone to 30:1 leverage.
Securitization was innovative and generally positive, and could have and should have worked well, but went wrong when banks went from making home mortgages for 20 years to 45 days, and corporate loans went from 7 or 8 years to weeks, so lending standards went down, not up.
Compensation was also a big factor. Instead of putting loans on the books and having to wait 20 years to get paid, compensation was almost immediate.
He mentioned three fixes: Make securitization more transparent so potential buyers can easily know what it’s worth – by maybe limiting the number of items in a package. Second and most importantly -- which sounds like a great idea to a lay person like me -- the issuing firm would have to keep part of it. Third, people who issue them would tie compensation to outcomes over time.
A final interesting point made by others is that loan officers may have become loan salesmen, which made me wonder to what degree this mess may have become a more serious problem because of advances in information technologies. Without computers much of what happened at multiple levels would have probably not happened (at least not so quickly so it could have been stopped in time); or is that an oversimplification?
93legendti
02-12-2009, 11:12 AM
We need a president that is presidential, a leader of the United States of America.
This partisan nonesense and complaining about what he inherited is not productive.
This country needs a Ronald Reagan.
It is nonesense and misleading, since our "post-partisan" President voted for what, 4 out of 5 the last budgets? And from '06-08 his own party was in charge of Congress. Change indeed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
...Obama, who has campaigned energetically for the legislation, welcomed the agreement, saying it would "save or create more than 3.5 million jobs and get our economy back on track."...Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks this year when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Next year, the measure could yield workers about $8 a week. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.
"The most highly touted tax cut in the original proposal now translates into $7.70 a week for middle-class workers," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky...
How do you prove jobs were "saved"?
And more bad news as a result the spending plan and Turbo Tax Tim's no plan plan:
Oil slides toward multiyear lows
By MARK WILLIAMS, AP Energy Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Oil prices slid closer to a new multiyear low Thursday because of growing doubts that the $789 billion stimulus package will reinvigorate the economy and demand for energy.
Retail gas prices, meanwhile, reached a new high for 2009 on Thursday and appeared headed back to $2 a gallon as refiners cut back on production.
Light, sweet crude for March delivery fell $1.04 to $34.90 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract fell $1.61 overnight to settle at $35.94 after a government report on Wednesday showed that crude inventories jumped much more than expected.
There were also more signs of economic weakness...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices/print
Interesting paradox that is way over my head: We overspent our way into a deep recession, and no society has ever saved their way out of a recession. :confused: Granted these are only opinions, but if correct, that’s a hell of a problem to have.
Americans are saving more than normal for the times, which one guy says is a great long-term trend and another that it’s a disaster in the making because it’ll feed on itself.
Jeff Mackie insists scared people don’t spend even when prices are low. We’re buying less gas even though prices are lower, and similarly we won’t buy new cars or houses even when affordable as long as we remain scared.
If correct, how do you break the vicious cycle? If added confidence due to a totally new administration is not enough, then what? What’s going to trigger all of us to start buying stuff?
MadRocketSci
02-12-2009, 12:36 PM
This piece is as good as anything in the "serious" financial media...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=217705&title=solving-the-economic-crisis
I like this quote:
In Washington, the amount of certainty you have is in reverse proportion to how stubborn you are and how angry you get - John Oliver
BTW, I think Biden is an optimist.
I am amazed at the number of folks who really believe the federal govt is the answer here. it is clearly not. regardless of what factors were at play leading us into this mess.... the one common denominator is the federal govt. you can point at the last 8 yrs as leading to the problem; I can point to the last 16. the bottom line is that we need to make hard decisions.
if bailing out the economy is such a pressing need... then why does most of the stimulus not happen until 2010? if it's needed then it's needed now.
the pork proposed in the current bill needs trimmed. we don't need to spend parts of this stimulus on healthcare reform, birth control or some damn swamp mouse in CA. Nancy Pelosi has managed to slip in 30 million $ for wetlands reconstruction.
and the avg worker will net about $13 more per week.
Viper
02-12-2009, 01:11 PM
I am amazed at the number of folks who really believe the federal govt is the answer here. it is clearly not.
I thought the same thing as I watched hurricane Katrina barrel towards New Orleans. Economics or Mother Nature, human beings want someone else to fix their problem.
goonster
02-12-2009, 01:27 PM
Nancy Pelosi has managed to slip in 30 million $ for wetlands reconstruction.
Let's be honest here:
If the R's were still in charge, we'd get a stimulus package just like this one, only the wetlands reconstruction would be replaced with putting Reagan on Mt. Rushmore. :rolleyes:
Richard
02-12-2009, 01:49 PM
While $30 million is small compared to the bill, is it not true that someone has a job when they do wetlands reconstruction? Isn't that one of the primary missions of a stimulus bill? And while nobody likes paying taxes, lowering taxes does not result in the types of employment projects that rebuild infrastructure and produce jobs...that is unless community by community everyone donates the money to the effort.
Let's be honest here:
If the R's were still in charge, we'd get a stimulus package just like this one, only the wetlands reconstruction would be replaced with putting Reagan on Mt. Rushmore. :rolleyes:Wouldn’t that at least increase tourism? :rolleyes:
CNBC is presenting a 2-hour special at 8:00 PM EST titled “House of Cards”. I expect some reporting bias, but should be interesting and informative for those who want to know more about how we got to this point.
Climb01742
02-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Wouldn’t that at least increase tourism? :rolleyes:
or increase vandalism. :D
Isn’t Crazy Horse Memorial down the road being built with private funds?
Why not the same for Ronnie, the ultimate capitalist? I’d contribute towards Mt. Reagan. :beer:
Let's be honest here:
If the R's were still in charge, we'd get a stimulus package just like this one, only the wetlands reconstruction would be replaced with putting Reagan on Mt. Rushmore. :rolleyes:
that doesn't make this mess right though does it?
93legendti
02-12-2009, 04:18 PM
The good news is that our Post Partisan, Transparent President signed an Executive Order providing that unions will be preferred for all gov't contracts. So most, if not all, "jobs" created/saved by the Pork Package will go to by union members. Now, I wonder why he did that.....
johnnymossville
02-12-2009, 04:34 PM
The good news is that our Post Partisan, Transparent President signed an Executive Order providing that unions will be preferred for all gov't contracts. So most, if not all, "jobs" created/saved by the Pork Package will go to by union members. Now, I wonder why he did that.....
It's part of his Detroitification of America plan.
93legendti
02-12-2009, 04:36 PM
It's part of his Detroitification of America plan.
Just what we need....
What happened to the campaign promise to put bills on the website for 5 days before our Transparent, Post-Partisan President signed them?
DukeHorn
02-12-2009, 05:39 PM
As I start to identify how people lean in this forums, it leads me to wonder
how many folks posting in this thread believe (rather understand) evolution......since only 39% of our population believe in evolution (we rank under Turkey).
As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.
PS 93, if you're going to complain about Obama, that's fine. Still, I wonder how you're reconciling how the democracies in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Venezuela and heck, let's throw in Russia are turning out versus the rosy view of Iraqi reconstruction.
I mean if any of us knew anything about history, we could easily predict how that Iraqi democracy is going to turn out. You complain about a website. I'll complain about 4,000+ dead Americans. Eh, priorities.....
The good news is that our Post Partisan, Transparent President signed an Executive Order providing that unions will be preferred for all gov't contracts. So most, if not all, "jobs" created/saved by the Pork Package will go to by union members. Now, I wonder why he did that.....
I think deep down inside O knows that the UAW model in the domestic auto industry is a dying breed and will go away. given that, the need arises for a new voting bloc that can be counted on to support and vote democrat. that bloc is historically union labor.
93legendti
02-13-2009, 09:02 AM
I think deep down inside O knows that the UAW model in the domestic auto industry is a dying breed and will go away. given that, the need arises for a new voting bloc that can be counted on to support and vote democrat. that bloc is historically union labor.
I think Rahmbo is pulling these strings...The president is looking more and more to be just a teleprompter reader.
Gregg flip-flop emboldens GOP
Charles Mahtesian Charles Mahtesian
Fri Feb 13, 4:07 am ET
Judd Gregg was all but dead to his Republican colleagues just a few days ago, another collaborator drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.
But the New Hampshire senator's surprise decision to remove himself from consideration as President Barack Obama’s Commerce secretary Thursday has provided the GOP with a new rallying cry, and a new hero against a foe who just a few weeks ago seemed almost unassailable.
Republicans applauded boisterously when Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) opened a closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement Thursday night by announcing Gregg’s withdrawal.
"He made a difficult decision to turn down a job that a lot of Republicans could take," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "Here's a guy who's going to turn down his place in the history books."
In pulling out, Gregg pointed to “irresolvable conflicts” on the two issues behind which the Republicans have been closing ranks—the stimulus package and the alleged politicization of the census.
“We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy,” he said in a statement issued by his Senate office.
By citing reservations about the economic recovery package, Gregg reinforced widespread GOP criticism about wasteful spending that has less to do with reviving the economy than rewarding Democratic constituencies. And by noting his differing view on the census, Gregg breathed life into Republican charges of a White House power grab over a critical Commerce Department function.
Both issues are part of an emerging GOP case against Obama and the ruling Democratic Party: Strip away the new face, the lofty rhetoric and the promises of post-partisanship and you’ll find the same big-spending party of old, bent on politicizing government to consolidate its hold on power.
Even with the stimulus package on the verge of passing later this week, the unanimous GOP vote against the bill in the House and the near-unanimous opposition in the Senate revealed a Republican Party surprisingly united in direction and in message for perhaps the first time since losing its congressional majority in 2006.
In its diminished but highly concentrated form—the result of two elections that all but purged the party of its wayward moderates—the GOP is showing signs it’s regained its mojo, and some see Judd Gregg’s withdrawal as a pivotal moment in the building process.
"Sen. Gregg's decision reinforces suspicions about the stimulus bill and about moving the census from the Commerce Department to the White House," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
“By turning down a position of great honor, Senator Gregg has made a bold statement for principle and responsibility today,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) in a statement. “The president’s politically charged move to place the nonpartisan census process in the hands of his staff contradicts every pledge of openness he made on the campaign trail. While the White House continues to break promises for politics, I commend Senator Gregg for acting with integrity. Senator Gregg has shown the American people the type of selfless leadership they should only hope to see from the White House.”
Gregg’s own explanation for his decision was less aggressive. He said he expects “there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals.”
He took no departing shots at Obama, instead acknowledging in an interview with Politico that he “should have faced up” to the conflicts he felt earlier. “The fault lies with me,” Gregg said. “I may have embarrassed myself, but hopefully not him.”
Nevertheless, for a Republican Party desperately careening from message to message, from “Drill Baby Drill” to “The Future is Cao,” Gregg’s move has rallied the troops and provided them with a set of organizing principles around which to begin rebuilding their tattered brand—or at least to sully Obama’s sterling brand.
The withdrawal was Obama’s third failed nomination in less than two weeks, an unexpected state of affairs for a president whose campaign was known for its discipline, flawless execution and ability to see around corners.
All in all, Gregg's decision in hardly the material to build a majority around, but given the GOP’s free-fall in recent years, even a minor victory has the feel of a major triumph.
"When your opponent trips and falls on his face, it certainly emboldens the opponent," added Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). "This has been blunder after blunder. As an administration they are far from immune to tough days, weeks and months.
"It certainly emboldens us," McHenry said.
Patrick O’Connor contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090213/pl_politico/18821/print;_ylt=Ag_03llS4jCQ1KyECZ7eVUDCw5R4;_ylu=X3oDM TB1MjgxN2UzBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDdG9vbHMtdG9wBHNsawNwcml udA--
johnnymossville
02-13-2009, 09:08 AM
Gregg showed a lot of class in his statement and withdrawal. The philosophical differences between himself and the administration was just too great. It became increasingly clear to me his appointment was more a cheap political maneuver on the part of the administration than it was a principled one.
Taking the census out of his control was absolute proof.
I agree on the Gregg situation. actually refreshing to see a modern politician with a conscience.
As I start to identify how people lean in this forums, it leads me to wonder
how many folks posting in this thread believe (rather understand) evolution......since only 39% of our population believe in evolution (we rank under Turkey).
PS 93, if you're going to complain about Obama, that's fine. Still, I wonder how you're reconciling how the democracies in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Venezuela and heck, let's throw in Russia are turning out versus the rosy view of Iraqi reconstruction.
I mean if any of us knew anything about history, we could easily predict how that Iraqi democracy is going to turn out. You complain about a website. I'll complain about 4,000+ dead Americans. Eh, priorities.....I’m trying to understand this post and don’t want to read something into your argument out of context. I can’t find where the quote originated or what relevance evolution – not to mention the belief in evolution – has to do with a financial thread (albeit also politically charged for those who can’t compartmentalize).
I get that you’re calling people on the far right dumber than turkeys – that part seems clear. Beyond that, I’m not sure I get how attacking unrelated subject matter supports anything – on either side of any issue. What am I missing?
Are you suggesting people who believe in evolution must be so stupid that their opinions on the banking or stimulus bailout shouldn’t count? :confused:
93legendti
02-13-2009, 10:50 AM
I agree on the Gregg situation. actually refreshing to see a modern politician with a conscience.
I think we will see a lot more, especialy in 2010.
93legendti
02-13-2009, 11:00 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_bi_ge/congress_stimulus/print
...The plan is the signature initiative of the fledgling Obama administration, which is betting that combining tax cuts of just a few dollars a week for most workers with an infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars of government spending over the next few years will arrest the economy's fall.
Larry Summers, a former Clinton administration Treasury secretary and now head of Obama's White House-based economics council, was asked Friday how far the bill will go toward reviving the economy.
"It is the biggest fiscal expansion in our country's history," he replied in an appearance on NBC's "Today" show.
But Summers cautioned against raising expectations too high..."s going to take time to fix."
...Much of the spending won't be delivered this year or even next, and Republicans pointed to studies by the Congressional Budget Office that say that adding so much to the national debt would cost the economy by the end of the decade.
...Republicans, lined up to vote against the bill, piled on the scorn. "This is not the smart approach," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. "The taxpayers of today and tomorrow will be left to clean up the mess."
It was clear that the measure was the result of old-fashioned sausage-making. Pet provisions were coming to light that had not been included in the original bills that passed the House or Senate — or that differed markedly from earlier versions. Some appeared to brush up against claims of the bill's supporters that no pet projects known as "earmarks" were included.
One last-minute addition ... was $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, a priority for both Obama and Reid, who's up for re-election and is a GOP target. While not explicitly named, a Los Angeles to Las Vegas rail project that Reid's been backing for years stands to win funding as does a project in Obama's home state of Illinois.
Viper
02-13-2009, 11:17 AM
We are where we are due to the policies of the previous 8 years. While 93legendti continues the sky-is-falling spam, it pulls the needle off the record, needle off the record, needle off the record dance dance when any Republican is reminded of the fact that a). President Bush created TARP Loan v 1.0 b). Had Bush been in office for another term he'd be doing TARP Loan v 2.0 c). President Obama inherited this mess.
Bush inherits poor economy in 2000.
Tax cuts and rebates.
Economy gets better.
September 11, 2001 attacks.
These attacks cost America BILLIONS or bigger numbers than we can count.
Bush goes to Middle East War.
We were suckered into the War.
Our friends in the Middle East love our War and want more of it.
For six years this War cost TRILLIONS.
Back home our economy tanks due to faux loans, funny, fuzzy math.
We're screwed.
Don't blame the janitor coming into school after the food fight.
PS. For those who don't dig my utter brilliance of photo montages and youtube links, welp what's worse is a simple cut-copy and paste of news articles which are the length of my seat tube. Can one post a link to the news article with their own brainpower, mental input of said article? We get this above, "I think Rahmbo is pulling these strings...The president is looking more and more to be just a teleprompter reader" and then 55cm of news stories.
