The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Well General Motors, Chrysler and Ford are knocking at the door of the gov asking for 50000 milions dollars. Money coming too from the taxes, of course. Anyway this is how it seems it's gonna be. Roosevelt may be Obama's fav president or so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal
-
deKooningartist:
_You are reading and making alot of assumptions into my post! My goodness. You are being so defensive :_wink: Re-read what I posted. How have I judged Obama harshly???? I simply stated that the reason (and I'm not the only one, this comes from the floor of the exchange) there was such a huge drop after the election was due to the increase of capital gains in 2009 per Obama's plan. People are going to take advantage of the current rates. That's just common sense. Any 'change' good or bad is going to effect the market. I never once stated or even eluded to any other issue effecting the market-I agree there are many. I was responding to why the drop after the election and one of the reasons why. Threat of tax increases, the market goes crazy. You can't expect to tell people their taxes will increase and they just sit back and watch it happen. No - they start dumping stock and re-evaluating their portfolios. That's what happens. And by the way, I totally agree with you. The spending in the last 8 years is beyond sickening and it came from both sides of the isle.
Okay then, I'll rephrase - would you be so cynical about McCain's approach and would you attribute all stock market fluctuations to him in the week of his election? You're right that in the last two years, the Democrats are as responsible as the Republicans for not reigning in spending. That's why congress is so unpopular, because they failed to act as a check on the White House as they promised to. Naturally, if they had done what they were put there to do, Republicans would be moaning about that too. As for the six years before that, Republicans have no-one to blame but themselves and equally, they have no-one to blame but themselves for any pain that comes from cleaning up after eight years of spending like someone else was paying. Common sense also dictates that after so much wild spending and ongoing commitments like a couple of wars that a new administration can't just switch off and a trillion dollar bank bailout, you're not going to get the nation out of debt by spending cuts alone. Sacrifices will have to be made.
-
The US auto makers have been resisting government intervention demanding higher cafe standards (more fuel efficient vehicles) all the time losing market share to other countries who were building the fuel efficient cars that americans have been buying. They have been poorly managed and influenced by the oil industry to build big gas gussers vehicles like hummers and others SUVs. They deserve to fail but unfortunately they are huge employers so I doubt they will be allowed to fail. The US is bleeding jobs that is one of our biggest problems. We have so many problems but Obama will have to start with the economy which is in meltdown. Update: I understand that if they are given any government aid it will be required that they use much of it for fuel efficient vehicles.
-
jaipur:
Last time I looked, capital gains result from portfolios performing.....since they haven't been not sure if much is to be gained by raising taxes.....at least not right away.
Anyone who still had money in the stock market at the beginning of last week ought to be able to claim it as a charitable donation.
-
The top 10% of government office positions, including the congress and senate, should be strictly volunteer.......in order to strike a fair and truly balanced structure to our leadership And, of course this is going over your head @ the speed of light squared! Why wouldn't it ?
-
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the hand-wringing over the stock market seems to be based on the assumption that what's good for the market is good for the country. I submit that it ain't necessarily so. Again I ask, what happened to sacrifice? What happened to putting country first? Or is that just something that other people are supposed to do? Who are these people pulling their money out, and why are they putting profit before patriotism? Ask not what your country can do for you.
-
mustangsally10:
The US auto makers have been resisting government intervention demanding higher cafe standards (more fuel efficient vehicles) all the time losing market share to other countries who were building the fuel efficient cars that americans have been buying. They have been poorly managed and influenced by the oil industry to build big gas gussers vehicles like hummers and others SUVs. They deserve to fail but unfortunately they are huge employers so I doubt they will be allowed to fail. The US is bleeding jobs that is one of our biggest problems. We have so many problems but Obama will have to start with the economy which is in meltdown. Update: I understand that if they are given any government aid it will be required that they use much of it for fuel efficient vehicles.
