More news on BO... Now he wants to move control of the US Census from the Commerce department to the friken Whitehouse. For those who don't know, the Census is used to determine how voting districts are defined, which has a huge effect on the outcomes of elections. Something like this should not be in the hands of any one party. It's nothing but a blatant power grab.

voting???
 

The voting districts are determined by local state legislators or in the case of Californa by a new special nonpartisan committee. In most cases, voting districts have been manipulated for many years to strengthen the incumbents chances of reelection. It's called gerrymandering.:frown:

News
 

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

No surprise there. The mainstream news has become Obama's corpse of press secretaries. The link I'm about to post will probably make your skin crawl, but nevertheless, the story is accurate. <link>.

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

News?
 

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.:frown:

Nah, even left wing bloggers and talk radio hosts are seated in front of Fox News at the Whitehouse press conferences now.

They are one group that is affected, and because of that they raised the issue. That doesn't change the fact that this has huge repercussions for future elections does it?

And Obama's campaign copied Rove's strategy to get into the Whitehouse. Fine. That's a campaign strategy. That's not the same as using the power of the executive branch to define political boundaries is it?

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?

Pig?
 

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!:censored::no::frown:

Well, wait a minute, Randolph -- now you're running circles around your OWN argument.

First of all, you said (quote): "This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!" So to begin, I'd ask: what the hell is wrong with that? While it sounds like a great sound bite at first -- I mean, my gosh! Counting people who aren't really there! What a dirty Republican trick! -- the issue is where were the missionaries? And even more to the point, the REAL question is: how long will they be gone for? Look, last time I checked, we have this thing called "absentee ballots." We recognize that someone who isn't home at the time of an election...in his actual voting district...should STILL maintain his full citizenship rights and they deserve to have their vote counted.

So if a Mormom missionary has taken on a 6-month assignment to preach in Africa or Ugakawakawakaland or wherever the heck he is, the POINT is that his legal residence is STILL in Utah and that's WHERE he'll be coming home to because that's where he freakin' lives. So NOT counting him is equally ridiculous. It's like saying right now "Let's take a 100% fair count of ALL Hollywood residents, to find out once and for all who ACTUALLY lives there" -- but just because I was visiting friends in Vegas this weekend and wasn't around, I shouldn't be added to the tally. As if a simple 2-day weekend trip away completely NEGATES my place of residence where I ACTUALLY do live the other 363 days of the year. That's just ludicrous.

The whole POINT of the national census is NOT to take a friggin' guess at who may or may not be living in an area, to just toss a dart at the wall and randomly pick any ol' number. The POINT of the Census has always been to know just how many people live in different areas, to get as EXACTING a count as possible. And when I say an "exacting count", I mean literally just that. An actual head count -- yes, even taking into account those people who weren't at home that day because they were on a trip. Because the bottom line is THEY'RE COMING BACK! BECAUSE THEY FUCKING LIVE THERE!

In fact, this is one instance where I'll be blunt and truly partisan: Obama and the Democrats are full of fucking SHIT on this Census issue. Trying to move it into the White House and under its direct control and away from the Commerce Department (where it has historically been) is clearly a move to pull another bullshit Acorn voting fraud stunt, a less than obvious ploy to ultimately manipulate the data to realign districts to their political favor.

For Heaven's sake, look at what you wrote above. Again, I quote: "Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door."

Gee, that's rather IRONIC, isn't it? After all, who could POSSIBLY debate that an actual physical head count isn't more accurate than trying to do an "mathematical estimate"? For fuck's sake, you're even using the word "estimate" which -- by pure definition -- acknowledges that it's NOT an accurate number. That it's a "best guess" number!

Not to mention, there's also the utter CROCK to this. I love that when it comes to the Census and counting heads and determining Congressional voting districts that the Democrats are in favor of "estimates" and "mathematical models" -- yet this is the same party that when it came to the infamous Florida recount wanted every hanging chad counted thrice over or even now in the still disupted Minnesota Senatorial election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman are arguing (again) that every single ballot must be found or uncovered at all costs to ACCURATELY determine who won.

Gee, funny how that Left wing hypocrisy works.
Things are only worth ACTUALLY counting so long as it will seal a Democratic win.
Otherwise, what the hell -- let's just take a guess and go with that.

Issues
 

The missionary issue was settled by the SUPREME COURT!

Obama is not taking over the census, the White House wants to review the operation of the census department. There is very little news out there on this issue. As usual Fox News picked this up and made a big deal out of it. If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage.

Randolph, take it easy. Don't read too much into the words, instead read between the lines. Tracy wasn't calling Obama a pig per se -- she was playfully and wittily using a line that came about during the Presidential campaign, which started when Sarah Palin made an infamous joke during her nomination convention speech, which is now part of pop culture, that compared Hockey Moms to pit bulls with lip stick...

...Which, shortly afterwards, Obama tried to mock during an appearance, but he stupidly mangled the words (later claiming he misspoke and was mentally exhausted from being on the campaign trail) where HE created a momentary political and media firestorm as many people felt HE had actually called Palin a pig.

Besides, purely on it's surface, you can take her words on face value for what they actually mean. Namely, you can't put lipstick on this Census pig and dress it up and pass it off for something it's not. The bottom line remains, as I explained in my post as well, that what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is to clearly circumvent particular government agencies to ultimately manipulate Census data, which in turn will affect Congressional redistricting. Any way you try to slice it, THAT'S what they're up to and everyone sees it for what it is. Hence her "lipstick on a pig" analogy is dead on target.

LMAO
It's an expression. And the pig I was referring to is the ISSUE of moving the Census to the Whitehouse.

Edited to add:
BTW, nice dodge. I almost forgot you still haven't answered my statement/question:
Let's go a step further...
This Emanuel guy is the Carl Rove of the democratic party. Would you be ok with Carl Rove overseeing the Census?

TOO...MANY...MOCKING...ANSWERS...FLOODING...INTO HEAD!
BRAIN OVERLOAD! CAN'T...PICK...JUST...ONE!!!

Obama isn't trying to do anything wrong.
"If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage."
>snicker< (wiping tears from my eyes)
Thanks for the best laugh I got all day with THAT one, Randolph! :lol:

Well I guess it is good to know that some people find our present situation humorous. Isn't laughter the best medicine? It's just hard for me to laugh when thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes.:frown:

Randolph, I COMPLETELY sympathize with the plight of people in need right now -- trust me, I know MORE than enough people facing some pretty dire situations right now. I live and work in Los Angeles/Hollywood and people are losing their jobs left and right do to the poor economy overall, which in turn is likewise shutting down productions (and other things) left and right in this town. Not to mention (and most people have forgotten this due to the national crisis) but out here -- even in the midst of this madness -- the Screen Actors Guild never did come to a new contract agreement and they're STILL threatening to go on strike and shut things down in this town 100%. And if that happens...coupled with the national crisis...you might as well kiss Los Angeles good-bye for years to come. This place will officially become a ghost town.

Hell, even as it is, you should kiss California all but good-bye. As of today, California is facing a $32 BILLION deficit with the stimulus plan possibly sending around $10 billion in bail out aid to the state. Which means we'd still be a whopping $22 Billion in the hole -- hence today's latest news that as of Friday Arnold will be laying off 20,000 state workers. Not to mention the state also has told the taxpayers they're NOT getting any tax refunds this year -- we're all getting fucking "IOU's" in the mail since the state is completely bust.

Of course this also leads to another political wildfire -- namely that in the midst of this, the LA TIMES just issued a news report tallying the cost of illegal immigrants here at $5 billion a year, while other studies show it running as high as $10 Billion. So at a time when the state is $32 Billion in the hole -- and nearly a THIRD of that loss is due to illegal aliens living here and draining public services dry -- this state is quickly becoming an economic, political, and societal powder keg.

Or as someone said on TV today (I forget who, but I caught the comment in passing and thought it was dead-on): "They say that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Well, if that's the case, WE'RE ALL SCREWED."

Anyway, the reason I made my humorous comment before was due to your one-two punch statement that IF Obama was doing anything wrong, it would get plenty of coverage. PUH-LEEZE. As the election showed, the media is SO in Obama's pocket and SO determined to back him and even protect him that you're right -- it isn't funny. In fact, it's sad. It's a sad day for democracy and honest journalism when we've reached that point.