President Obama's brain is 50x the capacity of the cat he replaced (and I voted for that cat twice). Teleprompter reader? The man has offered more off-the-cuff media interviews than Bush did in eight years.
President Obama's brain is 50x the capacity of the cat he replaced (and I voted for that cat twice). Teleprompter reader? The man has offered more off-the-cuff media interviews than Bush did in eight years.
Viper, you're gonna have as much luck defending Obama to these guys as you woulda had defending Bush to me a couple of years ago. We live in the same physical world, but we see the same things differently, we perceive the same things differently, we interpret the same things differently. We fundamentally want to live in two different countries but there's no clean line of demarcation so we're stuck with each other.
I'm personally flabbergasted by some of the interpretation of events I've seen lately. (Judd Gregg lobbied the administration for the Comm job and got it, then changed his mind and he's got a conscience and they're somehow sleazy? Obama looked for Republican support for a stimulus package that contained what is arguably the largest tax cut in American HISTORY, got exactly 3 votes for it, but HE's the one who's failing at bi-partisanship?) Doesn't make me right or them wrong or visa versa. Just confirms that we believe what we wanna believe. I'm not up for the futility of trying for conversions. Isn't gonna happen anyway.
Good luck to you if you wanna keep trying though!
-Ray
1centaur
02-13-2009, 12:35 PM
We are where we are due to the policies of the previous 8 years.
On balance, I think this is untrue. The process of opening up global liquidity, adding leverage to the system, creating and selling new financial products, and thereby building the bubble that has now burst and decimated global risk appetites took longer than 8 years and involved far more than a US president's policies. The war spending in particular is not particularly germane to the current situation - the economy (US and others') was fine for most of it and would be fine now if the bubble had not burst. Real estate bubbles were everywhere and financial institution buying mis-rated instruments were everywhere there were financial institutions. Capital adequacy ratios were also globally designed.
We are where we are because almost everyone (politicians, investment bankers, mortgage salesmen, homebuyers, ratings analysts, etc.) was hyperfocused on the task in front of their face and not the big picture. That's called being human and it's a repeating cycle. Regulations look back because that's the easier direction to analyze. There is no way this bubble would not have occurred under a Dem administration.
Viper
02-13-2009, 12:39 PM
On balance, I think this is untrue. The process of opening up global liquidity, adding leverage to the system, creating and selling new financial products, and thereby building the bubble that has now burst and decimated global risk appetites took longer than 8 years and involved far more than a US president's policies. The war spending in particular is not particularly germane to the current situation - the economy (US and others') was fine for most of it and would be fine now if the bubble had not burst. Real estate bubbles were everywhere and financial institution buying mis-rated instruments were everywhere there were financial institutions. Capital adequacy ratios were also globally designed.
We are where we are because almost everyone (politicians, investment bankers, mortgage salesmen, homebuyers, ratings analysts, etc.) was hyperfocused on the task in front of their face and not the big picture. That's called being human and it's a repeating cycle. Regulations look back because that's the easier direction to analyze. There is no way this bubble would not have occurred under a Dem administration.
I agree with you cien percento. There's facts, figures and then politics. Politically, the Bush Admin created this mess.
William
02-13-2009, 12:46 PM
When are folks going to learn? Divide and conquer doesn't work when we do it to ourselves. The Pubs tried it and it didn't work. To continue to do so keeps us in the tank. Period.
Kumbaiyah everyone....or else.
William
William
Kirk007
02-13-2009, 12:48 PM
One month into the term folks. It seems that some take more delight in name calling than striving together to fix things. Ironic the similarities between the dialogue here and what we are hearing out of Congress particulalry from the Rs, who had, as a party, their a**es handed to the in November and seem to be bent more on gaining political momentum than actually trying to come together and fix the problems that are flushing this country down the toilet. The Ds have had more than their share of idiocy as well particularly in the Senate and Congress. I don't envy Obama and the task he has in front of him. I find it unfortunate that so many would rather attack rather than support. This is not the way out of the mess we find ourselves in. What if it was McCain? Does anyone really believe we'd see ANYTHING different out of our legislative branches? It seems we are stuck with a majority of politicians who refuse to see beyond their own self interest.
It is sad sad sad to see politics as usual, and both parties are guilty. It seems though that folks only see it when its the "other" guy. And it is sad to see that we really can't have discussions here on serious issues that don't devolve into the same type shreiking.
Viper
02-13-2009, 12:51 PM
Viper, you're gonna have as much luck defending Obama to these guys as you woulda had defending Bush to me a couple of years ago.
Good luck to you if you wanna keep trying though!
-Ray
I'm going to defend the man and give him a chance. To attack his speech or intelligence will most likely not succeed. The 2010 midterm elections. This is the time where the country can avenge if they so choose. So in two years time, we'll know how Obama is doing.
McCain/Palin would not be doing anything much differently at this point atmo and that is a good topic/thread/thought, "What would John McCain be doing right now?" I voted for then candidate-Obama cause I wanted the **** out of Iraq. The economy? Iraq was my shark, I wanted it caught, not jumped.
I'm going to defend the man and give him a chance. To attack his speech or intelligence will most likely not succeed. The 2010 midterm elections. This is the time where the country can avenge if they so choose. So in two years time, we'll know how Obama is doing.
McCain/Palin would not be doing anything much differently at this point atmo and that is a good topic/thread/thought, "What would John McCain be doing right now?" I voted for then candidate-Obama cause I wanted the **** out of Iraq. The economy? Iraq was my shark, I wanted it caught, not jumped.
Hey, I'm with you on the substance. I like the guy and I'm obviously going to be giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I understand the feelings of the folks like Adam, Johnny, CSM, etc who never liked him, said nice things about unity right after the election, but can't deny their true feelings now that we're down to legislation. While I didn't turn on Bush quite this quickly, it wasn't too long after he told us to go shopping post 9/11 that I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt and he could basically do no right in my eyes. Or very damn little. Any snarky little comments I made here or elsewhere about him were just blowing off steam.
We'll still have decent discussions of particular issues here and there are plenty of folks I tend to disagree with who I can get a lot out of discussing those issues with. But when it gets down to just dumping on a particular politician, I'm just gonna try not to get into playing defense. Ain't necessary by my calculation and I wouldn't want to deny those guys their feelings. They're not that different than mine a couple of years ago. Its just that I'm right and they're wrong. But they might disagree about that part. :cool:
-Ray
johnnymossville
02-13-2009, 01:52 PM
But Ray, when he lobbied for it he didn't know all his power would have been stripped away by Rahm and the Oval Office. He was the bipartisan one here. He in his statement, and I, still wish the President the best of luck in turning this country around, but we can't sit around and defend policies we are completely philosophically opposed to, just as you couldn't for the last 8 years.
You know something else, I read an article the other day showing how Hillary is even being stripped of her powers as Secretary of State. They've been going around her with Biden and others. I bet she didn't know what she was in for when she got in. Who knew O was such a control freak, he's gonna need all the help he can get.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html
Crossing the Clintons? The least I see is tensions mounting in the White House.
We're giving him a chance Ray.
But Ray, when he lobbied for it he didn't know all his power would have been stripped away by Rahm and the Oval Office. He was the bipartisan one here. He in his statement, and I, still wish the President the best of luck in turning this country around, but we can't sit around and defend policies we are completely philosophically opposed to, just as you couldn't for the last 8 years.
You know something else, I read an article the other day showing how Hillary is even being stripped of her powers as Secretary of State. They've been going around her with Biden and others. I bet she didn't know what she was in for when she got in. Who knew O was such a control freak, he's gonna need all the help he can get.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-incredible-shrinking-role-2009-02-09.html
Crossing the Clintons? The least I see is tensions mounting in the White House.
We're giving him a chance Ray.
I don't have any particular problem with Gregg deciding he didn't want to be in the cabinet, given the base philosophical differences. And I don't even have a problem with him lobbying for it and then changing his mind. But I can't see how you'd attack the Obama folks on this. Obviously if he took the job, he was gonna be serving UNDER Obama. The WH has ALWAYS overseen the Commerce Sec when it was census time and the census has always has partisan implications - its just that usually they're on the same page. I don't think these conflicts should have been too hard to anticipate, but I don't have any problem with Gregg for realizing it a little later than perhaps he should have. Ostensibly, LaHood and Gates knew what would be asked of them and were philosophically OK with it. Gregg obviously didn't think it through as well.
I just have a VERY hard time seeing where the folks in the administration are in the wrong here. Its not like they did some big end run and pulled a surprise. They offered him the job on the assumption that if HE wanted it, he'd probably reconciled himself to advocating for some positions that he wasn't gonna agree with (happens in every cabinet - even with folks from the SAME party, ie Powell). The tradeoff being he'd get plenty of input and would be able to influence plenty of decisions in a different direction. OK, he changed his mind, hadn't thought it through well enough, got buyers remorse, etc. No problem. But how that makes him being a man of great character and the folks in the administration somehow evil or corrupt I just don't begin to get.
I don't really care if you're not giving him a chance. If you're philosophically just not on the same page, you should be going after him on policy grounds by all means. As you have been. I'd do the same thing, as you note. But getting on him for all manner of character issues at this point strikes me as a real reach and an indicator of underlying resentment and anger. Which, again, I understand completely, having been there myself. :cool:
-Ray
SamIAm
02-13-2009, 03:31 PM
The good news is that our Post Partisan, Transparent President signed an Executive Order providing that unions will be preferred for all gov't contracts. So most, if not all, "jobs" created/saved by the Pork Package will go to by union members. Now, I wonder why he did that.....
I would challenge the Obama supporters, Ray this means you, to weigh in on the legitimacy of the above order. Regardless of all else that has been discussed on this thread which could be legitimately argued from both sides, how is that executive order defensible?
And if you are willing to make a stab at that, please follow up with how you can justify the democrat sponsored card check bill taking away the secret ballot in union organizing.
Further, could DukeHorn please explain the post on evolution.
mschol17
02-13-2009, 03:41 PM
how you can justify the democrat sponsored card check bill taking away the secret ballot in union organizing.
It doesn't take away the secret ballot in union organizing, it just offers an alternative to the existing method. The employees get to choose. This alternative method is already available when union members are voting whether to end a union, but not to start a union.
I think the real reason why people are against the bill is because it makes it easier to form unions, and some people don't agree with unions. That's a completely different argument than the "the union bosses are going to take away workers' right to a secret ballot" argument.
mschol17
02-13-2009, 03:45 PM
I think Rahmbo is pulling these strings...The president is looking more and more to be just a teleprompter reader.
Who knew O was such a control freak, he's gonna need all the help he can get.
So which one is it? :)
I would challenge the Obama supporters, Ray this means you, to weigh in on the legitimacy of the above order. Regardless of all else that has been discussed on this thread which could be legitimately argued from both sides, how is that executive order defensible?
And if you are willing to make a stab at that, please follow up with how you can justify the democrat sponsored card check bill taking away the secret ballot in union organizing.
I don't have a problem with an order that gives union shops preference, as long as it doesn't exclude non-union. I don't know the details of the order - if it excludes non-union workers from govt contracts, I'm against it. If it merely gives union shops a preference but lets everyone compete for the work, I got no problem. I worked for a city once where city work had to go to unions exclusively. That sucked and was grossly inefficient. But I've also worked for other public jurisdictions where there were various preferences in place and they worked pretty well, albeit not perfectly.
I got into a short card-check debate earlier. I like mschol17's explanation better than the one I'd been able to give. Bottom line, under existing rules, management has a hell of an advantage over union organizers in terms of making extremely difficult to even get to a vote. Card check, as I understand it, shifts this balance, or at least shifts the balance to the union if it does get to a vote. There's nothing about management/union leverage/relations that's ever been fair or balanced. To the extent that this shifts the balance towards unions, I'm ok with that. I'm not crazy about it as a great mechanism to do this, again based on my relatively limited understanding, but I haven't heard anyone come up with a better one.
I'll restate that my support of unions in general is qualified - I'm certainly aware that unions have a downside and in some cases a big one. When management and workers can get along to everyone's satisfaction without a union, I think that's preferable. Generally unions don't form unless there's a very high degree of dissatisfaction on the part of the workers. I've been through a couple of union elections and didn't vote for them in either case, but clearly might have if conditions had been worse. That said, where management has treated workers badly enough to make them want to unionize, it doesn't bother me if card check shifts the balance of power toward the organizers.
edit in the interest of full disclosure - my wife is in a teacher's union. She hates what they do in terms of tenure type rules and making it impossible to fire someone or give merit pay. She see's the problems all too clearly and isn't afraid to talk about them. But every time they've had to renegotiate their contracts and she see's the games the district has played in the negotiations, she's damn glad to have the union there. Since I'm on her benefit package, I am too.
-Ray
If it merely gives union shops a preference but lets everyone compete for the work, I got no problem.Seriously? :confused:
Compete but not on a level playing field? :rolleyes:
Climb01742
02-13-2009, 05:00 PM
i see obama's nod toward unions as the pendulum swinging back from bush's nod toward no bid contracts handed to republican cronies. neither is/was true free market capitalism. i trust everyone outraged at unions getting an edge now were equally outraged then at the taxpayer billions being funnelled to haliburton, blackwater, et al?? if one is wrong, they both are, right?
i see obama's nod toward unions as the pendulum swinging back from bush's nod toward no bid contracts handed to republican cronies. neither is/was true free market capitalism. i trust everyone outraged at unions getting an edge now were equally outraged then at the taxpayer billions being funnelled to haliburton, blackwater, et al?? if one is wrong, they both are, right?
Exactly. There's no such thing as neutral. If you liked it the way it was, that's probably because it was skewed in a direction you liked more. As Climb said, its a pendulum and they're notorious for not stopping dead center at the bottom.
-Ray
Obama looked for Republican support for a stimulus package that contained what is arguably the largest tax cut in American HISTORY, got exactly 3 votes for it, but HE's the one who's failing at bi-partisanship?Ray, I don’t like nor dislike Obama any different than Bush – don’t defend or criticize either but rather focus on their policies and decisions on individual merits.
Regarding your statement above, you are far too smart to not understand the underlying issue; so let’s get real and be honest. Democrats know that all the pork spending in the stimulus package which will take on a sense of entitlement (by individuals and states alike) will be incredibly difficult to reverse. Even if we stopped the programs after 3 to 5 years, the funds spent can’t be taken back by having a national yard sale and recovering the expenditures. Democratic spending will remain Democratic spending for all times. Let’s call it what it really is.
Tax cuts are a different matter entirely. Not only can they be reversed at any time by simply increasing the tax rate when it’s convenient, we will have to increase them even more by having to make up for the present cuts -- even higher still to pay for all the borrowing that will be needed for the stimulus package.
Objectively, I can’t see what Democrats are doing as bipartisan in any way whatsoever. Both sides are playing politics based on different long-term goals. And personally, I’m incredibly angry at both sides for allowing their own personal and local interests to come before that of the American people as a whole.
BTW: If some are going to defend to me that it’s OK for this administration to make mistakes primarily because Bush made bigger ones, please save yourself the time. Not only do I already know that Bush made plenty of mistakes – most which I didn’t support for lack of merit – but like other Americans I’m looking to solve present and future problems, not past ones. The fact that you think Bush was an idiot wont’ convince anyone that Obama is a genius – these are unrelated issues. Arguing that type of logic is ludicrous, so please direct it towards someone else.
i see obama's nod toward unions as the pendulum swinging back from bush's nod toward no bid contracts handed to republican cronies. neither is/was true free market capitalism. i trust everyone outraged at unions getting an edge now were equally outraged then at the taxpayer billions being funnelled to haliburton, blackwater, et al?? if one is wrong, they both are, right?Absolutely, they are both wrong but not for the reason you imply. Wrong nonetheless.