Losing jobs is everybody all around the world problem, not a USA thing. They are employers.... yes, but they can run to another country when they want too... you know. Then it's much worse, they have used the aids of one country and then they run away. For instance the biggest auto makers in Spain has being receiving helps of the gov for years, but they plan to move to a poorest country anyway... what about helping the people instead of the companies? It's people paying (money from their taxes) money for some companies to continue to exist in that country and having profits, etc, The poor helping the rich
-
Bill:
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the hand-wringing over the stock market seems to be based on the assumption that what's good for the market is good for the country. I submit that it ain't necessarily so. Of course, not at all. I mean only the stock market!, the stock market is not the country at all, it is not you it is not me... well... Again I ask, what happened to sacrifice? What happened to putting country first? Or is that just something that other people are supposed to do? Who are these people pulling their money out, and why are they putting profit before patriotism? Ask not what your country can do for you.
In capitalism profit is way more important than patriotism (and that anything). Anyway, selling your stocks is not anti-patriotic at all.... well, if it's going down is cause they're selling them cheaper than the past prices, so really they're making easier for some people to buy them, so actually when it goes down, they're helping the country. (But that's not what they want to do)
-
Anyone who feels strongly enough can make their suggestions here: http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision
-
Bill:
jaipur:
Last time I looked, capital gains result from portfolios performing.....since they haven't been not sure if much is to be gained by raising taxes.....at least not right away.
Anyone who still had money in the stock market at the beginning of last week ought to be able to claim it as a charitable donation.
This is one of the best one liners I've heard in a long time
-
21st Century Paul:
mustangsally10:
The US auto makers have been resisting government intervention demanding higher cafe standards (more fuel efficient vehicles) all the time losing market share to other countries who were building the fuel efficient cars that americans have been buying. They have been poorly managed and influenced by the oil industry to build big gas gussers vehicles like hummers and others SUVs. They deserve to fail but unfortunately they are huge employers so I doubt they will be allowed to fail. The US is bleeding jobs that is one of our biggest problems. We have so many problems but Obama will have to start with the economy which is in meltdown. Update: I understand that if they are given any government aid it will be required that they use much of it for fuel efficient vehicles.
Losing jobs is everybody all around the world problem, not a USA thing. They are employers.... yes, but they can run to another country when they want too... you know. Then it's much worse, they have used the aids of one country and then they run away. For instance the biggest auto makers in Spain has being receiving helps of the gov for years, but they plan to move to a poorest country anyway... what about helping the people instead of the companies? It's people paying (money from their taxes) money for some companies to continue to exist in that country and having profits, etc, The poor helping the rich
Everytime I have heard Obama speak about the US auto industry in the past few weeks he has mentioned that they have to not only build more fuel efficient vehicles but also build them in the US. So I'm sure that those stipulations will be included in any bailout. I think they ought to get rid of their current management too.
-
Bill:
Anyone who feels strongly enough can make their suggestions here: http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision
I guess that is for USA people.
-
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry His last days will be used with him trying to bankrupt the american citizens even more. His list of pardons will probably have to include himself Obama has had a team working to identify items that he wants to reverse asap when he gets into office I hope this is one of them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155_pf.html
-
mustangsally10:
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry
So the Democrats and President Elect Obama did not support the bailout??? Remember the Dems have the majority in Congress. I remember Pelosi, Reid and other top Dems standing behind Bush's plan and accusing the Republicans for not supporting the plan. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/deal_reached/index.htm?postversion=2008092513
....But shortly after 10 p.m., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lead House Democrat on the issue who had been in close talks with Paulson for days, accused Republicans of refusing to negotiate. "At this point, we have absolutely no participation or cooperation from House Republicans," Frank said
If you want to blame the Bush administration for the bailout plan, you have to include the congress who approved it. And remember, the Democrats have the majority.
-
mustangsally10:
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry His last days will be used with him trying to bankrupt the american citizens even more. His list of pardons will probably have to include himself Obama has had a team working to identify items that he wants to reverse asap when he gets into office I hope this is one of them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155_pf.html
Well, the same can be stated than with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.... banks are employers. And AIG too... Though with enough credit... anyone can be an employer.