An example off the top of my head: Chris Matthews on MSNBC going from being a firebrand and saying it was his job was to "relentlessly find the truth and ask hard questions of the Bush Administration" to him declaring on air that listening to Obama speak "sends a shiver up my leg" and that he now feels (and I quote): "It's my job now to make sure Obama succeeds." Excuse me? TO MAKE SURE he succeeds? Gee, I thought his job as a fucking journalist was to report the news, not SHAPE it.

So going back to your post and my reply, the notion of these clowns in the media reporting ANYTHING bad that Obama does is all but inconceivable at this point...

LOL :lol: LOL
Sorry HankyPanky... Obama sucks as a president so far, but at least he's continuing Bush's war.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

More Than 17,000 Troops Headed to Afghanistan

Yeah, funny isn't it. CNN forgot to report on this trivial bit of news.

In other news (that's off Randolf's radar), Feinstein was trying to slip something into the spendulous package that would require internet providers to guarantee that child pornography would not be transmitted through them. Sounds nice... BUT this would require ISPs to monitor your network activities, and slow down internet speeds so that packets could be analyzed. And once ISPs see what all us perverts are looking at on transladyboy, they'll probably not be happy with that and shut that down as well. Democrats will probably also want to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the internet as well so they can guarantee that what you're reading is fair and balanced according to them. Feinstein's initial attempt was stopped, but he was looking for other sneaky ways to stick it into the bill. I haven't heard yet if he was successful. No one really knows what other surprises are in that bill.

And if an additional $787 Billion to our debt weren't enough, now Barry wants to spend ANOTHER $50 Billion for people who are defaulting on their loans because ACORN insisted the government should give them the loans. Will the madness ever end? Nah, we're only at the beginning of what is likely going to be the longest 4 years in American history.

Oh My God!
 

Did you all see Frontline on PBS? Bernake et. al. are clue less they really have no idea how to deal with this crisis. They are just throwing money at it and hoping it works! God save us!:frown::censored::turnoff:

Well at least we can play with ourselves and dream about ladyboys. We don't need a loan for that unless we want to go to Thailand! ;):lol::turnon:

Treat
 

Here's a treat for all you Repubs. Yeah I know you don't need to say I told you so.:coupling::frown:

Well, politics have erupted yet again over that very cartoon you posted. Which everyone with a functioning brain should know combines two simple things -- the sad innocent that happened yesterday where an elderly woman was attacked by an out of control chimpanzee, which police then had to shoot AND the current economic crisis and the bailout bill, which polls show everyone basically hates and really was written by a bunch of dumb monkeys (ie. Congress).

Of course now the Left is out in force and all over talk shows, calling that cartoon a racist slur against Obama (even though the monkey is clearly meant to symbolize EVERYONE that's in government right now), plus they're bitching that the idea of even alluding to him being a chimp is demeaning to the office of the Presidency.

Which I find laugh out loud funny (and utterly hypocritical) since the far Left just spent the last 8 years openly calling and nicknaming Bush "the chimp".

So, I guess it was okay to label Bush a chimp or use images portraying him as a monkey, yet when you call Obama that it becomes grounds for censorship and demanded public apologies and all sorts of pther things. Which brings us full circle to my post above about the laughable idea that today's mainstream media will ever go after Obama fairly versus acting as his perpetual press secretary and protector.

Washington Monthly
 

Signs Of The Times

That the Financial Times has a headline that reads "Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization" is truly a sign that we live in strange, strange times. Any moment now the sun shall become as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon shall become as blood, and the stars of heaven shall fall unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind, and the seas shall turn to blood, and we shall hear an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

But in the general amazement, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that Alan Greenspan is not just one of the last people on earth I would have expected to endorse nationalization. He's also one of the people most responsible for the calamity that makes nationalization necessary (though as Yves Smith reminds us, he is not alone.) " "Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization" is not like "Hayek: Keynes Was Right!". I've been trying to figure out what it is like, and I've come up with a few possibilities:

"Kaiser Wilhelm Backs Surrender To France, Allies:
Wars Of Aggression Wrong, German Monarch Claims"

"Typhoid Mary: Attention To Hygienic Food Preparation Vital To Public Health"

"Mao Zedong Backs Privatization:
'Great Leap Forward' An Act Of Idiotic Hubris That Cost Millions Of Lives For No Earthly Reason, Dictator Concedes
Backyard Smelters 'Particularly Boneheaded'"

"Sherman To Atlanta: Oops! My Bad!"

"Alaric: Great Cities Should Be Left Unmolested:
'I Liked Rome Better Before We Sacked It', Visigoth Laments"

"Satan Backs Christ's Effort To Redeem Mankind On Cross:
Regrets Involvement In Fall"

So what do the Repubs think of this?;):confused:

Thou shalt not criticize Obama. That is illustrated in the mainstream media where hardly anyone noticed that Obama sent over 17000 troops to Afghanistan. And certainly no one here has criticized this when if Bush had done it, he would be called everything from Warmonger to Hitler.

There's also this:
Not to mention the troops he's committed to Afghanistan. Of course, I have no problem with this, but where is the outrage from all the peaceniks here? I guess it goes back to the Golden Rule: Thou Shalt Not Criticize Obama

Greenspan says it's necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks. And says "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."

As for his responsibility in the calamity. What did he do? Force Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to people who couldn't afford them? No... that was Carter & Clinton.

News
 

Latest news from Transmicro.

Dr. Lotta Cummings recently returned from Thailand and reported on her research. She analyzed the IQ of visitors to ladyboys before and after imbibing in ladyboy cum for several days. To her amazement, she found that IQ increased significantly after consuming ladyboy cum.

It occurred to me that this might be the solution to our problems in Washington. We should arrange for Hank to send a planeload of ladyboys to Washington for the exclusive use of politicians. ;):lol::cool:

There's a woman in my town who can't pay her mortgage. ACORN is coming to her rescue and organizing a sit in and saying she does not have to be evicted. Apparently they think the bank should just eat that loss. If banks can't depend on getting loans paid off, they might stop making loans. Oh wait... that's what was already happening. Let's see... who was behind that the first time? Oh yeah ACORN. The ones who are eligible for a 4 Billion dollar atta-boy from Obama's spendulous package.

Let's make a new welfare program... let's have the government start bailing out people who can't pay their mortgage. Gee now, what effect do you think that will have on the economy? Well Obama wants to find out.

That's right. A new multi-hundred billion dollar bailout package. And no, we don't have that money either.

10-05-08
Anyone listening to me yet?

So do you have a better idea?
Oh sure, people can sleep in their cars, but what if they have lost their car? Oh, to hell with them they are too stupid to worry about, let them find some cardboard to sleep under. After all we are a "poor" country, we cant afford to take care of ugh, poor people, its all their own fault anyway. Sighing on to easy loans on houses that would gain in value. After all the smartest people in the country believed that, even the great guru Mr. Greenspan believed it. Why should we question all that wisdom, I'm just a poor working stiff who wants a roof over my head.:frown:

Yes, Tracy's avatar is, indeed, cute... unfortunately her political views are not...

Obama is trying his best to clean up the Republican mess after eight years of insanely incompetent, corrupt and war-mongering policies. And obviously the Reps sit back and smile and think "how can YOU clean it up...?"

It may take a little while, but we're on the way, not least because President Obama acknowledges the fact that we're in this together. Geo and Dick only thought of their own wealth, not their country's (and certainly not the world's). They were the most dangerous administration that your country has ever had.

But the scorned Reps and hard core conservatives will for ever plead their lost case... keep in mind that their intellectual base is Hannity, Lambaugh, Wolfowitch and their kind... so what can we do? Not exactly rational ppl with a wish to move forward... but I guess that's what conservatism is all about... let's NOT move any where if not backwards.

F****** fascists!

H

You still haven't explained Greenspan's role in the financial crisis. Bush has been trying to warn congress starting in 2001 with this:
The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

And repeatedly warned congress throughout his 2 terms. He warned them 17 times in 2008 alone. Democrats continued to say Fannie & Freddie were fine right up until they collapsed. Perhaps it was those "smart people" you were listening to?

If anyone, from the US government down to Joe Blow, has financial problems and debt, you need to cut spending. The republican congress and Bush both had problems with this. $261 billion of our 2008 budget goes towards interest on the debt. So you need to cut spending. Quit living beyond your means, or else the debt will obviously continue to grow. And you'll have to cut it drastically just to be able to actually start reducing the debt. That's not what Obama wants to do though. His solution is to go orders of magnitude beyond the overspending that the republicans have done. Which will lead to hyper-inflation.