Kirk007
02-13-2009, 05:24 PM
Both sides are playing politics based on different long-term goals. And personally, I’m incredibly angry at both sides for allowing their own personal and local interests to come before that of the American people as a whole.
Hey we agree on something ; )
Ray, I don’t like nor dislike Obama any different than Bush – don’t defend or criticize either but rather focus on their policies and decisions on individual merits.
Regarding your statement above, you are far too smart to not understand the underlying issue; so let’s get real and be honest. Democrats know that all the pork spending in the stimulus package which will take on a sense of entitlement (by individuals and states alike) will be incredibly difficult to reverse. Even if we stopped the programs after 3 to 5 years, the funds spent can’t be taken back by having a national yard sale and recovering the expenditures. Democratic spending will remain Democratic spending for all times. Let’s call it what it really is.
Tax cuts are a different matter entirely. Not only can they be reversed at any time by simply increasing the tax rate when it’s convenient, we will have to increase them even more by having to make up for the present cuts -- even higher still to pay for all the borrowing that will be needed for the stimulus package.
Objectively, I can’t see what Democrats are doing as bipartisan in any way whatsoever. Both sides are playing politics based on different long-term goals. And personally, I’m incredibly angry at both sides for allowing their own personal and local interests to come before that of the American people as a whole.
BTW: If some are going to defend to me that it’s OK for this administration to make mistakes primarily because Bush made bigger ones, please save yourself the time. Not only do I already know that Bush made plenty of mistakes – most which I didn’t support for lack of merit – but like other Americans I’m looking to solve present and future problems, not past ones. The fact that you think Bush was an idiot wont’ convince anyone that Obama is a genius – these are unrelated issues. Arguing that type of logic is ludicrous, so please direct it towards someone else.
I'm not defending Obama by criticizing Bush. But I am criticizing the Republicans in Congress for their hypocrisy on this issue. The Congressional Republicans passed what amounted to spending and tax-cutting stimulus plans pretty much every year Bush was in office. They added trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit in a time of GROWTH. Now, with the economy collapsing, they decide that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable? Obama gave them plenty of chances for input. He was never going to write the bill they wanted - that's not bipartisanship, that's caving.
But he incorporated a lot of what they wanted and got nothing in return from them for it. That was probably his mistake - he should have bargained for every one of those tax cuts in exchange for GOP votes. And I guess he did, but only for the three he absolutely needed. The Republicans made a political calculation that if this works, they're not going to get any political benefit even if they helped. But if it tanks, then they're better off if they opposed it. I'm sure many of them oppose it on principal. I'm sure many others would have supported the same thing if McCain had proposed it and opposed it in this case for purely political reasons. That's just politics - its what politicians do. I don't like when Democrats or Republicans do it, but its what they do.
We disagree on the stimulus. I'd have done less tax cutting personally, but that was a campaign promise that Obama made and I guess this seemed like a good place to do it. If the issue is creating jobs, the compromise creates far fewer than the original house bill. But I'm more worried about the financial rescue, once they figure out what its gonna look like. And I'm not gonna be able to judge it - I just hope they get it right. I've been convinced by several economists I heard talking about this stuff who feel that the details of the stimulus are far less important than getting the bad assets off the books of the financial institutions and getting credit moving again.
As to your (much) earlier question about how we spend our way out of a recession we overspent our way into, I totally share your concern and its part of why I have little faith that any of this is really going to work. No matter who proposes it and who votes for it. But I don't understand the details well enough to tell you why not. Just a gut call.
Later,
-Ray
93legendti
02-13-2009, 05:33 PM
So which one is it? :)
Different strings?
I'll defer to my friend johnnymossville...maybe O is a control freak and delegates to Rahmbo, but much like Sec of State Kissinger during Pres. Nixon's Watergate troubles, Rahmbo is acting on his own.
Climb01742
02-13-2009, 05:33 PM
Absolutely, they are both wrong but not for the reason you imply. Wrong nonetheless.
yes, they're both wrong. and i also agree that both parties have played politics with the stimulus bill to the detriment of america's people and financial future.
just curious...did you rail against bush on this forum as much as you are against obama? if they were both wrong, you should have, yes?
Kirk007
02-13-2009, 05:50 PM
Different strings?
I'll defer to my friend johnnymossville...maybe O is a control freak and delegates to Rahmbo, but much like Sec of State Kissinger during Pres. Nixon's Watergate troubles, Rahmbo is acting on his own.
Glad the forum has someone inside the White House to give us the inside scoop. Seriously, what's the source of this information into the inner workings? If it is true then that's disappointing and we all deserve to know who is calling the shots in the Executive Branch, so please, give us verified information on this.
93legendti
02-13-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm not defending Obama by criticizing Bush. But I am criticizing the Republicans in Congress for their hypocrisy on this issue. The Congressional Republicans passed what amounted to spending and tax-cutting stimulus plans pretty much every year Bush was in office. They added trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit in a time of GROWTH. Now, with the economy collapsing, they decide that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable? Obama gave them plenty of chances for input. He was never going to write the bill they wanted - that's not bipartisanship, that's caving.
But he incorporated a lot of what they wanted and got nothing in return from them for it. That was probably his mistake - he should have bargained for every one of those tax cuts in exchange for GOP votes. And I guess he did, but only for the three he absolutely needed. The Republicans made a political calculation that if this works, they're not going to get any political benefit even if they helped. But if it tanks, then they're better off if they opposed it. I'm sure many of them oppose it on principal. I'm sure many others would have supported the same thing if McCain had proposed it and opposed it in this case for purely political reasons. That's just politics - its what politicians do. I don't like when Democrats or Republicans do it, but its what they do.
We disagree on the stimulus. I'd have done less tax cutting personally, but that was a campaign promise that Obama made and I guess this seemed like a good place to do it. If the issue is creating jobs, the compromise creates far fewer than the original house bill. But I'm more worried about the financial rescue, once they figure out what its gonna look like. And I'm not gonna be able to judge it - I just hope they get it right. I've been convinced by several economists I heard talking about this stuff who feel that the details of the stimulus are far less important than getting the bad assets off the books of the financial institutions and getting credit moving again.
As to your (much) earlier question about how we spend our way out of a recession we overspent our way into, I totally share your concern and its part of why I have little faith that any of this is really going to work. No matter who proposes it and who votes for it. But I don't understand the details well enough to tell you why not. Just a gut call.
Later,
-Ray
Ray, if you doubt the plan will work (there's certainly no historical evidence it will work), how can you fault the R's for not voting for it? I think Climb0 wrote that the bill should have been pure stimulus and save the pet projects for another bill. Then, the R's would have supported it.
FWIW, Rep. Pelosi bragged that the R's had no input in the bill.
I'm glad you like the President. I could not defend a steady diet of tax cheats, lobbyists (Tom Daschle made $5.2 million last year from a law firm- and he isn't a lawyer!) and hard-core partisan politics decisions. The reason I couldn't is because the President specifically campaigned hard on these issues. No lobbyists. Transparency. Post-partisanship. Within 1 month all have gone out the window.
Re: Sen. Gregg, why bring a R in to run Commerce and then, for the 1rst time in history, decide to run the Census from the White House and politicize it?
no, i don't see pelosi+reid as true leftist or socialists, and not that that might be bad if they were. what they are, IMO, is outdated, or still too steeped in politics as usual.
an example: one thing obama preached was transparency and "honesty" in gov't. personally, i don't see larding the stimulus package with a christmas tree of other spending as honest or transparent. some of that spending, like for education, is smart. but bring it up on its own, and argue the merits of education investment. don't use the economic crisis as an opportunity to get pet spending passed. pass it (or not) on its merits, in the light of day and debate.
the america society of civil engineers just released a study saying we need about 2 trillion i think in real infrastructure spending. rebuilding our grid, roads, bridges, water system, etc is doubly good: jobs + foundation for future growth and industries.
aid to states for unemployment and retraining is good. i'd want a more pure, focused stimulus package. THEN let's debate social policy. i don't argue with much of the social spending in the package now. it's not what but how the old school pols have done this that bugs me...and gives the rightwing nutjobs their easy targets.
i agree with your basic point: there are few if any truly leftist pols in america. it's a convenient buzz word for brain-challenged radio talk shows.
Ray, if you doubt the plan will work (there's certainly no historical evidence it will work), how can you fault the R's for not voting for it? I think Climb0 wrote that the bill should have been pure stimulus and save the pet projects for another bill. Then, the R's would have supported it.
FWIW, Rep. Pelosi bragged that the R's had no input in the bill.
I'm glad you like the President. I could not defend a steady diet of tax cheats, lobbyists (Tom Daschle made $5.2 million last year from a law firm- and he isn't a lawyer!) and hard-core partisan politics decisions. The reason I couldn't is because the President specifically campaigned hard on these issues. No lobbyists. Transparency. Post-partisanship. Within 1 month all have gone out the window.
Re: Sen. Gregg, why bring a R in to run Commerce and then, for the 1rst time in history, decide to run the Census from the White House and politicize it?
I don't know if it will work, but I think we're in something like a death spiral at the moment and I'm hoping something can at least arrest the fall and give a recovery a chance to happen. I think there IS historic precedent for it - I'm just not sure it'll apply in this situation. I am for trying something and this is the best something we have at the moment. I'm not sure what PURE stimulus is. It's all stimulus - I think the spending is more stimulative than most of the tax cuts, but it all puts money into circulation, or potential circulation (the tax cuts might just be saved). At that point, its a matter of who's priorities the spending is in line with. If you like it, its stimulus, if you don't, its pork.
I don't believe an administration will ever be perfect in terms of lobbyists and problems with potential cabinet appointments. I wish one was, but it hasn't happened in recent memory. I appreciate Obama's admitting to his mistakes and the moving on, but I take your point. If I was less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'd make an issue of this too.
In terms of the census, it's ALWAYS been run with heavy White House oversight and its always very political and very partisan. It became a lot more visible this time precisely because of the Gregg appointment and the tough situation that would put him in, but this isn't even remotely new - both Gregg and the administration should have thought through that one better than they did. I seem to remember something about Bush's team changing the way the results were going to be interpreted when he came in, even though the actual counts had been done before he took office - I forget the details but I've dealt with census data and census bureaucrats a lot and they were up in arms about it at the time. This isn't new just because its news.
I'm not gonna defend Pelosi's tactics or attitude. She's a convenient target, but she's earned a good bit of the bulls eye.
-Ray
Viper
02-13-2009, 06:49 PM
Ray, if you doubt the plan will work (there's certainly no historical evidence it will work), how can you fault the R's for not voting for it? I think Climb0 wrote that the bill should have been pure stimulus and save the pet projects for another bill. Then, the R's would have supported it.
FWIW, Rep. Pelosi bragged that the R's had no input in the bill.
I'm glad you like the President. I could not defend a steady diet of tax cheats, lobbyists (Tom Daschle made $5.2 million last year from a law firm- and he isn't a lawyer!) and hard-core partisan politics decisions. The reason I couldn't is because the President specifically campaigned hard on these issues. No lobbyists. Transparency. Post-partisanship. Within 1 month all have gone out the window.
Re: Sen. Gregg, why bring a R in to run Commerce and then, for the 1rst time in history, decide to run the Census from the White House and politicize it?
Thing is this. The 'R's' as you refer to them were the ones who labeled the 'D' party as simply a group which attacked ideas for eight years, offering no solutions. Welp, in reading a lot of your perspective towards 'O', it seems all you have are snips, snipes and sarcasm...where's the beef? Do you have a rock solid, one hundred percent guaranteed plan to resolve the economic Recession?
SamIAm
02-13-2009, 07:02 PM
It doesn't take away the secret ballot in union organizing, it just offers an alternative to the existing method. The employees get to choose. This alternative method is already available when union members are voting whether to end a union, but not to start a union.
I think the real reason why people are against the bill is because it makes it easier to form unions, and some people don't agree with unions. That's a completely different argument than the "the union bosses are going to take away workers' right to a secret ballot" argument.
You can certainly number me among those who don't agree with unions. Can't think of one industry benefiting from them.
Question though is if the employees can choose between secret ballot or card check formation, how do they choose?
You can certainly number me among those who don't agree with unions. Can't think of one industry benefiting from them.
I view them as kind of a necessary evil. If you look at working conditions before unions and today, you have to concede they made a big difference for workers. You can argue that they've outlived their usefulness to some degree (they've clearly gone too far in some cases and really hurt some industries), but it you didn't have at least the threat of them, workers would probably get screwed again (particularly during times of high unemployment). You need to have enough of them to maintain a strong enough movement to keep other, non-union businesses reasonable places to work. I'd hate to see them as strong as they were at their peak but I think we'd be a lot worse off without any of 'em.
-Ray
I'm sure many of them oppose it on principal.I opposed it on principle when Bush suggested it too. It was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea IMHO.
yes, they're both wrong. and i also agree that both parties have played politics with the stimulus bill to the detriment of america's people and financial future.
just curious...did you rail against bush on this forum as much as you are against obama? if they were both wrong, you should have, yes?I did, although the word “rail” has more of a “personal attack” connotation which I prefer to avoid, particular for a person holding the position. I like to think its objective criticism of the policies, not the men.
I criticized Bush’s policies when I didn’t like them, which was often; particularly towards the end. His biggest blunders came before I joined the forum, so I wouldn’t have commented on those. The middle of his presidency was relatively quiet on making “new” mistakes; plus there were plenty here criticizing him so I saw little need to pile on.
I was against Bush on the bailout of the auto industry and any hints of banking or stimulus package, thinking that we need to work our way through the problem the old fashion way. When Bush said that they wouldn’t let the auto industry fail during negotiations in 2008, I expressed my disbelief of how unwise that was with about the strongest language I’ve ever used here.
Do you have a rock solid, one hundred percent guaranteed plan to resolve the economic Recession?That's exactly my point -- no one does. So why spend $800 billion when you can spend $0 billions?
Might as well go to Vegas with the cash. ;)
If we spend the money and it doesn't work, we'll be left with an even bigger problem. It's a chance we can't afford to take IMO. If we don't do anything at least we won't have the debt to repay. If we spend the funds and it doesn't work, how in the world are we going to pay for the $800 billion? Much has been said about doing nothing is not an option, but betting the house isn't one either in my opinion -- it's too big a gamble.
93legendti
02-13-2009, 09:01 PM
I'm not defending Obama by criticizing Bush. But I am criticizing the Republicans in Congress for their hypocrisy on this issue. The Congressional Republicans passed what amounted to spending and tax-cutting stimulus plans pretty much every year Bush was in office. They added trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit in a time of GROWTH. Now, with the economy collapsing, they decide that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable? Obama gave them plenty of chances for input. He was never going to write the bill they wanted - that's not bipartisanship, that's caving.
But he incorporated a lot of what they wanted and got nothing in return from them for it. That was probably his mistake - he should have bargained for every one of those tax cuts in exchange for GOP votes. And I guess he did, but only for the three he absolutely needed. The Republicans made a political calculation that if this works, they're not going to get any political benefit even if they helped. But if it tanks, then they're better off if they opposed it. I'm sure many of them oppose it on principal. I'm sure many others would have supported the same thing if McCain had proposed it and opposed it in this case for purely political reasons. That's just politics - its what politicians do. I don't like when Democrats or Republicans do it, but its what they do.
We disagree on the stimulus. I'd have done less tax cutting personally, but that was a campaign promise that Obama made and I guess this seemed like a good place to do it. If the issue is creating jobs, the compromise creates far fewer than the original house bill. But I'm more worried about the financial rescue, once they figure out what its gonna look like. And I'm not gonna be able to judge it - I just hope they get it right. I've been convinced by several economists I heard talking about this stuff who feel that the details of the stimulus are far less important than getting the bad assets off the books of the financial institutions and getting credit moving again.
