WHAT NOW? Survival of the fittest!
wis...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>WHAT NOW? Survival of the fittest!
>
>With the stock market having begun its crash and the federal
>government having refused to intervene, many of you are now asking
>"What's next?" I have the answers and they aren't pretty.
>
>The stock market will continue its slide, losing one-third to one-half
>of its overall value within a week or two. Those with pensions will
>see dramatic decreases in their monthly checks.
>
>The dysfunctional credit markets will not change in any meaningful way
>in any effective time frame. As things stand now, almost no one can
>get credit. Consumers cannot get loans to buy cars or houses.
>Businesses cannot get loans to meet payroll, re-stock their inventory
>or buy raw materials to do manufacturing. With the situation as it is,
>we are going to watch almost our entire economy grind to a halt.
>
>As the economy tanks - which will happen extremely fast - people will
>be laid off or let go as companies downsize or go out of business. So
>look for massive unemployment very fast.
>
>With millions of people losing jobs, the number of defaults on credit
>card payments, mortgage payments, car payments and the like will
>absolutely skyrocket. The sheer number of defaults will take out over
>one thousand U.S. Banks.
>
>The U.S. Government will try to shore-up the banks and the economy by
>spending more, but no one will lend them the money so the government
>will print it. As the government prints several trillion more dollars,
>the rest of the world will reject our currency as worthless.
>
>When that happens, all the goods we import from abroad - including oil
>- will become stunningly expensive, then run out as overseas
>manufacturers simply refuse to accept our worthless money.
>
>With almost all U.S. manufacturing jobs having been shipped overseas
>under NAFTA and GATT, we don't even have the infrastructure to resume
>manufacturing here in America.
>
>When oil stops flowing in from overseas because OPEC won't take our
>cash, the real trouble starts. Without oil to provide diesel fuel or
>gasoline, trucks will not have fuel to transport food or anything
>else.
>
>As trucks run out of fuel and deliveries cease the cities will run out
>of food first. Most supermarkets only stock two to three days worth of
>food. No trucks means no deliveries and within days, the cities will
>run out of almost everything. This will cause almost immediate civil
>unrest by "you-know-who."
>
>Roving bands of hungry savages will then take to the streets looking
>to feed themselves. It will be ugly anarchy. People will be killing
>other people for food.
>
>Police will be almost immediately overwhelmed, making 911 useless. If
>you cannot protect yourself, your family and your property with guns,
>then you will likely die.
>
>When the cities are cleaned out and the savages have stolen all they
>can steal, they will turn their sights on the suburbs. Small suburban
>police departments will be instantly overwhelmed. Only those citizens
>who can protect themselves with guns will survive.
>
>We are entering a new phase of life here in America: survival of the
>fittest. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
>When "you-know-who" comes to loot, steal and kill they will get gunned
>down; and I think that will be a really good thing; we'll finally be
>rid of "them."
>
>With no jobs, the illegal aliens won't have any incentive to stay, so
>they'll leave too. That will be a really good thing because we'll
>finally be rid of "them" too.
>
>But the best part of this will be what happens to the "money-
>changers;" descendants of those same vipers that Jesus threw out of
>the Temple. They are going to get it really badly because in the end,
>every one of us knows they are the ones who caused all of this
>financial turmoil. If they thought World War 2 was a holocaust, they
>should stay tuned; this time we'll get it right. Once we are rid of
>these parasites, things will be better for decades.
>
>For the short-term, the pain of survival of the fittest. Yet in the
>long term, the gains we make will ultimately outweigh the pain.
>
>This is long overdue. Prepare to lock and load. Good luck.
Bring it on! Only out of social and financial chaos can a better
nation be created.
ted
clams_casino
It's obviously highly selfish, but we and likely a very significant
number of others) have begun a lock down of spending. Until the Dow
recovers above 12,000, our household will be postponing all non
essential spending. We intend to only pay fixed bills such as
insurance, taxes & mortgage while minimizing essential spending for
food, utilities & gasoline and eliminating / postponing all other spending.
Obviously, if a significant number follow this path, one can expect a
continuing accelerating downturn for many years.