The American people are not too stupid to earn a living. But increasingly they have been getting too lazy, and they've been able to pull off being lazy because the democrats will side with them and say ohh poor us. We need a hand out. And increasingly the lazy are getting hand outs. Being lazy works for them. And it's working for that lazy idiot in my town who has ACORN flocking to her rescue.

Debt?
 

Ahem! Who created all this current debt?
If anyone, from the US government down to Joe Blow, has financial problems and debt, you need to cut spending. The republican congress and Bush both had problems with this. $261 billion of our 2008 budget goes towards interest on the debt. So you need to cut spending. Quit living beyond your means, or else the debt will obviously continue to grow. And you'll have to cut it drastically just to be able to actually start reducing the debt.

Also, it was not Milton Friedman who created this mess but his fiscal philosophy that dominated the Chicago school of economics in the 50s and 60s. The naive belief that capitalism can automatically regulate and control itself without government regulation. There is absolutely no evidence in history to support that belief. Capitalism is the way to generate wealth, no doubt. However, it must be carefully regulated to prevent excessive speculation and criminals like Madoff from screwing things up. Granted, when the good times roll every body wants to get into the act and commonsense goes out the window. The encouragement of low income people to buy houses was not a bad idea in itself, IF carefully regulated. The illusion that housing values would go up forever is what messed up the system. Greenspan further encouraged the speculation by keeping the Feds interest rate too low. The final problem is the innovative creation of bundled securities that nobody really understood and were completely unregulated. Greenspan had no idea how the financial risk was spiraling out of control.
Anyway, we are all in this together! :frown:

A democrat decided to buy a used car and went to a dealer who happened to be a republican. The dealer showed the democrat a car and they took it out for a test drive. The democrat took over driving and as they started to cross a railroad track the car stalled. The democrat was frantically trying to get the car started as a train bore down on them. The republican salesman said, forget about getting the car started, I am a republican and I believe the train will stop before it hits us.:lol:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Some people are starting to figure it out.

Its a big problem to bail out our neighbors with billions but it was not a problem to spend billions destroying Iraq and killing thousands of our boys and Iraq citizens? :frown:

You think we should bail out the crooked bankers and wall street first?

Those guys should all be in jail! :frown::censored:

But they are not. They are in the Carribean on a beach, writing checks to the Democrat National Committee.

Franny get your gun, we are going after them.:yes::cool:

Of course, the ACTUAL punchline to this story being...

With the train's warning horn honking again and again, the Republican finally did have the brains to step out of the car. Why? Because a fucking train was bearing down on them and he realized it was the only sane thing to do.

Meanwhile, the Democrat continued to just sit in the car because he felt the car breaking down wasn't his fault. Even though this was the car HE examined on the lot and HE picked to drive and even though HE was the one driving it.

So, true to his political beliefs and even with a goddamn freight train bearing down on him -- its warning horn STILL repeatedly blowing -- the Democrat was more than willing to sit there, arms folded across his chest like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum, till somebody ELSE came along and GAVE him a new car or till somebody ELSE came along and THEY PAID for repairing his car or till somebody ELSE came along and got behind his car and using THEIR sweat and effort pushed him out of the way -- all while he continued to sit comfortably in the car, putting in no effort at all on his part.

Because in the end, why should the Democrat have the simple common sense to open the car door and get out himself when he can get somebody else to do it for him? :lol:

Yeah, gotta love Obama feeling our pain.
Hey, Big O, how about paying some of your OWN bills?
Or will my tax dollars go to bailing YOU out as well?

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
February 20, 2009

Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.

"The Democratic National Committee has not yet paid us,'' Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city's Office of Budget and Management, said Thursday after questions from the Chicago Sun-Times. "We're reaching out to them this week."

Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the Obama-controlled DNC, explained the reimbursement delay by saying, "We are still looking at various costs and bills.'' She would not say whether parts of the bill are disputed.

The city spent $1 million on police protection for the rally. The Office of Emergency Management and Communications racked up more than $120,000 in expenses, including $19,500 paid to police official Neil Sullivan to quarterback election night logistics.

In late October, Mayor Daley assured that the cash-flush Obama campaign would reimburse the city for every penny spent on the rally. "We have a financial crisis," he said at the time. "The City of Chicago could not afford $2 million on this because we're gonna be laying off people, cutting back. That [cost] would really be unfortunate. It's a huge cost to the City of Chicago.

"This is not a presidential visit. This is a political event, and they've agreed to pay for all those services -- all the expenses of that. ... It's costly, but they raised quite a bit of money. There's no [shortage] of money in that campaign."

The day after the Nov. 4 election, Daley was asked again whether the Obama campaign would pay up.

"Yeah. I don't know why you're so negative. What is this? He just won for president, and you say, 'He's not gonna pay his bills,' " the mayor said then.

On Dec. 9, the day the Sun-Times disclosed the $1.74 million tab, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt referred questions to the DNC. Paxton confirmed then that the rally was a "DNC-sponsored event" and that the party was discussing the itemized bill with the city.

Franny get your gun we are going to the Caribbean. :frown::lol:

Dear CommonDreamer,

When Congress passed the George W. Bush $700 billion bank bailout plan, the goal was to rescue our banking system by propping up the banks that deregulation had allowed to become 'too big to fail.' We now know that the bailed out banks didn't use our money to start lending more - rather they paid out big bonuses to executives and bailed out the banks' shareholders. In return for our money the American people got nothing.

We, the people, became majority owners in many of the major banks. But we have no voice in the way the banks are run. If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn't we get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found?

Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman calls this a "a classic exercise in 'lemon socialism': taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right."

Yes, we get f++++d regardless who is in the Whitehouse.:censored::frown:

Gaza
 

On top of everything else we are now going to spend $600 million dollars in Gaza to repair what the Israelis did! FuXXXXXed again!:censored::frown:

WTH???
1. It's not our responsibility to magically solve all the world's problems.
2. The Palestinians brought the destruction on themselves by breaking the cease fire. They're responsible for their predicament.
3. Why can't the Palestinians make the repairs? If they can't afford to, what's the difference? We can't either!

Will the Obama administration please, for once, do something that makes sense?!

I hate to break it to you both, but you'd better get used to MORE of this happening in the days, weeks, months and years to come, especially with Obama in office and the rest of the world -- especially socialists -- SO in love with him and feeling he's some sort of cult figure. Or as conservative columnist Michelle Malkin correctly notes, we now live in the age of a "savior based economy."

So what's next? A Global New Deal? Gee, guess who Europe and other poor countries 'round the world are gonna expect to pick up the tab for THIS one!

CNN
February 22, 2009

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- The world needs a "global New Deal" to haul it out of the economic crisis it faces, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom said Sunday.

"We need a global New Deal -- a grand bargain between the countries and continents of this world -- so that the world economy can not only recover but... so the banking system can be based on... best principles," he said, referring to the 1930s American plan to fight the Great Depression. Brown was speaking as the leaders of Europe's biggest economies met to try to forge a common position on the global financial crisis ahead of a major summit in London in April.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the world's response to the global financial meltdown had to be profound and long-lasting, not just tinkering around the edges. "Europe wants to see an overhaul of the system. We all agree on that. We're not talking about superficial measures now or transitional measures -- we're talking about structural measure, which need to be taken," he said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the host of the meeting, urged nations of the world to work together to fight the problem. "Confidence can only be restored if people in our countries feel that we are pulling in the same direction and have understood that we really must learn lessons from this crisis," she said.

** Translation: America will pay for this!

And she proposed that a new institution grow out of the crisis, "which will take on more responsibility for global [financial] mechanisms."

** Translation: But the EU will be in charge and America has to do what we say!

The Europeans say they have agreed international financial markets must be regulated more thoroughly. That also means stricter rules for hedge funds and credit-rating agencies. European and world leaders have been holding frequent summits as they struggle to cope with a financial crisis that has affected banks, homeowners, businesses and employees around the world.
advertisement

London will host a meeting of the Group of 20 nations in April. The G-20 includes the G-7 leading industrialized nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States -- as well as the world's largest developing economies: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey, plus the European Union. The managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the president of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings.