As to your (much) earlier question about how we spend our way out of a recession we overspent our way into, I totally share your concern and its part of why I have little faith that any of this is really going to work. No matter who proposes it and who votes for it. But I don't understand the details well enough to tell you why not. Just a gut call.
Later,
-Ray
Ray, how do you describe the D's in the House who voted against the bill?
...In the House, all 246 votes in favor were cast by Democrats. Seven Democrats joined 176 Republicans in opposition.
___
dsteady
02-13-2009, 09:16 PM
. . . . how do you describe the D's in the House who voted against the bill?
___
Pussies.
daniel
Tobias
02-13-2009, 10:04 PM
Pussies.
danielNo, it means that even a few democrats know the difference between following their principles and principals. ;)
Sorry Ray, but you had it right earlier. :beer:
93legendti
02-13-2009, 11:23 PM
The D's voted for an 1107 page, $800 Billion Bill, which no one has READ. I'm glad my friends here remind us on a frequent basis that the D's are the intelligent ones.
Kirk007
02-13-2009, 11:28 PM
The D's voted for an 1107 page, $800 Billion Bill, which no one has READ.
If this is true, that NO ONE has read it, it is deeply disturbing and should be exposed. Again, please, let's get the proof out and blow these idiots into the single digit approval ratings. Please list the proof of this outrageous conduct so that the purging can begin.
93legendti
02-13-2009, 11:33 PM
If this is true, that NO ONE has read it, it is deeply disturbing and should be exposed. Again, please, let's get the proof out and blow these idiots into the single digit approval ratings. Please list the proof of this outrageous conduct so that the purging can begin.
Well, the Bill was written in the last 24 hours and voted on today. The D's refused to allow the Bill to be read on the Floor. I can read very fast, but 1107 pages in less than 24 hours? No way. Could you read 1107 pages in less than 24 hours?
Kirk007
02-13-2009, 11:53 PM
never tried it; it would be tough to digest if it was the first time through no doubt. I think they probably have redlining functions on the Congressional computers though. The bill has been in the works for a while.
Look I don't think this stimulus bill and how it came down was a good thing either. I just don't get the constant hyperbole, generalization and assumptions you direct at the Ds and folks who generally identify with their positions. It simplifies complexities in a way that ignites emotions and polarizes people. Instead of looking for common ground that might lead to solutions, its just fanning the flames of divisiveness; the same flames of Rove and his disciples and the two Americas campaign - the liberal urbanites and real Americans. There's plenty of blame to go around for our countries and the world's problems; its a shared mess and taunting partisanship is not the answer.
No, it means that even a few democrats know the difference between following their principles and principals. ;)
Sorry Ray, but you had it right earlier. :beer:
Arrrgghhh. I hate when that happens. I'm pretty good at the too, to, two and their, there, they're things, but principal and principle always trip me up and I screw up on capital and capitol a lot also and the spell checker just isn't gonna bail my ass out on those.
-Ray
Pussies.
daniel
Heh heh heh. With only seven Democrats voting against it, you can probably look at their districts and figure it out. If any from liberal districts voted against it, they were probably NOT pussies. My guess is that most were from conservative districts, their votes weren't needed, and they made the politically easier vote which may or may not have coincided with their prinicip... err, truest feelings :cool: . When there's a strong majority party, as the Dems clearly are at the moment, they usually control the few remaining swing districts and usually can afford to give members in those districts a pass on voting for legislation that could hurt them in the next election. My guess would be ... pussies.
There are not many swing districts left in Congress, due to redistricting and gerrymandering (all related to the census, of course). Most of 'em appear pretty safe. But during real "tidal wave" elections like 1974, 1980, 1994, 2006-08, lots of seats can still change hands. Which still gives me some hope that our Democracy has legs. With all of the institutional benefits that incumbents have, the fact that we can periodically still thrown the bums out is a GOOD thing. Even when they're MY bums and I don't like the results.
-Ray
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 04:53 AM
That's exactly my point -- no one does. So why spend $800 billion when you can spend $0 billions?
Might as well go to Vegas with the cash. ;)
If we spend the money and it doesn't work, we'll be left with an even bigger problem. It's a chance we can't afford to take IMO. If we don't do anything at least we won't have the debt to repay. If we spend the funds and it doesn't work, how in the world are we going to pay for the $800 billion? Much has been said about doing nothing is not an option, but betting the house isn't one either in my opinion -- it's too big a gamble.
it's a gamble either way. there is certainly economic argument on both sides but most economists i've seen lean toward govt intervention as being the better of the two choices. both of my parents lived through the depression in the rural south. the stories they told were horrific. so few people today experienced the depression. even if the $800b "only" lessens the pain, isn't it worth it? we can honestly argue that. but as obama says, he/we won the election. he/we get to make our own mistakes now.
one number that jumped out at me: an economist from moody's who advised mccain in the election said that giving the 3 republican senators all the tax cuts they asked for cost the package 1 million jobs. his estimate is the package will create 2.5, not 3.5, million jobs. this from a mccain economist, that tax cuts cost a million jobs. if you were one of those million, is this faux bipartisanship worth the charade?
speaking of mccain: his senate comment about "generational theft" is absurd in the extreme on two fronts: how much money has been spent on the war in iraq which never needed to have been fought? and after originally (and rightly) calling bush's tax cuts absurd, he pulled a 180 on them to win the republican nomination, costing us how many billions? there are certainly idiots on both sides but mccain's de-evolution from a man of principle in 04 to a partisan blowhard and hack in 09 is striking. is mccain living out a rovian invasion of the bodysnatchers?
39cross
02-14-2009, 07:06 AM
... is this faux bipartisanship worth the charade?
"Politics is the art of the possible."
Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867
German Prussian politician (1815 - 1898)
93legendti
02-14-2009, 07:47 AM
Heh heh heh. With only seven Democrats voting against it....My guess is that most were from conservative districts, their votes weren't needed, and they made the politically easier vote which may or may not have coincided with their prinicip... err, truest feelings :cool: . ...and usually can afford to give members in those districts a pass on voting for legislation that could hurt them in the next election. My guess would be ... pussies.
There are not many swing districts left in Congress, due to redistricting and gerrymandering (all related to the census, of course). Most of 'em appear pretty safe. But during real "tidal wave" elections like 1974, 1980, 1994, 2006-08, lots of seats can still change hands. Which still gives me some hope that our Democracy has legs. With all of the institutional benefits that incumbents have, the fact that we can periodically still thrown the bums out is a GOOD thing. Even when they're MY bums and I don't like the results.
-Ray
I can't tell from this if it's ok that 7 D's didn't vote the party line. Bums or heroes?
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:03 AM
never tried it; it would be tough to digest if it was the first time through no doubt. I think they probably have redlining functions on the Congressional computers though. The bill has been in the works for a while.
Look I don't think this stimulus bill and how it came down was a good thing either. I just don't get the constant hyperbole, generalization and assumptions you direct at the Ds and folks who generally identify with their positions. It simplifies complexities in a way that ignites emotions and polarizes people. Instead of looking for common ground that might lead to solutions, its just fanning the flames of divisiveness; the same flames of Rove and his disciples and the two Americas campaign - the liberal urbanites and real Americans. There's plenty of blame to go around for our countries and the world's problems; its a shared mess and taunting partisanship is not the answer.
You might be well served to re-read evey post you have made here about R's and Pres. Bush and those here who call R's racists, stupid, mean and the like.
I can't think of a single D here in the last 5 years that looked for common ground that might lead to solutions.
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Read what you and fellow D's wrote here about Gov. Palin from August to the Election. Should I dig up the quotes for you?
Frankly, I am astonished at the audacity, hypocrisy and naivety displayed by your post.
Do you really think I am that stupid not to remember every post here ripping Pres. Bush and R's?
Or, are you so blinded by your partisanship that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Amazing.
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:13 AM
never tried it; it would be tough to digest if it was the first time through no doubt. I think they probably have redlining functions on the Congressional computers though. The bill has been in the works for a while.
Look I don't think this stimulus bill and how it came down was a good thing either. I just don't get the constant hyperbole, generalization and assumptions you direct at the Ds and folks who generally identify with their positions. It simplifies complexities in a way that ignites emotions and polarizes people. Instead of looking for common ground that might lead to solutions, its just fanning the flames of divisiveness; the same flames of Rove and his disciples and the two Americas campaign - the liberal urbanites and real Americans. There's plenty of blame to go around for our countries and the world's problems; its a shared mess and taunting partisanship is not the answer.
Are you kidding me?
Rove is working for McCain. Happy?
Rove should be indicted; he has done more to destroy America than any single person I can think of in the past decade, American or otherwise. Happier??
I think McCain gave a very good, inspired and moving performance tonight. If he is elected I hope he can deliver on many of his promises. Happier yet???
I don't think he'll be able to escape the clutches of his own party however; oh the irony of hearing him close by talking about the rewards of working for others rather than yourself - what a stark contrast to the prevailing me first, me only attitude we've been subject to for the past 8 years. Happy meter declining?
Too bad he attached a boat anchor to his chances - she sure demonstrated the tolerance, respect and unifying spirit that he preached tonight. Not.
Uh, oh, I went over the top with that one. Time to attack again - let the generalizations fly - I must be a Democrat or a Liberal or an extreme environmentalist or anti-god or anti-american for gods sake. Oh such a slippery slope....
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:20 AM
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=585060&postcount=138
Kirk007
formerly Landshark_98 Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 479
[QUOTE=93legendti]
THAT is sexism and hypocrisy. THAT is the Democrat Party. [unquote]
Which would make it different from the Repubican Party how? Oh yeah, they actually care about people who haven't quite made it into the $5 million ownership society.
Generalizations are dangerous, and usually unhelpful. Both parties have huge issues. I read your cuts about Obama and Biden, and think back to Cheney/Bush. How so many of them would have and still do apply so accurately to that pair.
I wasn't here then; I don't know if you are a Bush/Cheney fan, but maybe you see how unfit this pair was/is under the same criteria you offer (particularly if you think, like I do, that Executive experience is primarily valuable only if you accomplish something positive and is in fact a huge mark against someone for a higher position if that person has proven to be incompetent at lesser positions - as Bush had, repeatedly). Maybe Palin has what it takes - but the it is not significant experience.
McCain is the one who brought the experience fight on, and he's the one who shot that argument in the foot by adding Palin to the ticket. How can you dis Obama for lack of experience but wrap your arms around Palin is support? You might want to look in the mirror before throwing the word hypocrisy around too much. It's something that is not limited to Democrats or liberals. Any yeah, I've been there too; haven't we all? I guess there's a reason my favorite line from Lewis Carroll is quoting Humpty Dumpty: Words mean what I say they mean, no more, no less, and my all time favorite, although I forget the author ( I think its a fav of Scalia as well): Consistency is the hobglobben of little minds.
Ok, I've violated by pledge to take the weekend off from this stuff. Gotta go ride a Kirk!
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:35 AM
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=587256&postcount=1
#1 09-06-2008, 12:15 AM
Kirk007
formerly Landshark_98 Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 479
OT & Political Content - A fellow Wasilla residents view of Gov. Palin (long)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This came to me by e-mail. It is long. It is political. Ignore it if you do not care. I cannot vouch for its veracity but it seems legit. I've googled the author and its reported in a newspapers as truthfully authored. See http://www.daily-journal.com/archiv...y.php?id=426807. The author is quoted in the Detroit Free Press and NYT among other outlets.
Clearly the author is not friends with Palin, but she seems to be giving her honest perspective. Take from it what you will, or not. Its offered here as information on a candidate that we do not know much about, and which contradicts the portrait offered of her so far in many respects. (and yes feel free to accurately accuse me of having a bias but in my view it is nevdrtheless relevant information and relevant information is a good thing; the weight you give it is up to you)...
A note to all by Anne **********
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the
last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in
common: their gender and their good looks.
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts
with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on
any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated
them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah.
They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and
predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly
stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made
point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's
mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and
experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her...McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.
...
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:39 AM
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=607208&postcount=31
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:41 AM
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=607204
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=584513&postcount=49
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=584566&postcount=73
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=584599&postcount=77
93Legend Ti:
While your attacking the Biden family why not pick on the son that's on his way back to Iraq? Sure as he** haven't seen Bush or Cheney sending their kids off to there attempt to establish domination over a middle east oil supply.And experience and resume padding: I'll take ?????'a over the lying, pandering idiot in the White House who has proven that he can run more than oil companies and baseball teams into the ground. Where was Bush's "experience" to run this country? Is repeated failure and bailout by your families rich cronies the type of experience we should be comforted by?
Bush has achieved his agenda? What is that, a ruined economy, a lower stature across the world, the replacement of honest agency employees with political idealogues - "great job Brownie" and a bunch of $5 millionaires safely ensconced in their McMansions waiting for the rapture while the rest of America's standard of living declines? That's one heck of an accomplishment. And I am proud to say we have pretty much taken the majority of his rape the environment agenda and stuffed it down his throat.
...
A motivated America has proven throughout our proud history that we can accomplish great things. One path in the election may lead us in that direction. No guarnatees. The other will surely perpetuate our decline as a country as a nation of two classes - the haves and have nots. I used to admire ??????; heck I used to think George Bush 1 was a smart man who would make an ok president. I watched Bush abandon his middle of the road principlesin order to gather the support of the most conservative factions of the Republican party. Sadly I see ?????? doing the same thing. I might have a little hope if we were getting ?????? as his own man, but the thought of ?????? as manipulated and controlled by the party makes me fearful for our future. We don't have another 4-8 years to waste.
93legendti
02-14-2009, 08:56 AM
[QUOTE=Kirk007]Palin's speech: nice delivery; seems like a nice person, but there was no substance in that speech. McCain's campaign promised that this speech was America's oppportunity to get to know Sarah Palin. For me, it did not deliver the promise. Well, I know she can give a speech, and is charismatic...But really, any Hollywood actor could have knocked that speech out of the park particularly as it was written as pure pablum for the base...
Unfortunately in our country its the window dressing and rhetoric on a few hot button issues that seem to carry the day with the voters at the margins. Palin will certainly help with that on the Republican base. But for me, she appears to be a nightmare, off the charts worse than McCain, who, until having to bend to please the RNC's task masters of the ultra-right, is a candidate that I would have seriously considered voting for...:
its not that I wouldn't vote for Palin because she approves of butchering wolves it is because it puts her intellectual horsepower, open-mindedness and judgment in question - I don't want that level of ignorance of science in the second most powerful person in the free world; 8 years of that is enough already)...
2. No sex education in schools other than a policy based on abstinence - hows that worked out for 'ya Sarah? Sorry but as a father of a teenager who may well be sexually active despite our wishes and his girlfriend's family's wishes, I think this position is parochial, narrow-minded, unrealistic, mean, sad and morally and ethically bankrupt. ..QUOTE]
http://forums.thepaceline.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=586595
1centaur
02-14-2009, 09:04 AM
as obama says, he/we won the election. he/we get to make our own mistakes now.
one number that jumped out at me: an economist from moody's who advised mccain in the election said that giving the 3 republican senators all the tax cuts they asked for cost the package 1 million jobs. his estimate is the package will create 2.5, not 3.5, million jobs. this from a mccain economist, that tax cuts cost a million jobs. if you were one of those million, is this faux bipartisanship worth the charade?
speaking of mccain: his senate comment about "generational theft" is absurd in the extreme on two fronts: how much money has been spent on the war in iraq which never needed to have been fought? and after originally (and rightly) calling bush's tax cuts absurd, he pulled a 180 on them to win the republican nomination, costing us how many billions?