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry
So the Democrats and President Elect Obama did not support the bailout??? Remember the Dems have the majority in Congress. I remember Pelosi, Reid and other top Dems standing behind Bush's plan and accusing the Republicans for not supporting the plan. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/deal_reached/index.htm?postversion=2008092513
....But shortly after 10 p.m., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lead House Democrat on the issue who had been in close talks with Paulson for days, accused Republicans of refusing to negotiate. "At this point, we have absolutely no participation or cooperation from House Republicans," Frank said
If you want to blame the Bush administration for the bailout plan, you have to include the congress who approved it. And remember, the Democrats have the majority.
aahhh, did'nt really read the link I included did you? Here's a recipe for you: SOUR GRAPES Juice drink recipes yield a single serving of 6 to 10 ounces. If sugar or honey is listed, add juice after juicing. 1 lime, peeled 2 cups red grapes Directions: process in blender, then serve
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry
So the Democrats and President Elect Obama did not support the bailout??? Remember the Dems have the majority in Congress. I remember Pelosi, Reid and other top Dems standing behind Bush's plan and accusing the Republicans for not supporting the plan. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/deal_reached/index.htm?postversion=2008092513
....But shortly after 10 p.m., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lead House Democrat on the issue who had been in close talks with Paulson for days, accused Republicans of refusing to negotiate. "At this point, we have absolutely no participation or cooperation from House Republicans," Frank said
If you want to blame the Bush administration for the bailout plan, you have to include the congress who approved it. And remember, the Democrats have the majority.
This comes from the Huffington Post! Totally not conservative
But the Congressional Democrats, who mostly despise Bush, are also mostly for the Bush plan. Sure, they made some cosmetic changes in the bailout proposal, but they have never wavered in their basic endorsement. So who's against the plan? It's Congressional Republicans who are getting in the way. They are the heroes of the hour. Although outnumbered, these brave Capitol Hill GOPers have stopped official Washington in its tracks. Why? Because the Democratic majority, supporting the bailout, doesn't actually dare to vote for it unless they know that most Republicans will vote for it, too. And that's because the Democrats fear that this bailout legislation is deeply unpopular with the country. So the only way that Democrats can vote for the bill and be safe this November is if Republicans also put their names on the legislative dotted line. Not a profile in courage for Democrats, of course, but it's smart practical politics for them to demand some "cover." But let's step back a minute. How did it come to pass that President Bush is siding with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? What thought process led the administration to support a big-government bill that the Republican grassroots all despise? Bush, of course, never met a Cheney-esque secret plan that he didn't like. And it would also seem that seven-and-three-quarters years in office have totally disconnected him from rank-and-file Republicans. Remember his support for the ill-fated immigration "amnesty" bill back in 2004? And after that misguided legislation was beaten back, he proposed it again in 2007. What was he thinking? For their part, the Democrats are emerging as the new party of the rich, the party of Wall Street, the party that champions financiers at the expense of producers. For years now, the most affluent precincts in the country -- mostly on the two coasts -- have been solidly Democratic. And in 2008, the polls show that upper-income voters mostly support Barack Obama. And Obama, of course, guided by the likes of Robert Rubin, has been quietly supportive of the deal. Indeed, Obama personally epitomizes the Democrats' new political arrangement: He was raised mostly poor, then worked mostly with the poor, but now he is rich and works mostly with the rich -- his campaign is a well-financed corporation. Yet he has maintained his popularity with the poor. For their part, the Republicans now represent the majority of middle-income voters -- Main Street. But the Democrats, with their political pincer movement, from the rich above and the poor below, have the clear electoral advantage in 2008. So it's understandable that the Democrats would want to take care of "their" people at the top. That's the revised Democratic model: The same old socialism for the poor, of course, in the form of the bureaucratic welfare state, and a new kind of socialism for the rich, in the form of this bailout. In addition, the Democrats have some sordid secrets to protect -- and Paulson & Co. are helping them keep hidden. Much of the overall financial crisis can be traced back to bad mortgages made to unqualified buyers at the behest of Democratic poverty advocates; it was a neat arrangement, poor Democrats got houses, as rich Democrats got richer by manipulating the financial paper. But the Bush administration, eager for a deal with the Democrats, has made it clear that it won't point fingers. For their part, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) are returning the favor by pushing the bill forward.
Oliver, is it as big of a mess in Spain??? This is why I stick with smaller government. Less money for these clowns to screw up on both sides of the isle!!!