This is like we're all on a passenger jet, in stormy weather, over the water, and rather than Captain Sullenberger at the helm, there's a 6 year old up there.

Well, the big question is how will the markets react to his speech tonight?

Yesterday, the markets dropped 250 points in a giant sell-off. Today, the markets rebounded as investors picked up assorted things, feeling a bit more at ease that Obama is not looking to nationalize the banks -- even though the White House has given every indication THAT option is still on the table. In fact, I don't know why anyone would think it's off the table. For crying out loud, right now Citibank is actually asking the government to step in and buy up more of its common shares.

So, all day people and commentators on the financial shows have been saying one of two things is going to happen. Either Obama will give an "okay" speech tonight and calm SOME fears and the market will continue on, trying to rebound naturally...a bit up...a big down...back and forth till it finally equalizes over a long period of time...

...OR others are predicting if his speech talks too much about far reaching government programs (and thus further spending) that he still wants to ram through right now (like universal health care) that tomorrow morning you could see one of the biggest sell-offs in history because Wall Street will basically be running for the hills.

Oh, and with tonight's speech Obama needs to earn back the American people's sense of good will and the sense of "hope" he ran on. While I know people like Hank (who is overseas) adore and love Obama, here at home in the latest national poll Obama has dropped yet another 10 points in terms of his Job Approval rating. So right now only 59% of the American people...and dropping...think he's doing a good job.

God?
 

Obama is not God, he does not have a magic wand to wave around and solve this crisis. He has only been in office a few weeks for Peat's sake! He not only has to deal with Repubs. who voted AGAINST the largest tax cut in history but lobbyists determined to hold on to lucrative connections between capitalists and Congress. No one can solve this alone, it will take a concerted effort of all of us to dig ourselves out of this hole. Its time to "flush Rush" and learn how to cooperate! :yes::cool:

"flush Rush"? Well, since you like catchy rhyming phrases,
I assume in that same spirit of "cooperation" the Left is willing to "ban Olbermann"?

Well Olberman seems to do a pretty good job of pointing out all of the misleading information and downright lies Ann Coulter spews out. Anyway, we would probably be better off without all of the media windbags.:yes:

Why is Talk Radio only a right wing success story? Could it be that no one is intersted in the left or no one wants to sponsor it? Duh!

LMAO! So much for cooperation.
That was short-lived!

Fine, keep mad dog Keith. We'll keep Rush.
Now we're right back where we started!

But wait! what about trannie Annie?;):lol:

Could it be that the right wing likes bombastic windbags?;)

Did you notice Pelosi last night? She acted like she had a pogo stick up her ass. Honestly, if Obamasan had farted she would have applauded.

what i like about Pelosi is her perpetual 'surprised' look.
like someone just came in her mouth when he promised he would'nt.

Money
 

Obama "worship" is getting ridiculous.
Currently I am reading "So Damn Much Money" by Robert Kaiser. It is a fascinating book about the expansion of the lobby industry in recent years. Kaiser documents how lobbyists rule Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike should read this book. A wake up call for saving whats left of our democracy.

Bobby Jindal
 

LEHRER: How well did he do?

David Brooks on Bobby Jindal.
BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly drafted - but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the problem...we can't trust the government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic, now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this...in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all that and say government's the problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican party lost its way because it got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and he's making that case. I think it's insane. I think it's a disaster for the party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.

Considering that Obama's popularity has finally begun to dip...
Considering his job performance rating is slowly sliding towards only 50%...
Considering that 2/3 of the American people feel Obama's economic plan is for shit...
And considering that every time Obama opens his mouth about how he's going to fix the economy, Wall Street tanks even more (And yes, it was down again today. So much for the great "inspirational" speech last night)...

...It's pretty clear that Brooks (who, by the way, is a dope most of the time anyway) STILL doesn't get it. It's not a "stale" message -- it's what the average person really DOES still believe. The Reagan years produced one of the longest stretches of sustained economic growth in America's history by doing things completely opposite from what Obama is doing now. The problem is Obama started down that path, but now he's veered wildly off the road and gone utterly spend crazy. It's like he's in race between how fast he can print money and turn right around and spend it. The Obama glow has begun to wear thin and the irony here is that he dropped a phrase saying "I get it", not realizing it's the American people who "get it" -- and what they get is that spending is totally out of control and needs to be MASSIVELY reigned in.

Brooks needs a reality check and a bucket of cold water to the face. The problem is, given his political leanings, Brooks refuses to acknowledge that the average American STILL believes in Reagan's classic line "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem."

LMAO! This is why I love Brooks. What a buffoon. On the one hand, he's saying the Republican are guilty of nihilism. And yet on the other hand, he is literally saying (regarding the Democrats): "Okay...yes...I admit it, the stimulus bill was passed in a shitty way...yes, the government really should stay out of people's lives...yes, the Obama stimulus plan is filled with corruption, earmarks, and wasteful spending -- but so what? It's your only hope!!!"

What was that about nihilism again?

Achenblog
 

The Democratic Reagan

Obama's speech was his best rhetorical moment since Grant Park on Election Night. This guy is really good and reminds me of Reagan: Tremendous stage presence, great smile, easy to like, knows how to hit the big theme and avoid the minutia (thus making his speech about 20 minutes shorter than a typical Bill Clinton address to Congress). Like Reagan, his numbers might not pencil out, but he's not going to talk about many of those numbers. He has the strategic advantage of being more popular than any single one of his policies. He can thus tug a policy along behind him, as if it were a distracted puppy.

The opposition party may feel virtuous in sticking to what it claims are its principles, but in a chamber dominated by a young, charismatic leader, the Republicans simply look like old, crotchety sticks-in-the-mud. The Yesterday Party, still defending the gold standard, and wondering if it was a good idea to give women the vote.

Every Republican in the chamber probably had the same nagging thought: This is likely going to be the first of eight of these things. Obama showed no rookie moves. The only real hope for the GOP is to rely on that old historic standby, dominant party overreach. Moral hazard could create enough moral outrage to give the GOP at least a semblance of a foundation for a 2012 challenge. Obama knows that, which is why he said so directly, "I get it." ;)

I'm losing count. What is our deficit at now? About 3 or 4 Trillion? At what point does the rest of the world realize all these IOUs we're giving them is worthless? What value do they get out of it? We're not producing nearly enough to ever pay it back. Not before, and certainly not now. They're basically donating all kinds of products to us. Someone tell me why?

Well, in terms of money spent, here's the AP headline that just went out across the wires.
The lead paragraph tells you all you need to now about how economically fucked we are...

OBAMA SENDING FIRST BUDGET TO CONGRESS
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3 trillion-plus budget, a spending blueprint that will project astronomical deficits that reflect the cost of getting the country out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.


Oh, and Tracy -- to answer your point about worthless IOU's, I saw someone on TV the other day who had actually run the numbers -- and you'd better brace yourself. To pay for all of Obama's plans to date, in other words to cover all of the money he's already committed us to, right now the income tax rate on every single person working in America...regardless of their income level...would have to be raised to 95%. Oh yeah, and you'd have to do that till at least 2013.

These morons in Washington have crossed a line of spending insanity in ways that it's nearly impossible to tabulate anymore. Seriously, think about that -- the only way to pay for Obama's plan and to actually dig ourselves back out of this bigger deficit hole would be for every single one of us to give the government NINETY FIVE PERCENT of our income. For the next SEVERAL YEARS.

I'm sure you could live on only 5% of your salary, right? But hey, look on the bright side. At least there will be a high speed train connecting Disneyland and Las Vegas. Not that you'll have any money to visit either place or even be able to buy a ticket to ride the train -- but at least it will be built!

deficits
 

How come massive deficits created by democrats are so much worse than massive deficits created by republicans? Just wondering.:frown:

Canada?
 

by Dr. Mark Skousen

The U.S. financial system is a mess - according to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 40th among banking systems around the world. Without federal bailouts, the two largest banks in the country, Citibank (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), would be in bankruptcy, and the good old USA would be headed for the Greater Depression, as my friend Doug Casey likes to call it.

You'll never guess where the world's No. 1 banking system is. No, it's not fabled Switzerland, nor booming Hong Kong. While the central banks around the world are desperately trying to stem the flow of red ink, this country's red is emblazoned on its iconic mounted police force. It's right next door: Canada. The land of hockey and moose has the world's soundest banking system. While European and Asian banks are collapsing, Canada stands out as an oasis of financial calm.