On the "we won" comment from Obama: There was a smugness there that should be worrisome to Democrats. First, I would not be smug if 48% of the voters did not vote for me. The presidency is not the Super Bowl; it's a role of immense personal responsibility to millions who do not like you here and billions who do not like you elsewhere. Hubris is a character flaw. Second, at the level of simple politics, one of Bush's flaws was his certainty that he was right, even though that certainty might have been driven by supposed direction from above rather than within. This approach to governing helped little by little to make the opposition to all things Bush especially passionate and thereby helped seal the Rep crushing in recent elections. He hurt his party through his personal characteristics. Obama, amazingly, looks ready to do the same. I can already sense that around me (more Reps than Ds around me but not entirely), and we're very early in the process.
Second, I read yesterday or the day before for the first time about those jobs estimates and where they come from. Unfortunately, they seem to come from formulas that the average climatologist would not accept. They help explain another Obama remark, delivered in a supercilious tone, that will catalyze the right: spending IS the point, right? The formulas are vague theoretical estimates of the number of jobs created by X dollars of government spending, so in that world all spending equals jobs equals stimulus. That does not pass the smell test. That would be why tax cuts reduce jobs - it's not government spending. Yet any level of common sense would say that more money in the hands of others would also lead to jobs, with some hands more likely than others. With less hubris and more common sense, Obama could have really looked at each element of spending to figure out if it looked likely to lead to hiring in the next few months, and if that hiring would benefit the nation (not just his party) for years to come as the debt comes due. He did not make that effort, and a LOT of people noticed that. It was a failure of opportunity that history will also note.
I don't think McCain's comment is absurd, even if emotive. It is a generational wealth transfer by definition to borrow now and repay from the tax dollars of future generations, regardless of Iraq, a war effort that was voted in by both sides on the basis of available intelligence that proved to be flawed. How long we stayed there is another question, one I don't have the geopolitical perspective to answer well though my gut is that I would have withdrawn earlier.
The Bush tax cuts were broad based RATE cuts, designed to LEAVE money in the hands of the people rather than government. As rate cuts, they were skewed against the rich slightly, a political concession made by Bush at the last minute. As dollar cuts, they were skewed towards the rich because those are the people who pay a disproportionate share of the taxes. There is no other arithmetically possible choice left under our current rate system to leave a lot of money in the hands of the people. If you think that we should never leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it, I disagree with you. Obama's tax cuts that actually send checks to people who don't pay income taxes is a wealth transfer from rich to poor, not an income tax cut. BTW, the Bush tax cuts did work.
93legendti
02-14-2009, 09:31 AM
....but as obama says, he/we won the election. he/we get to make our own mistakes now...
What 1centaur says.
In addition, if that is your view, more power to you and Pres. Obama. But PLEASE do not criticize R's when they refsue to go along with the D's. The R's lost the elction and are free not to make mistakes now.
Q: How is Pres. Obama's statment is "post-partisan"?
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:15 AM
i
one number that jumped out at me: an economist from moody's who advised mccain in the election said that giving the 3 republican senators all the tax cuts they asked for cost the package 1 million jobs. his estimate is the package will create 2.5, not 3.5, million jobs. this from a mccain economist, that tax cuts cost a million jobs. if you were one of those million, is this faux bipartisanship worth the charade?
Can you possibly believe that these numbers are calculable? That there is any determinism available here? These numbers are pure speculation, guesses even.
calling bush's tax cuts absurd, he pulled a 180 on them to win the republican nomination, costing us how many billions?
You are right on the absurdity of tax cuts, the people who actually pay the taxes did not get enough. I feel absolutely blessed to have sold my company when it was still possible to reap the rewards for years of hard work and sacrifice. That window will be closing quickly I am afraid.
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:18 AM
Pussies.
daniel
Pathetically puerile.
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:21 AM
Heh heh heh. With only seven Democrats voting against it, you can probably look at their districts and figure it out. If any from liberal districts voted against it, they were probably NOT pussies. My guess is that most were from conservative districts, their votes weren't needed, and they made the politically easier vote which may or may not have coincided with their prinicip... err, truest feelings :cool: . When there's a strong majority party, as the Dems clearly are at the moment, they usually control the few remaining swing districts and usually can afford to give members in those districts a pass on voting for legislation that could hurt them in the next election. My guess would be ... pussies.
-Ray
So it is completely out of the realm of probability that they were actually against this sorry piece of legislation or perhaps even unable to determine what the legislation contains in the rush to get it approved and ready for Obama's signature on Presiident's day. Unbelievable that his desire to sign it on President's day had a role in this process at all.
it's a gamble either way. there is certainly economic argument on both sides but most economists i've seen lean toward govt intervention as being the better of the two choices. both of my parents lived through the depression in the rural south. the stories they told were horrific. so few people today experienced the depression. even if the $800b "only" lessens the pain, isn't it worth it?Climb, I already said that in my opinion the answer is no.
Economists are mostly looking only at the probability of success, and they may even be able to make an intelligent case for spending $800 billion we don’t have – although I seriously doubt it.
Because of training I’ve received in the field of safety, I’m not only looking at the probabilities of success versus failure, but also the consequences of failure in either case. They’re not even close to being the same in my opinion. The economy getting worse is a huge concern, but if we have a 30% chance (by administration admission which is probably light) that the package won’t work, then what? Without economic improvement and an additional $800 billion in debt we could easily spiral off the map – end of America as we know it today.
Are you willing to take a 3 in 10 chance or greater of destroying the country? I doubt it. I’d guess that you believe that if this stimulus package doesn’t work we can try something else, right? Seems insane to me but I don’t get to make the decisions. And neither do you. And neither does Ray. None of us do.
BTW, I think it is incredibly naive for anyone to take the “this is us against them” highway (not saying you are part of this movement). It’s reckless because we are on the same ship and we will either benefit or go down together. If this package doesn’t work it is not like Democrats are going to come out great and Republicans will suffer. We’ll all suffer -- its one economy for all. When I think this package will hurt me in the long run, I also think it will hurt you, Ray, and other Democrats. My reasons to oppose the spending may be flawed, but can’t be for selfish reasons. What helps/hurts you also helps me.
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 10:26 AM
i believe money should be spent by two groups: private citizens and the gov't. private citizens and companies tend to spent money to promote their self-interests, which they should. gov't tend to spend money to promote the common good, which they should. we need this balance, IMO. the conservatives among us seem to be arguing for only half of that balance. it is a valid argument but one i must simply agree to disagree about.
what i applaud wholeheartedly in the stim bill are the limits on exec pay in salary and cash bonuses, and the stipulation that comp beyond that must be in stock. brilliant. aside from my home and a shrinking basket of retirement accts, my entire networth is tied up in my company's stock/worth. it's amazing how that aligns my interests with my company's and employees. in a perfect world, i'm not sure i'd want that stipulation, but given the behavior of financial execs the last 12-18 months, they've demonstrated that they, as a group, put their personal interests far above their shareholders and employees. as a group their attitude seemed to be: IBG. as in, i'll be gone when the bill comes due. they've earned these handcuffs.
we can honestly argue that. but as obama says, he/we won the election. he/we get to make our own mistakes now.
I get your “we won therefore it’s our turn to screw up by doing whatever we want regardless of consequences”. I don’t take it too personal because I’m rather in the middle – however, as with Ray, it becomes impossible to discuss any subject matter on merits when one side feels that might makes right.
If your criteria are that power through numbers makes decisions correct, then there is no point discussing anything, is there? In that sense Obama got more votes and therefore everything the administration does is right. Debating anything would be pointless unless the reason is to rub defeat in Republicans’ faces; and I’m not going to participate in that. ;)
what i applaud wholeheartedly in the stim bill are the limits on exec pay in salary and cash bonuses, and the stipulation that comp beyond that must be in stock. brilliant. The devil is in the details.
According to our paper, one CEO who agreed to get only $1 in compensation is now limited to pennies in future bonuses even if his company pays back everything. What incentive does he have for working an entire year for less than $2? :confused:
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 10:32 AM
You are right on the absurdity of tax cuts, the people who actually pay the taxes did not get enough.
just curious: who are you referring to? who "actually" doesn't pay taxes and will get help in this package?
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:37 AM
just curious: who are you referring to? who "actually" doesn't pay taxes and will get help in this package?
I am referring to the distribution of the tax cuts, not who gets them.
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:46 AM
what i applaud wholeheartedly in the stim bill are the limits on exec pay in salary and cash bonuses, and the stipulation that comp beyond that must be in stock. brilliant. aside from my home and a shrinking basket of retirement accts, my entire networth is tied up in my company's stock/worth. it's amazing how that aligns my interests with my company's and employees. in a perfect world, i'm not sure i'd want that stipulation, but given the behavior of financial execs the last 12-18 months, they've demonstrated that they, as a group, put their personal interests far above their shareholders and employees. as a group their attitude seemed to be: IBG. as in, i'll be gone when the bill comes due. they've earned these handcuffs.
You actually think limiting executives non-stock based compensation is going to change behavior or even have a trifling effect on the bottom line. It is form, not function. Its only effect is the visceral feeling you get that we are going to get these guys. The same feeling as Hollywood serves up when they build up a bad guy to have him get his in the end. Amounts to nothing.
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 10:47 AM
I get your “we won therefore it’s our turn to screw up by doing whatever we want regardless of consequences”. I don’t take it too personal because I’m rather in the middle – however, as with Ray, it becomes impossible to discuss any subject matter on merits when one side feels that might makes right.
If your criteria are that power through numbers makes decisions correct, then there is no point discussing anything, is there? In that sense Obama got more votes and therefore everything the administration does is right. Debating anything would be pointless unless the reason is to rub defeat in Republicans’ faces; and I’m not going to participate in that. ;)
i guess i should have added a ;) . it was meant as a note of levity. i certainly do not believe anyone, any group or any party has a lock on answers. but i think it is fair to say... for the past 8 years, one philosophy was tried and did not work out so well. we had a fair democratic election. the nation seemed to vote for a different direction. we are but a few weeks into that new direction. it seems fair to see where this new direction leads us. yet there is a chorus on this forum that seems ready to declare every move obama makes a failure already. all i really believe is, hey, give the guy and his policies a chance. if they fail, there is another election in two years to shift congressional power and another two year past that to shift presidential power. we've had 8 years of failed policy. why not let another direction breathe a bit and have a go? on the whole, i think ray and i have said as many positive as critical things about obama as president so far. we see the good and the bad. what frankly irks me about many of the more conservative comments here that are critical of obama and the dems is that they rarely, if ever, are balanced with positive comments about obama, or with critical comments about bush or republicans.
i'm certainly ready to admit that the dems ain't perfect. i'm not always sure our chorus here is ready to admit that about republicans. but please, prove me wrong. (insert smiley) without_that_balance, is enlightening discourse possible?
dsteady
02-14-2009, 10:48 AM
Pathetically puerile.
Why leave it at that when you could have strived for alliteration: "Petulantly, pathetically puerile." ?
I agree btw, and thought about deleting the post but then I strive to stand by what comes out of my mouth, even to my detriment.
Anyway, it was an expression of my frustration at what I saw as Obama's genuine attempt to push past partisanship and the R's decision to leave him utterly stranded, and looking like a fool. To me the real intent of the Rs on this is not principles but, rather, the 2010 mid-terms. And, given the scope of the current crisis, this is cynical beyond belief. Adam is right, the R's lost and now they are free not to make any more mistakes, but this transgresses even that right -- and their puerile political posturing has pushed us all closer to a precipice of penury, a position from which is palpable their petulant delight.
I'll get my coat....
daniel
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 10:51 AM
You actually think limiting executives non-stock based compensation is going to change behavior or even have a trifling effect on the bottom line. It is form, not function. Its only effect is the visceral feeling you get that we are going to get these guys. The same feeling as Hollywood serves up when they build up a bad guy to have him get his in the end. Amounts to nothing.
if stock doesn't impact someone's behavior, why then is it the engine that has driven exec comp in america's most dynamic, and arguably most successful, industry: tech? stock is a wonderful way, IMO, to align exec and shareholder interests.
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 10:58 AM
if stock doesn't impact someone's behavior, why then is it the engine that has driven exec comp in america's most dynamic, and arguably most successful, industry: tech? stock is a wonderful way, IMO, to align exec and shareholder interests.
Its not that stock doesn't play a role. It is just offset by the following facts, a rising tide lifts all boats. So did the CEO drive the increase in stock or did the rising economy? Also it drives some CEO's to make decisions to drive stock price that are not in the overall best interest in the company. Lastly a good CEO wants to win regardless and the thought of stock options are not going to drive his behavior. I have tons of stock options, never think about them. Go to work each day and do my best. Of course I am happy to take the money at some point. :)
Kirk007
02-14-2009, 10:59 AM
You might be well served to re-read evey post you have made here about R's and Pres. Bush
you've missed my point, again, and I'm tired of trying to point out the difference between hyperbole, generalization and specific issue based points. And I don't have the time or energy that you do for cut and paste, but a number of those posts were in fact, responding to your hyperbole and written and designed to illustrate that very point for you. Obviously I failed in my communication attempt, and I'm tired of trying, so have at it, shout to the rooftops how all Ds, liberals, environmentalists and so one are, at every turn, for now and forever (insert your favorite slam of the day). Resistance is futile and just not worth the bother.
SamIAm
02-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Why leave it at that when you could have strived for alliteration: "Petulantly, pathetically puerile." ?
I actually thought of that, but I am glad I didn't as I could not compete with :)
puerile political posturing has pushed us all closer to a precipice of penury, a position from which is palpable their petulant delight.
I'll get my coat....
daniel
i'm certainly ready to admit that the dems ain't perfect. i'm not always sure our chorus here is ready to admit that about republicans. but please, prove me wrong. (insert smiley) without_that_balance, is enlightening discourse possible? Yes, but only if we look at issues based on merits and don’t over-politicize.
I’m fiscally conservative and “normally” prefer Republican views on those issues – but not always as when I opposed Bush bailouts. On the other hand, I prefer Democratic views on civil liberties and other issues. I don’t support either party blindly, so when I criticize an Obama economic decision I’m not trying to demonize him. Same with Bush before him.
BTW, my biggest fear about Obama – which I made very clear numerous times – is that he was much more economically liberal than he painted himself in order to win the election; and that if given a chance he would move us towards outright socialism. Thus far my concerns were well founded, and having lived through it before and seeing that that’s how it starts, I was justified in being concerned.
Personally I never bought into the notion that he could unite the nation. That was just campaign rhetoric for he’s far too left for Republicans and moderates to follow. Enough said.
P.S. -- Sorry but proving you wrong is not my job. :beer:
however, as with Ray, it becomes impossible to discuss any subject matter on merits when one side feels that might makes right.
Huh?!?!? What'd I do this time? I take my daughter to Rutgers for a piano audition for the morning and what happens? Adam's on FIRE with the cut and paste key and I said WHAT?
I don't think might makes right. Might just determines who gets to try it their way. Bush tried it his way for six years without even TALKING to the Dems and then moderated a bit on some issues in the last two because he had to once they controlled Congress. It didn't work. Or the vast majority of people felt like it didn't work. I personally felt that it didn't work. So the Dems and Obama won and they get to try it their way. I believe Obama wanted to incorporate SOME Republican ideas both to make a better bill and to change the mood. I don't think he was obligated to or would consider letting them WRITE the bill to show how bipartisan he was. As I said before, that's not bipartisan, that would be totally negating the reason for elections. The Republicans weren't satisfied with what he did and they voted almost unanimously against it. That's their prerogative. I don't think it makes them terrible people. But I do think that for many of them it was largely a political calculation. Not all of them. Maybe not even half of them. But quite a few. As I said, that's what politicians do. So I object to the charge that Obama has been solely responsible for the breakdown in bipartisanship (not that it existed in the first place to be able to breakdown). Not that he's a saint and certainly not that the Dems in congress are saints. But neither are the Republicans in congress.
