Barack Obama, our next President

GetRidofRitter wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, well buddy, thanks to the Democratic controlled state legislature here I am paying property taxes on a value that isn't there anymore, my car registration went up forty bucks for nothing, and I am financially getting further and further behind. Throw in the stupid Dems in DC and I am screwed without getting kissed. I am NOT in the medical or insurance field. You are a moron. Why don't you STFU idiot.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>I feel your pain pal, looks like gubbmint has us both by the shorthairs eh? So, what do you propose going forward? And be honest, if that's not too difficult.

GetRidofRitter wrote:

<quoted text>
Honesty is not difficult for me, how about you. Replace the President, his cabinet, Congress and all state politicians with anyone other than a Democrat or Republican. It will never happen, both parties are blind especially the Dems. Americans are too stupid to see what is happening and the consequences of the current administrations actions. Since the Hopi say the world ends December 21, 2012, it doesn't matter anyway. Well, if that little f*cker in North Korea doesn't get us first.

Judged:

1

1

1

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Leave Clinton out of this, he picked up the pieces of failed Republican policy and set Humpty back up on the wall albeit with a few bandages. No one in their right mind regrets the Clinton era, except maybe Monica.
My references are not handpicked to represent my point of view but are factual in every regard__ask Lynn, she's actually taken the few moments necessary to explore and learn. Your references on the other hand amount to reactionary criticisms for US laws, policies and procedures that have developed over long periods of time and through various political climates.
What's important Carol? Clinton said it best, "It's the economy stupid" and Bush let the economy go straight to hell through mismanagement and through putting party and friends above nation and now we're ALL scarood, every one of us posting on these boards has LESS than they did just 8 years ago including you.

Judged:

1

1

1

Franklin Ratliff wrote:

<quoted text>
I listened to a program on NPR in which they interviewed an economist for the International Monetary Fund about the banking and financial crisis. He said through the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies the total debt owed by private American citizens to financial institutions bounced along at varying percentages without ever going above 50% of GDP, until the eighties (UNDER REAGAN) when it began exceeding 50%.
There have only been two years in history in which the debt owed by American citizens reached 100% of GDP. The first time was 1929 (UNDER HOOVER). The second time was 2007 (UNDER BUSH).
Federal housing data reveal that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Now Frankie, you really must stop it. You are being very rude and inconsiderate, Franklin. You are taking up too many post spaces with the same old post. You are starting to give us the impression that you may have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). Now, find something else to post or go play in your room.

Realtime wrote:

OK, point for Carol. Bush did not personally tank the economy! The economy tanked while Bush was in office. The numerous reasons can be found among the preceding 7,862 posts. When the nations economy sours consumers lose confidence and spend less compounding the problem, under Bush consumer confidence nose dived. The Obama administration is working with the house and senate towards restoring consumer confidence through stimulus programs most of which are targeted.
As you have noticed by now, many believe that throwing money at the problem(s) is the wrong approach and would prefer letting nature take it's course.
It doesn't take much of a leader to stand by and watch the ship sink does it?

Patrick Kenzie wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone can edit and post on YouTube.
Seems the last resort of the desperate

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the rare confirmation that I am right. Please excuse me while I bask in the moment..........
Okay. The only difference between your idea of what is a stimulus and mine is the amount. How much money is really needed to give the economy a boost without putting us further and further into debt when the point of a stimulus is to stimulate the economy to reduce the debt?
How is throwing God-forsaken amounts of money at failed car companies a way of stimulating the economy when bankruptcy was an easy and prudent option to start over again - like the way it's supposed to happen in a free market.
How is spending an estimated 1.6 trillion MORE dollars on government run health care a way of stimulating an already teetering economy?
How is giving millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations such as ACORN and Americorps stimulating the economy when they are both gravely suspicious of being corrupt and heavily tied to the Democratic party, not to mention the president?
I could ask a few more "how is stimulating the economy" questions but I'm running out of room.
Stimulating the economy may have been a necessary evil, but it should have stopped with TARP. The economy and free market has a way of healing itself if left alone. The government's only job is to get out of the way. This administration is not stimulating anything but compounding everything. It's amazing to me and apparently millions of other Americans that this still eludes so many people. You included.

america loves rush wrote:

<quoted text> hopefully obama will get sick and pass away in his sleep.
then joe biden can take over and we all know the drive by media has no love for joe, so the democrats will lose the top position in 2012.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Well the money spent so far to salvage GM and Chrysler is far less than the money which would have been spent had the two automakers
collapsed which is exactly what would have happened. Carol, these deals were very complicated and cannot be explained in an editorial or on a talk show. The automotive experts are shocked by the way "all national media" are spewing misinformation regarding this subject. I've been reading the business sections of the Detroit Free Press and Toledo Blade each day as a way to keep informed. There is a reasonable chance that the GM deal will pay off perhaps as early as 2012. The jury is still out on Chrysler but the company did reopen 7 plants last week.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish no ill will on our president. However, I believe you were just being fascitious trying to set up the hypothetical of Biden being the president. What's funny is how everyone freaked out about Palin being only a heartbeat away. Yet, Biden is a walking comedy show. At least, Palin knew when to keep her mouth shut and did not insert foot everytime she opened it.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
I will admit I don't have my thumb on the pulse of the auto bailouts. However, a few reports I found tell a different story:
"The Chrysler bailout can be seen as a victory for the new American corporatism.'Corporatism' is an economic philosophy refined by Italy’s Mussolini, who urged corporations to support the state and for the state in turn to reward supportive corporations."
Another report:
"Ben Boychuk: Barack Obama's word is no longer Chrysler's or GM's bond. The president doesn't just risk destroying investors' confidence in American markets for years to come. By saving the automakers from going out of business, the administration has dealt a body blow to constitutional government itself."
Now, I don't know how credible either of these sources are but this is the mood and opinions that out there and shared by millions. No one will truly know the consequences had the car companies been allowed to solve their own financial problems. However, I once again rely on my common sense to tell me something's fishy.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>C'mon Carol, while Biden's mouth seems to have a sixth gear he's not inept. The guy has a better than average understanding of foreign and military affairs as well as banking and finance. He compliments Obama who, as we know, was not particularly strong on those important subjects.
To cast Biden off as some comedy show is really stretching it.

carol wrote:

Realtime, just to support my claim about the millions of Americans who feel as I do about the auto bailouts:
As reported in Kansas City Star:
"Only 21% of voters nationwide support a plan for the government to bail out General Motors as part of a structured bankruptcy plan to keep the troubled auto giant in business.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% are opposed to a plan that would provide GM with $50 billion in funding and give the government a 70% ownership interest in the company.
Even when presented with the stark choice between providing government funding or letting GM go out of business, only 32% of voters support the bailout. Most voters (56%) say it would be better to let GM go out of business."
Whether it was right or wrong, it looks as if you and others who support Obama in this bailout are in the minority.