We've already started by eliminating all meals out and have canceled
plans for a vacation next month (sorry motels, restaurants & movie
theaters) and as a family, we've agreed not to meet for Thanksgiving nor
Christmas this year (sorry airlines and retail stores).
Only the trailer park welfare recipents will be relatively untouched if
some type of rescue plan is not enacted.
jisseigh
non-essential spending, since you haven't bought any bath soap,
deodorant, toothpaste, or toilet paper since December 2008. Good
work!
Zeke
Can the house purchasers that signed documents that said the house was going
to be their primary home, but they never lived in them, be prosecuted for
fraud?
Some had signed those document for 2 & 3 or more houses & flipped them.
Some went into foreclosure.
The document was necessary to get a mortgage for no money down & they could
only make interest payments. Many got rich by flipping the houses before
the bust.
Z
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:BmoEk.7694$891....@newsfe07.iad...
clams_casino
You are partially correct. We have an ample inventory of all those
products to last well into next year, having bought them up when on sale
over recent months.
Granted, some items like the above are relatively inelastic and will
eventually be purchased, but many items such as meals out, motel bills,
travel costs, entertainment expenses, delaying haircuts etc will never
be made up.
Employment in those & similar areas will likely continue to decline
significantly if / when the economy continues to worsen.
The bailout is not for the wealthy. It's the manufacturing & service
areas which will feel the effect most.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
that is correct.... in all of history there has not been a single
exception.... its nasty though.
Dennis
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>The bailout is not for the wealthy. It's the manufacturing & service
>areas which will feel the effect most.
Banks want the government bailout so that the banks can sell their
junk to the government at 30, or 40 cents on the dollar instead of 10
cents they might get from private buyers. This is why the banks are
freezing the credit market so they can blackmail the government into
buying their bad loans.
Sec. Paulson is watching out for his banking cronies, not mainstreet
Americans.
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Yep. The plan for tomorrow is for everyone to call the congressional
switchboard and overload it, along with calling, faxing, and emailing
the congresscritters to support the "no bailout" plan being proposed
by two dems who voted "Hell No!"
Chief Thracian
Indeed! Arrogant breeders will lose their shirts, as gays take over
Amerika and outlaw rampant procreation that is not licensed by
community overseers. True democracy shall blossom, as hetero weeds
perish.
--
Final Testament (Gay Quran)
http://www.gay-bible.org
clams_casino
Dennis
Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
Administration.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
clams_casino
Even GW desparately realizes something has to be done to salvage his
decimated economy. He's really had to bite the bullet on this one.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
>Administration.
>
If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
"Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
"Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
Franks is ecstatic.
The real conservatives of any stripe find it a disaster in all
respects.
Some strange bedfellows are being made here.
But the problem is easy credit allowing unsustainable debt.
The gov solution? Increase the debt.
Morons.
--Vic
Rod Speed
> Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush Administration.
> If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
> high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
> "Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
> "Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
> The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
> Franks is ecstatic.
> The real conservatives of any stripe find it a disaster in all respects.
Just like they did in the great depression. And the bailout happened anyway.
They also preferred to jump into bed with Adolf. Then the stupid Japs blew all their feet right off.
> Some strange bedfellows are being made here.
> But the problem is easy credit allowing unsustainable debt.
> The gov solution? Increase the debt.
You can make the same claim about the great depression. It worked then and will work again now.
> Morons.
Dennis
Right. So the Chinese and Saudi bankers will loan the US taxpayers
the money to clean up their own ailing investments.
What's wrong with this picture?
clams_casino
The alternative is that that buy it next year for cents on the dollar.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Right. So the Chinese and Saudi bankers will loan the US taxpayers
>the money to clean up their own ailing investments.
>
>What's wrong with this picture?
>
Plenty.
The scare tactics about tight money coming from those pushing debt
don't seem reflected by reality. Or maybe lenders know their bad
loans will still be backed by the taxpayer because of the scare
tactics.
Hard to believe the lenders think that money is tight given the e-mail
below I just got from Chase .
What's a measly $729,750 loan? Plenty of taxpayers to handle it,
stretching even to further generations.
I heard the Senate bill is up to $850 billion, being stuffed with
pork.
"Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:04 AM
Dear Friend,
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans have been around for a long
time, so why now all this attention to what had been considered a
government sponsored program for first-time home buyers?