Canadian Banks Receive Highest Rankings

According to the Global Competitiveness Report, Canadian banks received the highest ranking, a 6.8, out of a possible 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets). The lowest ranking of one means insolvent and possible government bailout.

Canada's stock has been rising quietly - the Canadians are known for their modesty and self-restraint - as American financiers and media are astonished to find that their northern neighbors have somehow avoided the subprime lending scandal and the housing market mess.

What's Canada's secret? With the exception of oil-rich Alberta, Canada did not have a strong construction surge as the United States did during the boom years, and mortgage interest is not tax deductible in Canada.

Canadian banks are national in scope. The top five banks have branches in all 10 Canadian provinces, making them less susceptible to downturns. They have large numbers of loyal depositors and a more solid base of capital, and are regulated more tightly than their U.S. counterparts - they are more liquid and less leveraged.

Canadian Banks - Four of The Top 10 Largest North American Banks

Lets move to Canada!:yes::cool:

For Trannys who love Rush
 

Rush later followed up, saying, "The first unsolicited reports from the upcoming female summit already in. They're saying it's a waste of time, women will not like me any more than the ones that already do, that you have to be an Oprah today in the media to attract." He said that he was nevertheless still intent on holding a summit.

Face it, Rush. We're just not that into you.
UpdateJill Zimon updates on how day one of Limbaugh's "EIB Network Female Summit" went today. One highlight:

One thing about the Female Summit: sorry, no transsexuals. We're not going to have anybody who's had an addadictomy, and we're not going to have anybody who's had a chopadickoffamy. We're going to have women from birth.;):lol::turnoff:

I'll answer you two ways...

First, they're not "so much worse" (to use your words). On the surface, they're EQUALLY horrible for having been created by EITHER party. Speaking as someone who would define himself as being fiscally conservative (translation: don't spend what you don't have), I will be completely fair and say I was EQUALLY pissed at Bush for the deficit that he and over-spending the Republicans did on his watch. And you know what? So were lots of other Americans, which is why voters ultimately knocked them out of office.

But Second, that doesn't excuse the Democrats now doing the exact SAME thing. And let's be honest, that IS what they're doing. They realize they control the White House and both sides of Congress and -- as I noted in another post -- the far Left realizes they're operating under a clock that's ticking downward right now. They realize they have to toss money around and fund whatever Left-leaning things they can right now and before the midterm elections occur, at which point Republicans will likely pick up a few seats and gain enough votes to more effectively block things once again.

Not to mention, the reason Obama's budget IS "so much worse" is because of the sheer size of it. I mean, come on, this is also the height of hypocrisy. All through the campaign season, one of the things Obama harped on again and again was Bush and his deficit spending across 8 years -- and yet now, in only ONE MONTH, Obama has actually managed to spend MORE. In one month!!! I can't wait to see what the next 3 years and 11 months bring!

So in that regards this IS "so much worse". Maybe I learned something wrong growing up, but I was taught that the way to fill up a hole in the backyard was to break out a shovel and throw some dirt into it. You FILL the hole and get it back to ground level. But I certainly wasn't taught that you break out a shovel and DIG DEEPER and make the hole BIGGER.

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings. So what are the alternatives? War got us out of the last depression (which incurred trillions of debt) but we are already in two wars, costing trillions. We are still a rich country with lots of rich republicans. Since this country made them rich isn't it time they give some of it back?

Sure, I have no problem with people who are successful "giving back".
Of course, we're also still a country filled with lots of rich Democrats TOO.
So I assume you have no problem sticking THEM with a hefty bill as well, right?

Yes that's OK if they can keep their Prius's.:lol:

Since no one is saying that, let's dispense with the blanket statements. It's a bit more complicated than that. Using this and this data, I found:
Clinton with a democratic congress: $225B deficit
Clinton with a republican congress: $22B surplus
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit (republican bums thrown out)
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit

Obama with democrat congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit (throw the bums in prison)

Do you see now that there are massive deficits, and then there are MASSIVE deficits?

I'm glad you can admit that Obama's spending (don't forget the democrat congress too) is terrifying and will result in serious inflation. I've already admitted that republicans can rack up debt too. But hopefully from my last post you can see that the debts that the dems are racking up is in a whole other class.

Obama's only been there a month, and they've already generated 2.5 times more debt than Bush has during all 8 years of his presidency! Look at the numbers yourself. I'm not lying. All this in one fucking month!

I've been doing some reading and I see what you're talking about with Greenspan. So yeah, I'll admit he's had a hand in the financial melt down. But the other stuff I mentioned about ACORN, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the CRA are also very much to blame. The real problem that is looming closer is when our debt reaches a point where other countries will no longer accept our IOUs. When they realize we don't have the ability to repay it because we're a nation of consumers rather than producers now. They will eventually make the decision to base their markets on another currency, perhaps the Euro rather than the dollar. At that point, the dollar will collapse, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. At $10 Trillion in debt, we were already putting serious strain on the worth of our IOUs. Obama's instant $2.7 Trillion deficit is probably a shock to the system and no one can say how the world will respond.

This is why myself and others did not want Obama to become president since over a year ago. People called us racists, and they now celebrate the first black president. I couldn't give a flying fuck about that. I'm more concerned with the longevity of this country. He was one of the most liberal members of the senate. I knew he was going to increase the size of government and rack up a ginormous deficit, which would result in inflation and high taxes, but holy shit. I didn't expect it to be this bad. And there's no one who will stop him. Even the republicans in the house are a bunch of pussies. They collaborated with the dems to produce the additional $410B spendulous part II plan that has over 9000 earmarks in it. The republicans are no longer the conservatives we need, and the dems are rabid with power. I don't see anything that's going to keep the dollar from collapsing.

Investing your money in stocks for the long term has always been the best advice because the US economy has been strong. But because of a series of events from the 1930s through the 40s when the USD was designated the international monetary standard, to the 70s when we got off the gold standard, to CRA and to the housing bubble, things are changing. When Obama and others blame all this on the last 8 years alone, it only shows they either have a very limited understanding of what is going on, or they're lying through their teeth.

Sorry for all the doom and gloom, but things ain't pretty right now.

Debt
 

Yes, I have to agree with you, the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy! The "experts" assure us that everything will be fine. Well IF our financial institutions and government had behaved like Canada, we wouldn't be in this mess. The people that got us into this mess are the ones saying they will get us out of it.
Panic will not get us out of this, however. If Obama can keep us from panic then there is a chance we can pull through this. He is the only one I know of who has the charisma to do it.

It's now Tobin
 

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- So long, Milton Friedman. Hello, James Tobin.

After a three-decade run, the free-market philosophies of Friedman that shaped U.S. policy are being eclipsed by the pro- government ideas of Tobin, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate who brought John Maynard Keynes into the modern era.

Tobin's stamp is on the $787 billion stimulus signed by President Barack Obama, former students and colleagues say. His philosophies are influencing Austan Goolsbee, a former Tobin student advising Obama, and Ben S. Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve. Unlike Friedman, Tobin provides guidance for today's problems, said Paul Krugman, a Princeton University economist.

"Hard-line doctrines don't seem very appropriate at this troubled moment," said Krugman, a New York Times columnist who also worked with Tobin at Yale from 1977 to 1979. "Tobin was never a guru in the way Milton Friedman was; he never had legions of Samurai ready to spring to the defense of his theories, but that's part of why he is so relevant right now."

The decision by Bernanke last September to invoke the Fed's emergency powers and put mortgages and other assets on the central bank's balance sheet "is pure Tobin," Krugman said. Bernanke cited Tobin's 1969 essay on monetary theory in a 2004 paper discussing options available to the Federal Reserve for stimulating the economy when interest rates approach zero.

Tobin's experience of the depression as a teenager in the 1930s gave him a lifelong loathing of unemployment.

'Livid' Response

"As a young professor I did a paper where I analyzed the optimal unemployment rate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who knew Tobin at Yale. "Tobin went livid over the idea. To him the optimal unemployment rate was zero."

Like Keynes, Tobin was an advocate for the role of government in maintaining full employment, said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. The current economic and financial crisis has validated that philosophy, said Galbraith, a former Tobin student and the son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, who was a friend of Tobin.