Again, might doesn't make right. Only time and experience determines what works. Rick, I fully understand your position and I respect it. As Climb says, its just that we have to agree to disagree because we've been around and around and around and you haven't convinced me on the merits and I damn sure haven't convinced you. And that's fine. I think the discussion between us has been almost uniformly civil except in the case of a couple of misunderstandings that I think we worked through and I appreciate that. Some folks are less civil and more prone to character assassination and I don't appreciate that as much, but I understand it, having doubtless been guilty of it myself in my more frustrated moments. When you feel frustrated and don't get what so many people see in a guy that you fundamentally don't like and don't agree with, it feels bad and sometimes people react badly to that. Me included. On occasion Bush would piss me off at such a gut level that I lost my head about him and couldn't discuss him rationally. So I can't really condemn Adam and Johnny and others for feeling that way about Obama even though I obviously feel differently about him.
Being on the winning side in an election gives me small solace when living in such a polarized country. It beats being on the losing side, but not by that much when its this closely divided. I still hate the feeling of division and polarization. But that's democracy. It isn't right or wrong or black or white. It just is. If you wanna take that to imply that I'm saying might makes right, go ahead. But that's not what I'm saying.
-Ray
1centaur
02-14-2009, 11:34 AM
Most conservatives would disown me for much of what I have suggested on this forum, but I'll provide balance for the record:
Bush bads: Communication ability, subtle judgment clouded by preconception, probably intelligence, lack of 360 awareness on the importance of misperceptions, stubbornness, form over function, no vision/guiding principles, viewed the presidency as a personal achievement.
Obama goods: speaks well, smart, good spatial/political awareness, empathetic, energetic, wants to do good.
BTW, I STRONGLY believe that much government spending is not done for the general good but for the selfish good of effectively buying votes with other people's money. If I were President, I would be as keenly aware that every dollar spent is taken from someone who owns it and does not want it taken as I would be that military decisions take people's children and use them for other people's goals.
I can't tell from this if it's ok that 7 D's didn't vote the party line. Bums or heroes?
Adam, I don't see things in the same black and white terms you do. If they voted their conscience, they're fine and I just disagree with 'em. If they voted against their conscience to please their district, they're pussies. And that's OK too. Trying to represent a diverse set of voters in a swing district is a bitch of a job and I can't condemn a politician for sometimes taking a safe vote when there's no compelling reason to make a tough one. Let's em live to fight another day. I know a lot of people find that attitude horribly corrupt, but that's how politics works and I'd posit it would work even less well if every representative voted their conscience on every vote. Same with the Republicans - some voted their conscience and some voted out of political expediency. For the lucky ones, its one and the same. Its easy to have a whole boatload of political courage when you're in a safe district. Its a lot harder when you're in a swing district and those folks end up looking like pussies a lot more often. Just the nature of the game.
You can divide all of these imperfect human beings into bums and heroes. I divide 'em into thems I agree with and thems I don't. And the same people are in different camps on different issues. I vote for the ones I agree with most often. My Congressman has never represented me since I've lived in this area. My senators currently both represent me well enough, but I have pretty serious differences with both of them on some issues. And until 2006, I had one that represented me on approximately nothing. At the moment, my president represents me pretty well. Its been a long time since that's been the case, so pardon me while I enjoy it for however long it lasts.
-Ray
Most conservatives would disown me for much of what I have suggested on this forum
And so would a lot of liberals. But that's why I'm really glad you keep coming back because I usually learn something from you even when I reach a different conclusion. I was real interested in your comment that tax cuts didn't belong in the stimulus package (if I have that wrong, apologies, but that's what I thought you said). I'd have personally preferred more spending and less tax cuts, but didn't assume they were useless for purposes of stimulus. But that was just one example of your independent, empirical thinking.
Just want to make sure you realize it is appreciated.
-Ray
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 12:04 PM
And so would a lot of liberals. But that's why I'm really glad you keep coming back because I usually learn something from you even when I reach a different conclusion...(snipped) But that was just one example of your independent, empirical thinking.
Just want to make sure you realize it is appreciated.
-Ray
what ray said for sure.
1centaur
02-14-2009, 12:34 PM
Ray, I'm not sure that I said tax cuts don't belong in the stimulus package. I actually don't have a strong opinion on that topic. I believe economists who say that tax cuts need to create expectations for them to be effective as inducements to invest/grow businesses/hire people, and one time tax cuts don't do that. Further, if I am saying that spending does not equal stimulus does equal jobs, then I can't say that leaving $50 more in someone's pocket is stimulus either, since $50 more spent on fast food or $50 more spent paying off debt won't necessarily lead to jobs any better than a bunch of the earmarks that "won't be allowed" but immediately were.
If we're going to accept a stimulus that economists claim won't go into effect for 2 or 3 years in many cases, we could have created tax cuts that did that and I would have preferred to see the priorities set by the market than by a few politicians. Capital gains tax cuts for small business formation or even, choke, no capital gains tax for those who buy bank stocks in the next 12 months would have been interesting choices. They certainly would have sent a message that Obama believes in investment and capital formation as a societal good, whereas what actually happened genuinely has scared some people about the consequences of something far more irreversibly socialist than was feared just a few months ago (Gregg's resignation did not help that perception either).
But if bridging the economic chasm most effectively had really been the intention, I would have been more inclined to roads, bridges, insulation, windmills, solar panels, powerlines, Internet infrastructure and anything else I could think of that created a job, taught a long-term skill, and created ongoing broad societal goods that in normal times would have been too expensive and contentious but in these times can be forgiven in the name of stimulus. I respect RPS's view that we should just get through the trough and not spend, but I think that would have been bad in the 1930s and could be bad this time. I think my package would have been a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than the one with which we have been saddled.
climb, as my Doberman likes to say every morning, is it spring yet? You have a bike to build! :beer:
dsteady
02-14-2009, 01:09 PM
I thought I'd follow up with something more constructive:
Here is Simon Johnson (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/02/10/axelrod-and-emanuel-were-right-on-the-american-bank-oligarchs/) who is an economist at MIT and spoke eloquently last night on Bill Moyers' Journal.
I want to point out, in case it is not clear in the link, that he is very much against nationalizing banks -- he said this very explicitly on Moyers. He would like to see an FDIC Intervention of the troubled big banks (the FDIC does this all the time with smaller banks) followed up very quickly with re-capitalization, partly from the private sector, where there is a hell of a lot of private equity waiting to act.
Anyway, happy reading.
Dn'l
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 02:33 PM
But if bridging the economic chasm most effectively had really been the intention, I would have been more inclined to roads, bridges, insulation, windmills, solar panels, powerlines, Internet infrastructure and anything else I could think of that created a job, taught a long-term skill, and created ongoing broad societal goods that in normal times would have been too expensive and contentious but in these times can be forgiven in the name of stimulus.
climb, as my Doberman likes to say every morning, is it spring yet? You have a bike to build! :beer:
that would be an ideal stimulus package in my mind too. really. heck, if we can come to a consensus, why can't washington? :D
yes, indeed, i do have a bike to build. daydreaming about a grouppo. 7800? 7900? or be a fiscally irresponsible early adopter and go for eDA? thankfully, daydreaming is free.
93legendti
02-14-2009, 02:37 PM
Adam, I don't see things in the same black and white terms you do. If they voted their conscience, they're fine and I just disagree with 'em. If they voted against their conscience to please their district, they're pussies. And that's OK too. Trying to represent a diverse set of voters in a swing district is a bitch of a job and I can't condemn a politician for sometimes taking a safe vote when there's no compelling reason to make a tough one. Let's em live to fight another day. I know a lot of people find that attitude horribly corrupt, but that's how politics works and I'd posit it would work even less well if every representative voted their conscience on every vote. Same with the Republicans - some voted their conscience and some voted out of political expediency. For the lucky ones, its one and the same. Its easy to have a whole boatload of political courage when you're in a safe district. Its a lot harder when you're in a swing district and those folks end up looking like pussies a lot more often. Just the nature of the game.
You can divide all of these imperfect human beings into bums and heroes. I divide 'em into thems I agree with and thems I don't. And the same people are in different camps on different issues. I vote for the ones I agree with most often. My Congressman has never represented me since I've lived in this area. My senators currently both represent me well enough, but I have pretty serious differences with both of them on some issues. And until 2006, I had one that represented me on approximately nothing. At the moment, my president represents me pretty well. Its been a long time since that's been the case, so pardon me while I enjoy it for however long it lasts.
-Ray
I do see things in black and white. As long as every politician is free to vote their conscience, then we agree.
I do condemn a politician for sometimes taking a safe vote when there's no compelling reason to make a tough one. They are paid to make tough votes/decisions. Greatness depends upon it.
93legendti
02-14-2009, 02:45 PM
Ray, I'm not sure that I said tax cuts don't belong in the stimulus package. I actually don't have a strong opinion on that topic. I believe economists who say that tax cuts need to create expectations for them to be effective as inducements to invest/grow businesses/hire people, and one time tax cuts don't do that. Further, if I am saying that spending does not equal stimulus does equal jobs, then I can't say that leaving $50 more in someone's pocket is stimulus either, since $50 more spent on fast food or $50 more spent paying off debt won't necessarily lead to jobs any better than a bunch of the earmarks that "won't be allowed" but immediately were.
If we're going to accept a stimulus that economists claim won't go into effect for 2 or 3 years in many cases, we could have created tax cuts that did that and I would have preferred to see the priorities set by the market than by a few politicians. Capital gains tax cuts for small business formation or even, choke, no capital gains tax for those who buy bank stocks in the next 12 months would have been interesting choices. They certainly would have sent a message that Obama believes in investment and capital formation as a societal good, whereas what actually happened genuinely has scared some people about the consequences of something far more irreversibly socialist than was feared just a few months ago (Gregg's resignation did not help that perception either).
But if bridging the economic chasm most effectively had really been the intention, I would have been more inclined to roads, bridges, insulation, windmills, solar panels, powerlines, Internet infrastructure and anything else I could think of that created a job, taught a long-term skill, and created ongoing broad societal goods that in normal times would have been too expensive and contentious but in these times can be forgiven in the name of stimulus. I respect RPS's view that we should just get through the trough and not spend, but I think that would have been bad in the 1930s and could be bad this time. I think my package would have been a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than the one with which we have been saddled.
climb, as my Doberman likes to say every morning, is it spring yet? You have a bike to build! :beer:
What should be done about the mortgages?
I do see things in black and white. As long as every politician is free to vote their conscience, then we agree.
I do condemn a politician for sometimes taking a safe vote when there's no compelling reason to make a tough one. They are paid to make tough votes/decisions. Greatness depends upon it.
I agree that every politician has to have the balls or other equipment to make very tough votes. Just not always. When they have to to get something passed and their vote is needed and they strongly believe in it even if its gonna be unpopular. But when their vote isn't needed to pass a particular bill and it will cost them at home and make it less likely that they'll be in a position to make the NEXT really tough vote that they need to, sometimes its smarter to take a pass. I suspect most politicians you or I consider great, from both sides of the aisle, have done TONS of that kind of strategic voting and they mix in all manner of posturing in the process. Its simply what works.
-Ray
But if bridging the economic chasm most effectively had really been the intention, I would have been more inclined to roads, bridges, insulation, windmills, solar panels, powerlines, Internet infrastructure and anything else I could think of that created a job, taught a long-term skill, and created ongoing broad societal goods that in normal times would have been too expensive and contentious but in these times can be forgiven in the name of stimulus. I respect RPS's view that we should just get through the trough and not spend, but I think that would have been bad in the 1930s and could be bad this time. I think my package would have been a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than the one with which we have been saddled.
I appreciate the clarification. Most of the analysis I've heard from economists I respect (from both sides of the aisle) seem to have their preferences for what is most stimulative, but I've also heard pretty widespread agreement that almost all spending, even down to putting sod on the Mall, creates or saves or extends jobs and is ultimately stimulative. They even think tax cuts do too, but, as you said, probably not as quickly. I certainly have my pet issues that I'd like to see more money go to, but I'd just like to see them get it into circulation sooner rather than later with job losses coming as fast as they are.
I'm also interested in what almost sounds like a consensus that, while the stimulus is an important piece of the puzzle, the financial piece is more important and that without it, all the stimulus in the world isn't gonna matter. I don't know why Obama felt it was important to put Geitner out there before he had something to present - it clearly backfired if it was supposed to calm people down. But I hope that whatever they're cooking up works. I'll never understand the details of it, but I look forward to your thoughts when we see it.
-Ray
Viper
02-14-2009, 04:56 PM
This is interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&eurl=http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1173137
:rolleyes:
1centaur
02-14-2009, 06:18 PM
What should be done about the mortgages?
Here's a free flowing logic chain, made up as I go:
Banks need to know they will not go under in order to lend out against their capital>they fear their mortgage and mortgage-backed investments>if they could sell all their mortgage/m-backed and known that would not put them under, would they? I say, yes, to relieve themselves and their investors of any doubt. Then they could lend again and make a good spread and markets would be relieved and the economy might rebound.
BUT, who would buy those mortgage/related and at what price? Private investors would buy them all at incredibly low prices since it would not matter to the banks at what price they sold but it would matter to the PE firms at what price they bought. Odds are the PE firms would get very, very rich from that transaction. If PE firms can get rich from it, why not the banks? Suspend MTM accounting on those assets and the banks can do just that. If the government guaranteed that banks would not go out of business and suspended MTM accounting on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and assigned all existing capital to the remaining assets, we might have a well-capitalized banking system. Then banks could focus on getting the most money possible out of those mortgages/related that was consistent with national policy. They could use what they make to pay back TARP and compensate for the guarantee, which would expire a few years down the road.
Most likely that would require adjusting payment streams for all genuine homeowner/buyers to something that would help them not only avoid default but let them live a semi-normal life. Here's a problem, and it's what killed the bankruptcy cram down suggestion: in a mortgage backed structure there is no provision for reductions of payments to flow to the lowest rated securities first. The top-rated (AAA) securities are by far the greatest in number and dominate the mortgage investments on many balance sheets. If payments are cut via cramdown, the AAA-pieces would start taking losses right along with the lower-rated pieces. That should mean the AAA pieces lose their ratings very quickly, absolutely killing their value due to forced selling and existing capital rules across financial institutions. Cramdowns/payment reductions make the problem that exists today much, much worse. SO, we'll have to suspend capital rules related to mortgage backed. That might mean some kind of bailout/capital raising for insurance companies - don't know. If those provisions are already suspended at banks, good.
Solve that problem and house prices probably stop falling soon, banks lend, jobs are created and we recover.
I guess we'd have to suspend MTM and capital rules for mortgage-backed for all institutions, with or without government guarantees or TARP borrowing. Guarantees would have to be applied for - some would not in order to avoid paying the government back for the guarantee.
The political devilry of splitting hairs between legitimate homeowners and speculators would be huge. Maybe all those who received reduced payments would need to sign over 10% of their home equity or even more. Long ago I argued this would create hardship many years down the road, and it would.
That's my best guess on mortgages. The relationships between banks, lending mortgages, houses and homeowners are complex and I could easily be missing something.