A recent Washington Post article outlined the situation as follows:
"Demand for these once-neglected mortgages has surged because they do
not require the hefty down payments or stellar credit scores that
lenders have come to expect from borrowers. In addition, the amount of
money people can borrow on these loans went up dramatically this year,
and many homeowners have found them attractive for refinancing."
Top reasons to consider an FHA Loan from Chase now
1. You only need 3% down.
Borrowers may qualify with as little as 3% of their own funds into the
loan for Purchase loans; or on a Refinance you can borrow up to 97% of
your home's value. Your down payment may also come from a family
member, employer or charitable organization as a gift. Other loan
programs don't allow this practice.
2. Don't feel locked in to your current Adjustable Rate Mortgage
(ARM).
You do not need to have an existing FHA loan to refinance into an FHA
loan type. FHA gives homeowners with non-FHA adjustable rate mortgages
(ARMs) the ability to refinance into an FHA-insured, fixed rate loan.
3. It is easier to qualify than you think.
You can qualify with less than perfect credit. And with the temporary
increase in FHA loan limits, if you live in a high-cost area, loan
sizes can be as high as $729,750.
How can Chase help you?
There are many good reasons to choose an FHA loan. Chase is an
approved and experienced FHA lender. Your Chase Loan Officer will work
with you to help you determine which mortgage fits your needs. So
whether it is a traditional loan or a government insured FHA loan it
is good to know your options. Chase is here to help."
--Vic
Jeff
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:12:23 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
>> Administration.
>>
> If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
> high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
> "Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
> "Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
> The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
> Franks is ecstatic.
Have you heard Franks? He didn't look enthusiastic to me. I haven't
heard anyone that is enthusiastic about this bill. You are reading your
own interpretation into this. Oh, it's all some hidden conspiracy agenda.
The fact of the matter is that there are two groups here, the
pragmatists and the idealists.
At last count the Fed had dumped in $500 billion ad hoc. And was
treading water. That's why the change of approach.
If anything initial failure of this bill has made this more expensive
in trying to satisfy "conservatives" by adding in tax breaks and other
unfunded perks to the wealthy. With this new bill, you'll probably lose
some blue dog democrats who are the only real deficit hawks. Franks
himself, said as much, and that he was sympathetic to their cause.
It's all so much of the Bush who cried Wolf. Unlike all the other
times, the wolf really is at the door. Although his approach has been
watched for two years nothing was done.
Now, I don't like this bill. But any business that doesn't have a hoard
of cash is going to be in big trouble.
The first to go down will be the auto dealerships. Credit is tight to
non existent even for those with excellent credit. So no loans for the
buyer and no commercial paper to keep inventory for the dealer. The
largest Chevy Dealer is bankrupt.
I suppose the remaining manufacturers will be crushed next. Then a
wave of restaurants will fold.
Now, as far as the debt goes, the time to have paid down the debt was
when the times were relatively good. But all that money went to tax
breaks, a bloated medicare giveaway bill and a senseless war. If you
tighten credit further now you'll be doing the same thing that Hoover
did after the crash, and we can see where that lead.
It's going to take a while to dig out of this hole.
Jeff
Vic Smith
>Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:12:23 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
>>> Administration.
>>>
>> If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
>> high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
>> "Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
>> "Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
>> The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
>> Franks is ecstatic.
>
> Have you heard Franks? He didn't look enthusiastic to me. I haven't
>heard anyone that is enthusiastic about this bill. You are reading your
>own interpretation into this. Oh, it's all some hidden conspiracy agenda.
>
Franks has been very pleasant, and seems to be enjoying himself
immensely. I don't blame him. What I said above about gaining
political advantage has nothing to do with "paranoia" but is evident
in the facts. You may think what you want about Frank's reaction,
and I won't disagree, but there is no denying the "I told you so"
attitude of the anti-Wall Street crowd has them in the catbird seat.
It is those saying the sky is falling and we must throw money to
create more bad debt to fix existing bad debt who are unbalanced.
> The fact of the matter is that there are two groups here, the
>pragmatists and the idealists.
>
I don't see making debt worse as pragmatic.