"It's clear that the position that the federal government has a responsibility for the level of employment, for the economy, has prevailed," Galbraith said. "The position that the Fed can walk away from the level of employment has completely collapsed. That was the absolutely dominant position coming out of the University of Chicago."

In contrast to the Friedman-influenced proponents of tax cuts, deregulation and tight control of the money supply, followers of Tobin are more receptive to government intervention in the economy, including stimulus spending.

Herbert Hoover

"I do not believe that over the next two years, we can make major deficit reduction or balancing the budget a goal," Goolsbee, nominated by Obama to the Council of Economic Advisers, said at a Senate hearing on Jan. 15. "I think that would run the risk of repeating one of the mistakes of Herbert Hoover that led us into Depression."

Goolsbee was Tobin's research assistant at Yale.

Tobin was born in 1918 in Champaign, Illinois, the son of a former reporter who was a publicist for the University of Illinois football team. His high school years during the depression motivated him to study economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Tobin said in an essay written for the Nobel committee.

"The miserable failures of capitalist economies in the Great Depression were root causes of worldwide social and political disasters," he wrote. Economics "offered the hope, as it still does, that improved understanding could better the lot of mankind."

Nobel Winners

Tobin, who died in 2002, won the 1981 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of the effect of financial markets on inflation and employment. His followers have been honored as well. Krugman won the 2008 prize, for work on international trade and economic geography. Stiglitz shared the 2001 award, which cited analyses of markets in which some participants have much better information than others. ;)

Soak the rich?
 

Wealthy families
Over the past three decades, these families have seen their incomes double and triple while the rest of the country stagnated. Now Obama proposes to increase their tax bill by $12,000 - not even enough to get them back to the rates they were paying when Ronald Reagan left office. This is a very, very modest nod toward fiscal fair play, very much in keeping with Obama's modest optics. You'd have to drink several pitchers of Rush Limbaugh's Kool-Aid to think this counts as soaking the rich.;)

If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

What generates more money for the government. Taxing those who make more than $250,000, or keeping taxes as they are and put millions of tax payers back to work? Which is better for the economy?

Small business owners who make around $250,000 - $300,000 are not all that rich. They're the Joe The Plumbers of America. And as for the richer... if you make it too uncomfortable for them here, they will take their business elsewhere. Then they'll each employ thousands of Chinese or Indians, instead of thousands of Americans.

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;69420]If I remember right, Carter also had charisma. It's what got him elected. It didn't stop the economy from going down the crapper. Charisma helps actors succeed. This is the real world though. We need someone who knows what he's doing.

Well, this is the irony of history repeating itself. Carter was elected for one reason and one reason alone: he came on the heels of Nixon/(temporarily Ford) at which point there was that classic "populist mood" that always seems to swept through the nation in a cyclical nature (created by Nixon/Watergate) that the government was bad...it was totally corrupt...the Emperor from Star Wars was running things...thus Washington needed a thorough cleaning.

The only problem being, of course, that while Nixon himself might have been bad for what he did, it didn't mean the WHOLE SYSTEM was corrupt or wrong. As a result, as people voted with a traditional and emotional knee jerk reaction, it was out with temporary Ford and in with good ol' Jimmy. It was out with a genuinely good politician known for working in a true bipartisan way, who had an established Congressional record for getting things done, and in for a guy who simply smiled at you alot. Because -- gosh darn it! -- didn't seeing him smile at you make you FEEL good?

Well, it felt good on Inaugeration Day. Anyone here old enough to remember that? I do. I remember how the press drooled all over Carter and Rosalyn, and praised them for walking the parade route waving to people. Because -- gosh darn it! -- he was smiling! And that MUST mean "goodness" was back in the White House!

Of course, what it REALLY resulted in was a true idiot in the Oval Office. It resulted, as Tracy noted, with having someone in the White House who didn't have a clue. It resulted in double digit inflation. It resulted in double digit unemployment. It resulted in gas rationing. It resulted in a military that was so underfunded that we LITERALLY had to ground portions of the Air Force because we LITERALLY could NOT afford to fly planes because we LITERALLY didn't have the spare parts to fix them if something broke on them. So they HAD to stay grounded in case of emergency, otherwise we were fucked (which we already knew we were). Oh yeah, and on Carter's watch...since he believed in globalism and America not taking a strong stance or involvement on foreign affairs...we had the Iranian Revolution, which laid the foundations of radical Islam rising up -- personified by the Iranian Embassy hostage situation, which sealed Carter's presidency as an utter failure and complete embarrassment.

So, I feel good that Obama has that mega-watt smile and waves alot and--

Oh fuck. What was that I said about history repeating itself???

This is what is utter lunacy about the Obama economic plan.
It's like a dog chasing his own tail that just runs in place and in circles.

The economy is bad, so Obama wants you to go out and spend money to get it going again. But the economy is bad because people have ALREADY spent their money -- heck, they've OVER spent and are deeply in debt. Someone on TV made a brilliant analogy to Obama and his plan, where Obama is a husband and the American people are the wife. The commentator noted it's like a husband coming home, only to find his wife sitting at the kitchen table, pulling her hair out, frantically trying to pay their monthly bills. And the wife says, "We have no money left in our checking account! How are we ever going to pay these bills?"

At which point the husband says "You're right, honey. We have to get out of this hole we're in. We really need to rebuild our savings account. Come on, let's go to the store and buy a few plasma TVs. THAT ought to do the trick!"

History lesson
 

Just to set the record straight on The Shah of Iran. From Wikipedia.
The Shah came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms, increased opposition.

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."[1]

Leader of GOP?
 

And finally, Rush Limbaugh generated huge applause at CPAC for labeling the White House agenda as a "bastardization of the Constitution." He proceeded to say, "We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness." Given his interest in the "bastardization of the Constitution," it's worth noting that these words aren't in the preamble to the Constitution.:lol:

WTH...? North Korea is calling Obama a warmonger. I thought Bush was the warmonger?

Obama
 

I wonder what McCain and Palin would be doing right now?:eek:

Actually, I laughed at that Obama editorial cartoon, but NOT for the reason the artist intended...

The gag the cartoonist meant is simply this: as Obama is about to sign the Stimulus Bill, the "bipartisan" pen runs out of ink -- i.e. the analogy/symbolism being that the Republicans are now no longer willing to help.

What DID make me laugh was the size of the pen. So, I would scratch off the word "bipartisan" and simply have Obama saying the pen has gone dry, at which point the cartoon is still funny -- but more important, it would be far more accurate. That's because then we'd see Obama signing a bill SO big and composed of SO many pages that he used up all of the ink in the pen -- even one that humongous -- all because he just signed off on SO MANY RIDICULOUS THINGS!!!!!!!!

The reason I posted the cartoons is to pose the question, what do you think McCain would be doing if he was president?

McCain mentioned a housing bailout, which I shuddered at. Obama, before the election disagreed with it. Obama changed his mind, maybe McCain would have too. Who knows. I don't think McCain would have been a good conservative now, but I don't think he would be nearly as bad as Obama either. Everytime BO gets on TV, the stock market takes another plunge. The American people have no confidence in him that he can get the economy going. I guess charisma doesn't pay the bills. :turnoff:

TRUE STORY 1:

By now I'm sure you've seen or heard the bit about Chris Matthews on MSNBC last week, and how he blurted out a very sarcastic "Oh God" -- off camera, but into a live, open mic so it got picked up and broadcast -- when Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response to Obama's address. With that in mind...

Last night, I had to pull an all-nighter. So there I was, at my desk and typing away, meanwhile off to the side I had the TV on for some background "white noise" to help keep me awake. Around 3:00 AM, I turned on Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC) just to see what they'd be talking about. Scarborough is moderate to say the least, but last night he was actually in rare Republican form and was just RIPPING into the Obama budget and RIPPING into how much Obama's team has dropped the ball every step of the way. A short while later, Joe and his co-host Mika were then interviewing Ray La Hood, Obama's Transportation Secretary. Given his particular cabinet position, La Hood was basically there to talk up the Democrats' desire to rebuild infrastructure, but Scarborough went right back to ripping the budget a new one.