Climb01742
02-14-2009, 06:39 PM
here is an idea i had. i'm sure it must have flaws, because it's so simple:
instead of creating a "bad" bank that buys up/houses all toxic loans, why not take a few hundred billion of gov't money and create a "good" bank and start loaning money to individuals (cars, homes, education) and businesses. don't staff it with gov't employees but try to recruit experienced bank executives from small community banks. sort of financial national service. a bankers peace corp. bankers and banks who spent the last few years doing "old fashioned" banking. sensible loans. there must be a surplus of small-town bankers who know common sense banking. once the bank is up and running, sell it to private investors. might this be the most direct way to get credit flowing? then, if big banks who created their own toxic loans go down, let them. they made their bed. if the issue is getting credit flowing_now_and then someday getting private capital to replace gov't funds, won't this be the most direct transparent way?
as i said, it seems so simple. it must have flaws. just throwing it out there. thoughts?
here is an idea i had. i'm sure it must have flaws, because it's so simple:
instead of creating a "bad" bank that buys up/houses all toxic loans, why not take a few hundred billion of gov't money and create a "good" bank and start loaning money to individuals (cars, homes, education) and businesses. don't staff it with gov't employees but try to recruit experienced bank executives from small community banks. sort of financial national service. a bankers peace corp. bankers and banks who spent the last few years doing "old fashioned" banking. sensible loans. there must be a surplus of small-town bankers who know common sense banking. once the bank is up and running, sell it to private investors. might this be the most direct way to get credit flowing? then, if big banks who created their own toxic loans go down, let them. they made their bed. if the issue is getting credit flowing_now_and then someday getting private capital to replace gov't funds, won't this be the most direct transparent way?
as i said, it seems so simple. it must have flaws. just throwing it out there. thoughts?
Dunno if its workable, but it seems consistent with the ideas by the guy DSteady linked to. The idea being that one way or another, the big banks that have failed have to be broken down to their component parts and the good parts sold off to smaller entities. Essentially an anti-trust action with the taxpayers taking a hit but decentralizing the mess. If we have banks that are "too big to fail", we need to break 'em down until they're not. Seems like there must be a number of ways to get to this end point. Are there other problems with this as a goal, given that there may be alternate ways of getting there?
-Ray
1centaur
02-14-2009, 07:44 PM
The good bank idea has been floated by very experienced economists, climb, so not bad for a marketing guy.
The risk might be that all business/capital/assets/employees head straight for the good bank, killing the old banks very quickly, with all the downsides that would come from that.
BTW, one of the advantages of the new Goldman Sachs as it became a commercial bank was that it was pretty clean.
Tobias
02-14-2009, 09:23 PM
I don't think might makes right.The “we won” card has indeed been played very often. And with all due respect to those who have pulled it, the real problem with it is that it implies Obama is not “president” of all Americans, but rather that he only represents (or should represent) those who voted for him.
Let’s see how long it takes someone to say “Bush did it too by not representing dems”. This of course makes it right and justifies it. :rolleyes:
Tobias
02-14-2009, 09:31 PM
Most of the analysis I've heard from economists I respect (from both sides of the aisle) seem to have their preferences for what is most stimulative, but I've also heard pretty widespread agreement that almost all spending, even down to putting sod on the Mall, creates or saves or extends jobs and is ultimately stimulative. There is a problem with looking at this job creation effort too simplistically. As an extreme example only to make the point clear, if we hired 2 million Americans to dig holes randomly, and another million to follow behind and cover them up, what would we have at the end of 5 years and billions of dollars spent? Basically nothing, right? Simply giving them the money as welfare would have the same effect since nothing useful is created.
I agree with others that simply creating jobs is not enough. If done wastefully – which government does better than anyone – we won’t get our money’s worth. Not that I support the stimulus plan, but if we are going to spend, shouldn’t we build stuff that helps long-term? Rebuilding or expanding our infrastructure so we can be more competitive in the future seems like a good place to start if done efficiently.
IMO all jobs are not created equal. We need to focus on efficiency, and the private sector does that better than government.
Climb01742
02-15-2009, 05:06 AM
The “we won” card has indeed been played very often. And with all due respect to those who have pulled it, the real problem with it is that it implies Obama is not “president” of all Americans, but rather that he only represents (or should represent) those who voted for him.
Let’s see how long it takes someone to say “Bush did it too by not representing dems”. This of course makes it right and justifies it. :rolleyes:
what i think many people, certainly i do, mean by that is: a different set of ideas and priorities won. contrary to what you say, obama is trying to be president to ALL americans. he tried to reach out to republicans. the town hall meeting in fla was in a district that voted decisively against him, yet he went there and met with an unscreened, unfiltered audience and took their questions. and now, he's getting out of washington at least once a week to meet with real people, not just washington politians.
america did vote for a different set of ideas. giving them time to work or not is, isn't it, the essence of what an election means? in his news conference, he openly addressed what might be the heart of this issue: when one party's position is "do nothing" and the other party's position is "we gotta do something", finding a middle ground is hard. it got him nowhere, but obama did try to be the president of both sides in this debate, so i'm not sure your point is true in this case.
Let’s see how long it takes someone to say “Bush did it too by not representing dems”. This of course makes it right and justifies it. :rolleyes:
I think it may have less to do with what the Prez is actually trying to do than what a lot of us perceive. And again, its just symptomatic of how polarized we seem to be. Because I didn't PERCEIVE that Bush was trying to be president to all Americans (specifically, me and those who thought like I did), I could accuse him of not being president to all Americans regardless of his intent or his efforts in this regard. Because you may not perceive Obama to be president to all Americans, you accuse him of the same thing.
I'm sure both, in their own minds and own strategies, felt like they were trying to reach out to those who didn't vote for them. To the extent that each fails, it may just be because the other side wasn't receptive to being reached out to. Perhaps because their opinions were just TOO different from what the president's direction was. I plead guilty under Bush - I didn't FEEL like he was my president, no matter how hard he might have been trying to be. And, at some point, I stopped even giving him a chance and beyond that there was probably almost nothing he could have done to change my mind. You may have the same feeling about Obama. To which I submit, there may not be much he can do about that short of changing his entire agenda. Which I obviously hope he does not do.
-Ray
There is a problem with looking at this job creation effort too simplistically. As an extreme example only to make the point clear, if we hired 2 million Americans to dig holes randomly, and another million to follow behind and cover them up, what would we have at the end of 5 years and billions of dollars spent? Basically nothing, right? Simply giving them the money as welfare would have the same effect since nothing useful is created.
I agree with others that simply creating jobs is not enough. If done wastefully – which government does better than anyone – we won’t get our money’s worth. Not that I support the stimulus plan, but if we are going to spend, shouldn’t we build stuff that helps long-term? Rebuilding or expanding our infrastructure so we can be more competitive in the future seems like a good place to start if done efficiently.
IMO all jobs are not created equal. We need to focus on efficiency, and the private sector does that better than government.
I agree that not all spending is created equally in terms of how useful it is to our future. We'd probably agree in some areas and differ in some areas about what types of projects should be funded. But in terms of whether the private sector or the government spends money more efficiently, I think that's only germain when the private sector is spending money. When its locked up and not spending, that's when the govt becomes the spender of last resort. The vast majority of the projects it creates to do this will be farmed out to the private sector to actually do the work and spend the money, but the govt has got to generate it or its not going to be generated. I don't think anyone disagrees that the private sector is where spending should come from in normal times. What we disagree on is whether government should start spending in these non-normal times. Its a legitimate disagreement.
-Ray
93legendti
02-15-2009, 08:19 AM
what i think many people, certainly i do, mean by that is: a different set of ideas and priorities won. contrary to what you say, obama is trying to be president to ALL americans. he tried to reach out to republicans. the town hall meeting in fla was in a district that voted decisively against him, yet he went there and met with an unscreened, unfiltered audience and took their questions. and now, he's getting out of washington at least once a week to meet with real people, not just washington politians.
america did vote for a different set of ideas. giving them time to work or not is, isn't it, the essence of what an election means? in his news conference, he openly addressed what might be the heart of this issue: when one party's position is "do nothing" and the other party's position is "we gotta do something", finding a middle ground is hard. it got him nowhere, but obama did try to be the president of both sides in this debate, so i'm not sure your point is true in this case.
Yes, and he did lie during his extended campaign conference. No pork? What about the pet pork projects in his state and smiling Harry Reid's state? NO R plan? Of course there is a R plan.
If the Pres. had read the R's plan (we know he didn't read the D's 1107 page plan-it hadn't been drafted yet), he'd have known that the R's plan was half the cost and would create 6 million jobs. And the jobs would not be temprorary, like those "created" for laying sod at the National Mall. I'm curious what the money in the spending paln for ACORN is supposed to do-other than bribe ACORN to support the President.
Jim, how do you defend the President's spending bill? A bill so crucial that it can't be read or debated; a bill so necessary that ONLY 7% OF THE $800 BILLION WILL BE SPENT IN 2009?
Tobias
02-15-2009, 10:09 AM
I’ve tried to communicate in the most civil tone I can, but unfortunately it keeps me from getting my point across – which I admit is frustrating. So I’m going to be more direct and to the point although I’m sure it will come across as way over the top. For that I apologize in advance.
We don’t live in a pure Democracy, do we? The majority doesn’t get a blank check – or isn’t supposed to – to do whatever they deem correct. That’s not the way our system of government is structured.
At a micro level, does anyone here honestly think it is right that if five thugs showed up at my place and decided because they outnumbered me five to one that that gives them the right to help themselves to my possessions, or that I should just go along with it because it’s five opinions against one?
Who are we kidding here? The numbers game is ludicrous because we are not a pure democracy. Those who play the “we won” card are missing the much bigger picture that is leading to unprecedented conflict. A majority can not do whatever they want at the expense of the minority – at least not yet.
What do you guys think is going to happen when a man ends up losing his home or business because he is “FORCED” by government to support another man’s stupid decision to buy a mansion in California, Florida, Nevada, or Arizona that he couldn’t afford in the first place? We are about to take money from financially “conservative” democrats and republicans alike and funnel it to people who took risks that didn’t pay off. We are about to embark on redistributing wealth from those who saved and were careful to those that were inept and/or reckless. I’m not sure it’s even constitutional and hope like hell it is challenged.
What you guys see as increasing divisiveness I see as the start of an unavoidable revolution-in-the-making because I for one will not stand idle while the “majority” takes what is rightfully mine just because you have the “numbers” on your side. If you continue on that path we are going to have even greater problems than the economy.
1centaur
02-15-2009, 10:15 AM
Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's reaching across the aisle was not done in a way that suggests genuine intent. It all looks like political posturing given the nature of the bill and how it became the bill, so I would not view anything he's done as being emblematic of trying to be everyone's President. If a Republican had won with 52% of the vote, pledged no earmarks, gone and talked to Democrats and then put out a bill written by long-term Reps on the Hill that he said was absolutely crucial to pass RIGHT NOW and that the Dems were a do nothing party and that was not acceptable for the American people, and that Reps WON, and the bill spent billions on NRA and right to life education programs, I'd like to think there'd be no doubt that this was not a genuine bipartisan effort.
The ACORN funding is a stick in the eye, screw you move; selling it in a national press conference as absolutely crucial to America now is utter hypocrisy. This type of behavior not only reveals character (and thus is not reversible) but it's bad politics. He's gone too far too fast with an arrogance and a blindness that reminds me of Bush in a way I completely did not expect. He will get less of what he wants over 4 or 8 years because of how he started.
Kirk007
02-15-2009, 11:33 AM
What you guys see as increasing divisiveness I see as the start of an unavoidable revolution-in-the-making because I for one will not stand idle while the “majority” takes what is rightfully mine just because you have the “numbers” on your side. If you continue on that path we are going to have even greater problems than the economy.
I understand this frustration and sentiment. It is the same I have felt for the past 8 years as the Bush Administration has failed to protect and often given away our country's. i.e. yours and mine, natural capital, to a small segment of private industry. Ironic that most of these programs were originally sold as "stimulus" measures to fuel our nation's expansion; they've now become essentially permanent giveaways at great tax payer loss. BTW, while I can't provide a citation right now, I have heard one leading evolutionary scientist repeat an estimate of the earth's natural capital and dwarfing the global GDP (or some similar economic measure - is point was that we are often destroying or giving away our greatest ultimate source of long term sustainable wealth).
That old "this land is my land, this land is your land" concept was repeatedly ignored for 8 years; in fact not just ignored but openly sneered at by the White House. If you want to understand some of the rage of the environmental community that helped fuel the energy behind Obama'a campaign, look no further than what you feel now. You now see your house and possessions being raided; I've seen my future generation's "homes" under attack, destroyed and given away for a long, long time. As new reports of worsening global warming trends (CNN story yesterday) and analysis of the troubles of coal power (NYT today), one thing is clear - lets hope that the private sector can come up with a carbon capture/storage technology that works and soon, and that we can start selling that technology to China and India and elsewhere ASAP. Otherwise our worldly possessions are really going to be at risk in the decades to come.
I’ve tried to communicate in the most civil tone I can, but unfortunately it keeps me from getting my point across – which I admit is frustrating. So I’m going to be more direct and to the point although I’m sure it will come across as way over the top.
...
What you guys see as increasing divisiveness I see as the start of an unavoidable revolution-in-the-making because I for one will not stand idle while the “majority” takes what is rightfully mine just because you have the “numbers” on your side. If you continue on that path we are going to have even greater problems than the economy.
Tobias. I hear your anger. Not for the first time. You seem to think that because you haven't convinced me or moved me to your side of the debate that I don't understand your point. I understand your point and your anger.
All I can do is echo Kirk's point that those of you who are pissed, REALLY PISSED, right now, didn't invent that feeling and don't have a monopoly on it. You don't want to lose any of "what's rightfully yours" in a material sense. I'd prefer nobody lost any money too, but we're all hemorrhaging money in fairly large sums these days. The question is how best to stop the bleeding. I accept the current plan as a good faith effort to do that. You don't. Fair enough.
In a less monetary sense, I feel like plenty of what was rightfully all of ours was raped and pillaged and basically left for scrap at the side of the road over the last eight years. Including the natural resources Kirk referred to, and rights that I consider sacred. Right or wrong, my anger and rage was every bit as real as yours appears to be now. Believe that.
The bottom line, and I know it will sound horribly insensitive (so I too apologize in advance), is that this is nowhere NEAR a revolution in the making. A revolution in the making is when a small minority holds firm power over an oppressed majority, who finally blows a gasket and tears the society down from the bottom. Some on this forum, maybe you too, are all too familiar with what that looks like. In this country, when a minority of people are REALLY pissed, they do what they can to change things and sometimes have some success. But well before it becomes a large enough majority to actually stage a revolution, we simply throw the bums out and try another approach. It's happened in any number of elections. And it just happened in the last one. About 65-70% of our population got to the point that they thought George Bush's policies were taking us straight in the wrong direction. There was no revolution, even if a few folks thought one was called for. There was an election instead.
At the moment, a sizable majority of Americans agree with Obama's general direction. I don't for a minute believe that his approval ratings will stay anywhere near as high as they are today for the next four years. And if you can convince enough people of the righteousness of your cause over the next four years, he'll get thrown out on his ass in 2012. If not, he'll serve eight. To me that's a better alternative to revolution, even when I'm pissed as hell.
You're pissed. I get it. I feel bad for you - I honestly do because I know how you feel and its no damn fun. But I still disagree with you.
-Ray
Climb01742
02-15-2009, 01:00 PM
there is a handful of us here on the forum who have kept this political and economic dialog going now, pre- and post-election, for months. i've learned some stuff. but based on this thread, i'm not sure we've moved each other very much, if at all, from our original POVs. which is cool. it's part of the beauty of america. but personally, i'm bowing out. back to the bike threads for me (i hope, if i can control myself) 100%. i truly appreciate the back and forth we've had. it's been both stimulating and frustrating, which i'm sure is true for you too. but i find myself getting too worked up over this stuff, to no real useful end. and i have this strange hunch: if we met, rode together and had a beer, i bet most of us would like each other. i'd like it to stay that way.
see you in the bike threads. :beer:
mschol17
02-15-2009, 01:15 PM
If the Pres. had read the R's plan (we know he didn't read the D's 1107 page plan-it hadn't been drafted yet), he'd have known that the R's plan was half the cost and would create 6 million jobs.
Look at the methodology of this claim and you'll see how false it is.