-
Get a Grip...people are suffering because of the economic situation
-
mustangsally10:
Get a Grip...people are suffering because of the economic situation
I never said there was not. I am responding to your statements of Bush's evil bailout plan. Just a gentle reminder of what actually occured. People are suffering due to these idiots in congress. You are the one that started the finger pointing. Now you are calling foul play????
-
deKooningartist:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
Here is more evidence of the bu$h administration quietly trying to give more taxpayers money to the banking industry
So the Democrats and President Elect Obama did not support the bailout??? Remember the Dems have the majority in Congress. I remember Pelosi, Reid and other top Dems standing behind Bush's plan and accusing the Republicans for not supporting the plan. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/deal_reached/index.htm?postversion=2008092513
....But shortly after 10 p.m., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lead House Democrat on the issue who had been in close talks with Paulson for days, accused Republicans of refusing to negotiate. "At this point, we have absolutely no participation or cooperation from House Republicans," Frank said
If you want to blame the Bush administration for the bailout plan, you have to include the congress who approved it. And remember, the Democrats have the majority.
This comes from the Huffington Post! Totally not conservative
But the Congressional Democrats, who mostly despise Bush, are also mostly for the Bush plan. Sure, they made some cosmetic changes in the bailout proposal, but they have never wavered in their basic endorsement. So who's against the plan? It's Congressional Republicans who are getting in the way. They are the heroes of the hour. Although outnumbered, these brave Capitol Hill GOPers have stopped official Washington in its tracks. Why? Because the Democratic majority, supporting the bailout, doesn't actually dare to vote for it unless they know that most Republicans will vote for it, too. And that's because the Democrats fear that this bailout legislation is deeply unpopular with the country. So the only way that Democrats can vote for the bill and be safe this November is if Republicans also put their names on the legislative dotted line. Not a profile in courage for Democrats, of course, but it's smart practical politics for them to demand some "cover." But let's step back a minute. How did it come to pass that President Bush is siding with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? What thought process led the administration to support a big-government bill that the Republican grassroots all despise? Bush, of course, never met a Cheney-esque secret plan that he didn't like. And it would also seem that seven-and-three-quarters years in office have totally disconnected him from rank-and-file Republicans. Remember his support for the ill-fated immigration "amnesty" bill back in 2004? And after that misguided legislation was beaten back, he proposed it again in 2007. What was he thinking? For their part, the Democrats are emerging as the new party of the rich, the party of Wall Street, the party that champions financiers at the expense of producers. For years now, the most affluent precincts in the country -- mostly on the two coasts -- have been solidly Democratic. And in 2008, the polls show that upper-income voters mostly support Barack Obama. And Obama, of course, guided by the likes of Robert Rubin, has been quietly supportive of the deal. Indeed, Obama personally epitomizes the Democrats' new political arrangement: He was raised mostly poor, then worked mostly with the poor, but now he is rich and works mostly with the rich -- his campaign is a well-financed corporation. Yet he has maintained his popularity with the poor. For their part, the Republicans now represent the majority of middle-income voters -- Main Street. But the Democrats, with their political pincer movement, from the rich above and the poor below, have the clear electoral advantage in 2008. So it's understandable that the Democrats would want to take care of "their" people at the top. That's the revised Democratic model: The same old socialism for the poor, of course, in the form of the bureaucratic welfare state, and a new kind of socialism for the rich, in the form of this bailout. In addition, the Democrats have some sordid secrets to protect -- and Paulson & Co. are helping them keep hidden. Much of the overall financial crisis can be traced back to bad mortgages made to unqualified buyers at the behest of Democratic poverty advocates; it was a neat arrangement, poor Democrats got houses, as rich Democrats got richer by manipulating the financial paper. But the Bush administration, eager for a deal with the Democrats, has made it clear that it won't point fingers. For their part, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) are returning the favor by pushing the bill forward.
Oliver, is it as big of a mess in Spain??? This is why I stick with smaller government. Less money for these clowns to screw up on both sides of the isle!!!
less money? Have you ever though how a big "business" wars are, and all the interests around them? Anyway the point is not the army but the rest of the spending... well, do you think that your money is safer in private corporations hands that in government hands? I mean the banking system... I don't think so. It's a bit safe in government hands. Hey!, a bit only, there's gonna be corruption anyway, but the private business is much worse.