Well, Scarborough and Hood went back and forth arguing over the budget, Scarborough not giving an inch, but no matter how much he confronted Hood about pork and insane levels of spending, Hood remained a loyal foot solder towing the official Obama line. So, in an attempt to try and shut Scarborough down, in order to move on to other talking points, Hood finally said (in a truly jaw-dropping moment): "Come on, Joe. You're not being fair. You can't blame Obama for this budget. You can't pin these numbers and spending him. Remember, this is Bush's budget. Congress is voting on Bush's last budget and all the things that he (Bush) put in there."

At which point, off camera and into his still open mic (ala the Matthews incident), you could hear a stunned Scarborough turning to someone back in the studio and saying: "Did he actually just say this is BUSH'S budget???"

TRUE STORY 2:

Going back to Tracy's point about Obama opening his mouth and the stock market dropping, I swear this is true. In fact, now that I think of it, I can't believe that I didn't see this as a clip shown throughout the day simply because it was SO perfect. Then again, that might tell you a little something about media bias and how the mainstream news is doing whatever it can to help Obama...

This morning, I was curious to see if the various cable news channels would show Timothy Geitner or any of the other Obama people giving their latest testimonies on Capitol Hill, since Team Obama was scheduled to try and do various things today to generate positive press about their economic plan. So, I started to watch Fox News, but since I had just pulled an all-nighter, I fell asleep on the couch with the TV still on. A short while later, I woke up literally in time to catch Obama just as he began to answer some questions at the White House, where he was sitting alongside Gordon Brown (the visiting British Prime Minister who is pushing this lame idea of the US and Europe banding together to create a "Global New Deal" that, of course, America is supposed to bank roll).

However, what was truly hysterical was that off to the right hand side of the screen, tucked down in the corner, was a smaller box that showed the current stock market numbers. Well, as Obama started to talk, I noticed the market was at +14 and I thought: "Well, at least it's a positive number today." But then a split second later I thought, "Wouldn't it be funny if the people on Wall Street were watching this too, so we could literally see in real time exactly how they react to anything Obama says?

Well, sure engouh Obama started to answer various reporter questions, and then he launched off into yet another mini-speech to defend his budget and all of the spending he wants to do...

...At which point the +14 went to +13.

Then a moment later it was 12.

Then Obama continued on about the money he wants to spend,
that he anticipates yet ever more stimulus packages, and it went to 11...

Then 10...

...And as I continued to watch, I just laughed out loud and thought: "Wouldn't it be funny if it went from a positive number to a negative one AS he was talking? So that the more he talks, the lower the market goes?

And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. In the short time Obama had talked, the market had literally flipped...gone from positive to negative...and went from +14 to -14. Which put a funny image into my head because I could almost imagine a White House aide standing off camera who was freaking out and who was urgently whispering to him: "Stop talking! Don't even finish your sentence! You're only making it worse!!!"

Question
 

Since Canada seems to know how to run their finances, why don't we let the Canadians take over the country. We are sitting here letting the "experts" that got us into this mess try to get us out of it. I like Obama but what can he do? The freight train is coming down the tracks and he is desperately trying to get the car started and off the tracks while all these "experts" stand around giving conflicting advice. Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself! :frown:

Dude, you are so much like these people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13LwVDJb0E

We are perfectly able to handle the mess we're in if the politicians would either get back to the basics or get out of the way. FYI... I was on a telecon with some Canadians today, and they said their economy sucks too.

That tube is very funny!
However you ignored the last sentence of my post. "Meanwhile the Republicans deny the train is coming and believe the car will start by itself!" Again, what would McCain do if he was president?:eek:

Mired in idiocy
 

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.
Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

Ed Rollins says the Republican Party has lost its relevance amid very low favorable ratings from voters.

(CNN) -- The cold winds of March have obviously affected the intelligence and thought processes of people who need to get their thinking straight.

The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Are Republicans able to get their act together? With Rush Limblab going at it, its very doubtful.:lol::lol::lol:

Too bad that's ALSO incredibly creative and deceptive math at work.
Then again, the article came by way of CNN, which speaks volumes...

See, the problem is the Democratic number is 49%, BUT what CNN did (and let the record show that CNN is notorious for doing this, in order to spin whatever argument they're trying to push) is that they broke the other number APART, to try and make it look smaller. So, in truth, you have to ADD the 26 (positive) and 7 (very positive) for the Republicans together, at which point you come up with 33%.

Now, at first you might say "Well, that's still 49% for the Democrats against 33% for the Republicans, so that's still a wide gap." Except THAT wouldn't be true EITHER since election surveys showed that going into the Bush/Kerry election there was about an 8-10 point divide between registered Democrats and Republicans ANYWAY.

So REALLY what we're talking about here is that the Republican base is still what it has been for years (a number roughly in the mid thirties, sometimes breaking 40), meanwhile the Democrats are more solidly in the forties...and the rest are Independents and Libertarians and whatever else. In fact, just for the record, despite any crowing by the Obama crowd over voter registrations going into the last election, in truth the FASTEST and LARGEST growing political affiliation are actually people renouncing BOTH parties and officially listing themselves as Independents now.

In fact, here's a better example of how fast and loose CNN always plays with the facts and with numbers...

Recently, CNN issued a report talking about how "Red State Republicans" were the biggest buyers of porn, far more than Blue states. They came to this conclusion by looking at the bank transaction records for where the most porn was being bought or downloaded, etc. As a result, the assertion that CNN and Left leaning commentators then made was that Republicans or conservative Red States were hypocrites and not the traditionalists they claim to be.

HOWEVER...over at NewsBusters (which is a great site for debunking journalistic crocks), they posted a response from a Harvard Business School Professor who hit the nail on head by noting it was faulty math right from the start. For example, using Utah as an example, the STATE could be considered "red" because it is composed of 51% Republicans and 49% Democrats...so Republicans are in the majority...but the actual majority of PORN buyers could still statistically come entirely from the 49% Democratic pool. The point being, that since you DIDN'T actually study or break down "who" was actually buying the porn...and since they ONLY looked at the state where it was going...the numbers were deceptive from the start.

Not to mention, the Limbaugh thing has actually now been revealed to be an actual White House orchestrated PR stunt to desperately divert attention from the day's daily news -- which is the fact that Obama is likewise quickly being revealed to be an utter idiot when it comes to dealing with the economy. Not to mention, it's become clear that Obama is LESS worried about our money and our savings, and he's MORE interested in being a one-term president, if that's what it comes to, so long as he manages to ram through his various Liberal programs and gets them made into law. After only a month in office, it seems clear that the number one thing Obama wants is to turn the country DRASTICALLY left and to set certain things into law, even if it means he doesn't get reelected.

Cnn?
 

Although the piece was published by CNN, it was written by Ed Rollins who was Regan's political director. As a Republican, I assume he knows what he is talking about.;)

I answered you about McCain in post 385. And about that sentence...
Republicans have been warning about the oncoming train called Obama since before he was elected. This huge pork filled debt he's generating comes as no surprise to us. And the effect it will have on the economy also will come as no surprise.

Democrats' strategy for the economy is like a car that has run out of gas on a train track. They borrow someone else's gas to restart the car and then turn to drive it straight into the on coming train.

Or like a swimmer who has swam out from shore into the ocean. After a while he starts to become very tired. Instead of swimming back to the shore, he swims with all his might further out to sea until he can't swim another stroke and drowns.

Damn. I hate being right about this stuff....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html
History will show that while the problem has been growing for decades, it was Obama's administration that delivered the crushing blow to America. Hang on people... this is going to suck.

Looks like the love fest is ending between the rest of the world and Obama.

STRASBOURG, France - A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

Yes. He may be tossing our economy, along with the global economy into the crapper, but at least he's black! Wohoo!

I think in 4 years (I can't see it lasting more than 4) we'll all be saying:

I had high hopes for Obama. Especially since we finally got rid of that dumbass Bush, but now I'm very disappointed. Obama is driving this economy even farther into the ground. Should have voted for McCain. Just hope he is only a 1 term pres.

Well, what did you expect? Give the man a chance, please. He has to clean up 8 years' mess after the most horribly incompetent socalled president that America ever had... Barack's task is tuff... but he'll do it. Don't worry. But he still has Republicans and even Democrats against him in Congress, and the financial crisis is so severe that it cannot be undone in three months...

So be glad you didn't vote for McCain or any other Republican, for that matter. Give Barack a chance to get his plan in motion. Read his book "The Audacity of Hope" - that's well written reading and will give you a better knowledge of Barack's plan. Trust me, Barack is a thoroughly good guy and talented above measure!