SamIAm
02-15-2009, 04:14 PM
Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's reaching across the aisle was not done in a way that suggests genuine intent. It all looks like political posturing given the nature of the bill and how it became the bill, so I would not view anything he's done as being emblematic of trying to be everyone's President. If a Republican had won with 52% of the vote, pledged no earmarks, gone and talked to Democrats and then put out a bill written by long-term Reps on the Hill that he said was absolutely crucial to pass RIGHT NOW and that the Dems were a do nothing party and that was not acceptable for the American people, and that Reps WON, and the bill spent billions on NRA and right to life education programs, I'd like to think there'd be no doubt that this was not a genuine bipartisan effort.
The ACORN funding is a stick in the eye, screw you move; selling it in a national press conference as absolutely crucial to America now is utter hypocrisy. This type of behavior not only reveals character (and thus is not reversible) but it's bad politics. He's gone too far too fast with an arrogance and a blindness that reminds me of Bush in a way I completely did not expect. He will get less of what he wants over 4 or 8 years because of how he started.
Well said. There are a few certainties regarding this bill regardless of what side you are on.
It was never a genuine bipartisan effort.
It is full of pork and pet projects.
There is a rush to pass it before people understand all of whats in it or what it implies.
There will be consequences.
On a different note, I wish I were in business with 1centaur, he just makes a lot of sense and he clearly understands markets and money and I appreciate his perspective.
So I ask this question again, what is the right hedge against this package?
SamIAm
02-15-2009, 04:21 PM
One more question actually.
For the past year or so I have been buying up foreclosures and short sales, renovating when necessary and renting them out, 6 months later I take 75% cash out which typically covers the purchase price and renovations. The rent averages 150% of the mortgage.
I assume others do this as well. Isn't this the way we really get out of this mess?
1centaur
02-15-2009, 05:47 PM
The hedge against the package might have long- and short-term answers. Short term, the pork will make it less effective than it could have been - will it be effective enough? If you think not, don't buy the stock market, or short it if you're brave enough to think you're right. If you think the package is a sign of what's to come on health care (ramming stuff through with a cavalier attitude), there might be some health care stocks to short. If you think the fiscal discipline that Obama promises to be necessary as soon as the stimulus has done its job means more taxes (rather than less spending) farther down the income scale ("we're just gonna have to ask for a little more from the people who are doing well"), plus surtaxes on the rich that are claimed to be temporary (that nobody will believe are temporary), you might think muni bonds in well funded states but don't go too long on the curve if you're worried about inflation from all this money creation that might not be withdrawn efficiently.
Speaking of inflation, the dollar will stay relatively strong until Europe has been fully engulfed, but longer term anti-growth tax policies and government inefficiency are inherently a problem for a vibrant economy. Put more money overseas where the demographics will work for you regardless of the governmental policies (within reason). Somewhere along the line, buy oil stocks, because we're decades from a green energy system.
If enough speculators have the will, the check book and the financing to buy foreclosures and rent them out, that will definitely halt the housing price decline and allow mortgage-backed securities to be priced more accurately. That's a lot of ifs now but there will be a when.
CNY rider
02-15-2009, 05:57 PM
So I ask this question again, what is the right hedge against this package?
There is ultimately one way out of this, and it's going to happen sooner or later: Inflation. Of this I am sure.
Monetization of debt is coming.
Just when you all got sick of listening to Uncle Ahneda.......
Protection: Precious metals.
TIPS if you believe that government will honestly report the rate of inflation.
I've also taken considerable exposure to Chinese stocks as I believe that if there is to be a bull market anywhere, it will be there.
1centaur
02-15-2009, 08:16 PM
There is ultimately one way out of this, and it's going to happen sooner or later: Inflation. Of this I am sure.
Well if you are sure about that, how about...irony drum roll...
a 5x levered bet on depressed real estate, paying back your low-cost leverage with inflated dollars?
I did my infinitesimal part today to help stimulate the economy by buying a small Samsung 1080P LCD HDTV / computer monitor for the kitchen/breakfast area. Not sure my spending helped much since it was made in China, but at least I tried.
The bottom line, and I know it will sound horribly insensitive (so I too apologize in advance), is that this is nowhere NEAR a revolution in the making. A revolution in the making is when a small minority holds firm power over an oppressed majority, who finally blows a gasket and tears the society down from the bottom. Some on this forum, maybe you too, are all too familiar with what that looks like. In this country, when a minority of people are REALLY pissed, they do what they can to change things and sometimes have some success. But well before it becomes a large enough majority to actually stage a revolution, we simply throw the bums out and try another approach. Technically speaking is there a difference between a revolution and a civil war? I don’t know, but even if there is, shouldn’t we be cognizant that it happened once before, and could happen again if we pi$$ each other off enough? Seems we should try harder to get along.
IMHO revolutions often start with just a few people. Not that it will here at all, but we should never underestimate the angry few. ;)
93legendti
02-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Ah, Chicago. The city that keeps on giving:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_us/burris_blagojevich_donation
I did my infinitesimal part today to help stimulate the economy by buying a small Samsung 1080P LCD HDTV / computer monitor for the kitchen/breakfast area. Not sure my spending helped much since it was made in China, but at least I tried.
Technically speaking is there a difference between a revolution and a civil war? I don’t know, but even if there is, shouldn’t we be cognizant that it happened once before, and could happen again if we pi$$ each other off enough? Seems we should try harder to get along.
IMHO revolutions often start with just a few people. Not that it will here at all, but we should never underestimate the angry few. ;)
Hey, we have to keep China's economy humming too. They're holding all of our paper, right? So, good job. Enjoy the TV.
Trying hard to get along is always the key. We do it pretty well in this country in general, probably because we have the outlet of elections to change things. But stressful times bring out the worst in people and we're entering a period of high stress for a lot of folks, so always important to redouble our efforts in that regard.
-Ray
CNY rider
02-16-2009, 06:58 AM
Well if you are sure about that, how about...irony drum roll...
a 5x levered bet on depressed real estate, paying back your low-cost leverage with inflated dollars?
I think you could do worse.
Obstacles I see: 1. The gubbmint is not allowing the market to perform price discovery in the RE market. Delayed foreclosures, cram downs etc. That's going to prolong the bottoming process.
2. Bubbles don't re-flate. At some point RE investors and speculators will do well, I'm sure, but it's not going to be like the old days for a long, long time. Buying RE now for the bounce is like buying stock in Cisco in late 2001.
The key to the next 5 years is figuring out the next "winner" asset class. Precious metals have done very well over the past 10 years but I think they have a rapid inflation phase still out ahead of them.
Another trading favorite: TBT. Would prefer to simply short Treasury futures but I don't trade futures. **Disclaimer: TBT is just a trading vehicle and don't try this at home.**
michael white
02-16-2009, 08:46 AM
I don't know, . . despite wonderful flashes of insight, this thread doesn't feel like a discussion . . . it's more stubbing one's toe on the wall of partisanship. For the past 8 years, liberals like me were saying, look: there will be consequences, this is wrong. We were right. Now we're the majority, and the country will follow policies that will sometimes not reflect your views, if you're a conservative. You will likely feel highly uncomfortable, though let's hope not as uncomfortable (enraged) as two-thirds of the country became with the past administration.
My hope (and I presume, Obama's) is that, alienated as you feel, you will not be as deeply alienated and appalled by the horrendous and outright duplicitous mistakes inflicted by the WH upon the world as liberals have been for 8 years, because if you are, a good number of you will probably off yourselves. Anyway, so far, the president has gotten a bill passed and is acting in good faith to address the damage, and we'll see how it all works out.
Bush is out of office. let it go.
moveon.org.
My hope (and I presume, Obama's) is that, alienated as you feel, you will not be as deeply alienated and appalled by the horrendous and outright duplicitous mistakes inflicted by the WH upon the world as liberals have been for 8 years, because if you are, a good number of you will probably off yourselves. Anyway, so far, the president has gotten a bill passed and is acting in good faith to address the damage, and we'll see how it all works out.And where does that leave the 50 or 60 percent of moderate Americans who live in the middle – those who can’t identify with either Bush or Obama but don’t have a “moderate” party to follow? As ultra-liberals and -conservatives seesaw back and forth and become increasingly hostile with each exchange, the majority of us keep getting squeezed from both sides. I don’t know how, but it’s got to stop, don’t you think?
The other option is for America to become so polarized and so void of any middle ground that we are forced to take one side or the other – like brother against brother. And if we get there, IMO all hell is going to break loose. Is that what you want? :confused:
michael white
02-16-2009, 10:51 AM
Is that what you want?
no I want it to stop. A big test of Obama's tenure will be whether it does or not, and if it doesn't I imagine there will be real challenge in four years. We didn't hold the last president to any standard on that issue, I suppose maybe because we were (are) at war, and it was felt he needed some leeway on stuff like that.
And where does that leave the 50 or 60 percent of moderate Americans who live in the middle – those who can’t identify with either Bush or Obama but don’t have a “moderate” party to follow? As ultra-liberals and -conservatives seesaw back and forth and become increasingly hostile with each exchange, the majority of us keep getting squeezed from both sides. I don’t know how, but it’s got to stop, don’t you think?
The parties go back and forth in terms of who holds the middle. For the moment, at least, the Dems have it. You see Obama as an ultra-liberal, but given his current approval ratings, the vast majority of that 50-60% of people in the middle don't. Obviously his approval ratings one month into his administration don't mean much for the long term. Maybe in time he'll be seen as an ultra-liberal and we'll have another failed presidency. I hope not. I hope he keeps trying to bring Republicans into the process or, short of having any success at that, I hope his programs and policies do enough good for a large enough percentage of people that he continues to stay popular. If not, we have a corrective mechanism in place for that.
I saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative ideologue while some huge percentage of the public thought he was hunky dory. As hard as it is to admit, that obviously says more about my extremism than his. In retrospect, he did some important and good things (although I still think he did some really BAD things too, but most folks don't). I saw Bush the same way and ultimately the vast majority of the public came to agree with me on that one, but didn't for a few years. If you see Obama that way today, when 60-70% of folks don't, you might need to look in the mirror too. Maybe history will prove you correct, but based on my own humbling experience, I wouldn't be too sure.
-Ray
You see Obama as an ultra-liberal, but given his current approval ratings, the vast majority of that 50-60% of people in the middle don't.
........snipped...........
I saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative ideologue while some huge percentage of the public thought he was hunky dory. As hard as it is to admit, that obviously says more about my extremism than his. In retrospect, he did some important and good things (although I still think he did some really BAD things too, but most folks don't). I saw Bush the same way and ultimately the vast majority of the public came to agree with me on that one, but didn't for a few years. If you see Obama that way today, when 60-70% of folks don't, you might need to look in the mirror too. Maybe history will prove you correct, but based on my own humbling experience, I wouldn't be too sure.
-RayNews flash Ray – when you were saying about a year ago that you were a moderate and insisted you were not a liberal, I felt certain it was mostly posturing on your part to convince others that Obama was not a die-hard liberal. You can’t really think most of us haven’t known your true colors for some time, right? ;)
I see Obama as a liberal because he is a liberal – not that there is anything wrong with that.
You saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative because you are a liberal – not that there is anything wrong with that.
I am a moderate, not an ultra-conservative as you are now trying to paint me in order to do the same thing you did a year ago but in reverse – to influence the opinions of others by association. By trying to label me a conservative I’m guessing you think it will diminish my concerns about Obama to moderates, right?
It’s good for a laugh, but intelligent people are not so easily swayed. Regardless I hope you keep trying because it is entertaining. :beer:
goonster
02-16-2009, 12:03 PM
You saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative because you are a liberal
He saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative thirty frickin' years ago.
News flash Ray – when you were saying about a year ago that you were a moderate and insisted you were not a liberal, I felt certain it was mostly posturing on your part to convince others that Obama was not a die-hard liberal. You can’t really think most of us haven’t known your true colors for some time, right? ;)
I see Obama as a liberal because he is a liberal – not that there is anything wrong with that.
You saw Reagan as an ultra-conservative because you are a liberal – not that there is anything wrong with that.
I am a moderate, not an ultra-conservative as you are now trying to paint me in order to do the same thing you did a year ago but in reverse – to influence the opinions of others by association. By trying to label me a conservative I’m guessing you think it will diminish my concerns about Obama to moderates, right?
It’s good for a laugh, but intelligent people are not so easily swayed. Regardless I hope you keep trying because it is entertaining. :beer:
Two can play brother. To half-assed quote Jeff Foxworthy, if you think Obama's an ultra-liberal, you MIGHT just be a conservative.
Look, I freely admit that I'm way left of center in the America of today. The thing I find interesting is that I've consistently become more conservative as I've aged, but the nation has moved further right faster, so on a relative scale, I'm more liberal today than I was when Reagan was elected, despite being more conservative in absolute terms. My positions today are pretty frickin' similar to a lot of Republicans I couldn't stand in the '70s. Nixon would be seen as a screamin' liberal today. As a youth, I supported the welfare state and didn't give a rip about balanced budgets or national defense. As an adult, I grew to strongly support welfare reform (one of the things I've come to like about Reagan was that he started a serious conversation about that, even if it took Clinton and a GOP congress to get it done), I'm for a strong national defense (not the Bush version however), and until the last year or so, I've been a strong deficit hawk since Reagan started running up deficits. I think at times like these, being a deficit hawk is crazy, but we should have been running close to balanced budgets up until the last couple of years instead of running up huge debts in times of prosperity. I'm pretty liberal about WHAT we spend on, but not how much, at least in normal times.
All that aside, I don't give a rip how you want to define me. Everyone has their own scale about what constitutes liberal and conservative. I'm just saying that your opinion seems pretty well out of the mainstream today (at least until the mainstream shifts again, which I freely admit it may), as mine was 25-30 years ago. You can define me however you want - I'm just suggesting that some time in front of the mirror might be instructive too.
-Ray
Two can play brother. To half-assed quote Jeff Foxworthy, if you think Obama's an ultra-liberal, you MIGHT just be a conservative.No we can’t; because I’m not going to engage in the same game you’ve used to attack those who disagree with your views. If you want to look in the mirror go ahead, but forget the political discourse and focus on how you treat people in order to win an argument.
I see patterns, and when you and others beyond the left field fence don’t like what anyone says you immediately go on the attack by accusing them of sitting behind the right field fence and of being worse than you rather than debating the issues on merits. And when that doesn’t work to your satisfaction, you accuse the person of being an extremist right-winger who hates polar bears and spotted owls. And if that doesn’t do it, you accuse them of being a racist to completely discredit any opinion they may have had.
That kind of childish behavior may make some angry but won’t work on me. You can call me a conservative all you want if it makes you feel better, more powerful, or empowered, but all it has done in confirm what I’ve known for a while -- people like you are best ignored if at all possible. Sometimes it takes me a while to accept the unavoidable.
BTW, if you continue to have a problem with me misrepresenting myself, we can always settle this in other ways. You are essentially calling me a liar and I don't appreciate it. :(
out of curiousity... what is the longest a thread has gone on before getting locked?
BTW, if you continue to have a problem with me misrepresenting myself, we can always settle this in other ways. You are essentially calling me a liar and I don't appreciate it. :(
I'm merely saying ANY of us is apt to mis-represent ourselves, not out of malice but because NONE of us can be truly objective about our own views and we all like to see ourselves in the best light. I've owned up to that. You can or not - I don't give a rats ass. If you want to twist that into me calling you a liar and you choose to take it upon yourself to interpret my intent, there's nothing I can do about that.
Later,
-Ray
out of curiousity... what is the longest a thread has gone on before getting locked?
I dunno, but this one has gone on way past long enough. I apologize for my role in it. I was in it, then I got disgusted and was out of it. And then I couldn't help myself and got back in. I should have stayed out. Apologies to all.
-Ray
Pete Serotta
02-16-2009, 03:05 PM
Closed per BRUCE K!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.