H

Honey, you lovely thingy, why don't you flirt up Sean Hannity... I'm sure you'd have TONS in common... ;-)

And it's ironic, that a Republican talks about ANYONE "tossing our economy". You had 8 years, baby - 8 blissful years of war mongering and stupidity and a total anti-branding of the whole f****** Western world thanks to your "lovely" joke of a president. So excuse me, darling, but you had your shots and BLEW it.

Now let's get serious and get rid of the incompetents.

At least give Barack a chance, ok? I know you hate his liberal politics from deep within you - the same way I thoroughly detest the neanderthal politics of the right wing... but now you have a new president. At least give him a chance to clean up the MESS that your beloved Geo Bush made.

Be decent here.

You guys love so much to do the theatrical socalled patriotism with hands over heart and "My fellow Americans..." and all that shit...

Now PROVE it, baby! Prove that you ARE a fellow American, and not only to the ultra right wing of your great country, but to the whole world...

Be decent and fair. And support your president in his difficult task.

Peace!

H

As a non-US citizen, I don't expect you to know the ins and outs of the cause of our financial meltdown, and all you have to fall back on is your trusty "Bush Did It" mantra, but it's not anywhere near that simple. I don't know how much you know about the US government, but you may be surprised to hear that it's not made up of only one person. There's a congress too, made up of a house and senate. That's the legislative branch. There's also a judiciary branch.

You're focusing on the guy who has, for 7 of his 8 years in office, been warning congress about the financial instability of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. His last year in office, he warned them 17 times. Youtube is full of videos of congressmen insisting that Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were financially sound. The main culprits are Carter, Clinton, and Congress for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and Alan Greenspan for artificially creating the housing bubble. btw, you can't just blame Bush for Greenspan. He was in office during the terms of several presidents. I think most of this has already been discussed several times in this thread. I know... it's not as trendy as saying it's that idiot Bush, but you know those pesky facts. They keep rearing their ugly heads.

I certainly don't expect him to turn the crisis around in three months, or even a year. But call me crazy, if our problem is the collapse of mortgage companies who lent money to uncreditworthy people, let's NOT give $3.5 billion to the group who led the push for CRA. (BTW, since that same group is being charged in 14 states for voter fraud, let's NOT have them working on the census either.)

You want me to give Obama a chance, when his strategy is Carter's failed financial policy on steroids. That strategy has already had a chance. It didn't work. The republicans are getting a lot of blame by the conservatives in this country for not being conservative. Yes, they did rack up some debt when they had control of congress, but in one month, Obama and the democratic congress has racked up 2.5 times the amount of debt raised during all 8 years of Bush's presidency, including debt from Bush's wall street bailout. And they're still talking about more trillion dollar bailouts to come. The world isn't going to keep buying our debt, and when we had a debt of $10 trillion, Obama had the NERVE to expect the world to fork up another $2.5 trillion. Like the top european union official said, Obama's policies will undermine the stability of the global market. That's not Sean Hanity talking. That's the Czech prime minister. And it's also China's central bank governor. But I know you'll go right a head and tell me that the best way out of debt is borrow another $2.5 trillion. Makes perfect sense for an enlightened person such as yourself.

He may very well be a good guy, but he's in way over his head. McCain isn't on the top of most republican's list, but I know he wouldn't implement strategies like Obama has that would put the country and the world economy in this much danger. I'm not going to read about the audacity of a community organizer who thinks he can be president. I'm reading about how to stay afloat when the dollar collapses.

Money matters
 

Did you not read this from the wall st. Journal, Tracy?
Tracycoxx: "we're a nation of consumers rather than producers"

Prove, sister, prove! Please provide logic and facts to back up your statements. It sounds interesting though! Does the US produce nothing? Does it not add anything to the world economy, but only consume? Thats ridiculous!

The IRONY to Hank's Euro-centric vision of how Americans should feel or treat Obama being that it's actually opposite to how most Americans feel at this point.

First, for all of Hank's labeling Bush as a "joke of president", its fascinating that Obama's job approval rating has literally plummeted over his first 60 days in office. In fact, he now ranks LOWER than Bush did at this same point in time when Bush had been elected. Not to mention, Obama's disapproval numbers are soaring -- in fact, one poll has him at 46% which means he's now a mere 4 points away from literally having HALF of the country officially regretting his election and wishing McCain was in the Oval Office instead.

The second irony -- again in direct contrast to Hank's view as a non-American -- is that he somehow thinks Republicans are "war mongers" or "stupid" and no one wants them back in power. Yet again, that's the irony of him being the outsider and having a viewpoint ON America versus the rest of us actually living here and BEING Americans where we see things much differently. Case in point (which I'm sure is going to make Hank's jaw drop since he seems to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything) is that right now the Republicans are actually TIED with the Democrats in overall public opinion ratings. And in fact, in upcoming key elections the Republicans are now actually taking LEADS in the polls because Americans have come to realize "Oh no! What the FUCK were we thinking electing a Democratic president and putting him together with an ALL Democratic Congress so they could do whatever they wanted, no questions asked? We have to get more Republicans elected FAST or the Democrats are going to shit this country up big time!"

Case in point: here we are in the midst of a global economic meltdown, and yet Chris Dodd is up for re-election as Connecticut's Senator. He's the head of the Senate banking committee, so you'd think the average person would want to be SURE he was re-elected to have a consistent voice in power, not to mention that since he's a staunch democrat he'd obviously be a key supporter of Obama...

...And yet as of today, a virtual no-name unknown whom the Republicans are putting up against Dodd is LEADING in the polls.

Oh! And as for Hank's view that Bush was a joke of a president who "blew it", even IF you want to blame Bush for walking out of the White House and leaving behind $1 trillion deficit, it's laughable that you think Obama is somehow better when he's now officially TRIPLED that same number in a mere 60 days -- even worse, some estimates put the number at a NINE TRILLION DEFICIT several years out and once Obama is out of office, at which point our kids and our grandkids will be stuck paying for his idiotic socialist dreams and his buffoonish financial decisions.

Here's the bottom line truth, regardless of how Hank and other Euros feel AS outsiders.
Truth be told, this how AMERICANS now are starting to feel and I'll use a blunt analogy so there's NO mistaking my point.

People ALWAYS wake up from the bender they were on the night before. They may be hungover a bit, but there's that infamous moment when they suddenly realize "Oh shit! Who's that laying there asleep in the bed next to me? What the hell did I DO last night?!?"

The point being that while Euros may love him, here at home Americans are quickly realizing that Obama -- who now can't even speak coherent sentences unless a teleprompter is feeding them to him -- won the election for the simple reason that he was the "feel good" candidate of the moment. He was the slick looking and talking politician that people picked up at the bar, got drunk with, took to bed, and thus he got elected for the most ridiculous of reasons ("Look he's young and cute! What a smile! Look he's black! If we elect him, we can say we're not racists once and for all!"). The only problem is, now Americans are waking up from their bender, they're looking at the person still asleep in bed next to them -- most of all, they're seeing their taxes going UP, their savings going DOWN, and Obama talking about social changes they DON'T believe in...

...And they're now realizing Obama really did dupe them. He really was the equivalent of that hotty who LET YOU pick her up in a bar on election night, when you were in a drunken stupor, and suddenly now...when you're awake and consciously thinking about what you've done...you're suddenly worried and wondering if you stupidly caught an STD while screwing around carelessly the night before. In short, now that "fun time" and your bender is over, you realize you're back to real life and the serious issues that life involves.

Worst of all, as Obama soars our deficit, he's now on the verge of becoming Jimmy Carter Part 2 -- and yes, even in recent polls Americans STILL think Carter was a WORSE president than Bush ever was. That's pretty telling when you consider where Obama may end up on the historical ladder, if he does become another Carter.

Here in Hollywood -- which is certainly Democratic territory and extremely left-leaning -- lately I've seen a bumper sticker on several cars while I've been out driving. I'm not sure where it comes from, but I've run across it several times now. But because this is SUCH the democratic territory, it made me raise an eye brow and laugh. It simply says: Yeah, I voted for him. I'm sorry, America -- where the "o" in "sorry" is the famous Obama "o" from his campaign posters (where you saw the American flag flowing inside).

In other words, even here in democratic territory, the point of the sticker is:
"I'm sorry I fell for it! The rest of you were right!"