There are methods to keep money flowing which won't aggravate the
underlying cause of the problem - extending credit to those who can't
pay their debt.
Plenty of economists say this bailout is the wrong approach.
> At last count the Fed had dumped in $500 billion ad hoc. And was
>treading water. That's why the change of approach.
>
The chickens are coming home to roost in the unsustainable debt
cage. Delaying it by making it worse is a bad solution.
I'm not alone in that view.
> If anything initial failure of this bill has made this more expensive
>in trying to satisfy "conservatives" by adding in tax breaks and other
>unfunded perks to the wealthy. With this new bill, you'll probably lose
>some blue dog democrats who are the only real deficit hawks. Franks
>himself, said as much, and that he was sympathetic to their cause.
>
> It's all so much of the Bush who cried Wolf. Unlike all the other
>times, the wolf really is at the door. Although his approach has been
>watched for two years nothing was done.
>
>Now, I don't like this bill. But any business that doesn't have a hoard
>of cash is going to be in big trouble.
>
Scare tactics. Those living on credit will have to adjust to reality.
Businesses that rely on customer purchases of products bought
on credit which can't be paid back will also have to adjust.
Reality check time. Now or later.
Check debt/savings stats. That says it all.
> The first to go down will be the auto dealerships. Credit is tight to
>non existent even for those with excellent credit. So no loans for the
>buyer and no commercial paper to keep inventory for the dealer. The
>largest Chevy Dealer is bankrupt.
>
Sales are slowing everywhere because people are too far into debt.
So what?
A deadbeat here and there is no big deal. Millions of them is another
story.
> I suppose the remaining manufacturers will be crushed next. Then a
>wave of restaurants will fold.
>
Boo hoo. Those with 250k of debt for their home, SUV, pick-up truck,
electronics, etc, won't be able to put steak on the balance heavy CC
and actually have to cook up some food.
We won't see eye to eye on this. I've been saying for years that we
should be manufacturing most of our own goods and paying the higher
prices for them, and not all on credit. Instead we've shipped the
jobs overseas and glutted ourselves on cheap foreign goods and credit.
We've been living high off the hog, but some never knew any different
and think it's their God-given right. It ain't.
> Now, as far as the debt goes, the time to have paid down the debt was
>when the times were relatively good. But all that money went to tax
>breaks, a bloated medicare giveaway bill and a senseless war. If you
>tighten credit further now you'll be doing the same thing that Hoover
>did after the crash, and we can see where that lead.
>
There is no comparison of today to the 1920-30's.
Why not blame it on Hoot-Smalley?
> It's going to take a while to dig out of this hole.
>
We'll see. I sure don't have a crystal ball. Just plenty of cash
because I've always felt saving was more important than buying
every toy and having min wage folks prepare my food and cut my grass.
And whenever I found myself in debt I pulled in my belt and worked
hard to get out. I didn't throw more debt at it.
But that's just me, and maybe I'm wrong.
Doesn't keep me from expressing my views.
--Vic
clams_casino
>>
>>
>Scare tactics. Those living on credit will have to adjust to reality.
>Businesses that rely on customer purchases of products bought
>on credit which can't be paid back will also have to adjust.
>
>
And small businesses that require credit to carry inventory will just
have to adjust (lay off employees & cut inventory).
Hint - businesses (particularly their employees) have much more to lose
than customers do.
>Reality check time. Now or later.
>Check debt/savings stats. That says it all.
>
>
>
>> The first to go down will be the auto dealerships. Credit is tight to
>>non existent even for those with excellent credit.
>>
I'm already seeing that. The Ford dealer down the street has about 1/3
of their normally full lot empty.
I passed a Subaru dealer this morning with just six cars on their lot.
>>So no loans for the
>>buyer and no commercial paper to keep inventory for the dealer. The
>>largest Chevy Dealer is bankrupt.
>>
>>
>>
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Booming business? - guns &
ammo.
Dennis
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Boo hoo. Those with 250k of debt for their home, SUV, pick-up truck,
>electronics, etc, won't be able to put steak on the balance heavy CC
>and actually have to cook up some food.
>We won't see eye to eye on this. I've been saying for years that we
>should be manufacturing most of our own goods and paying the higher
>prices for them, and not all on credit. Instead we've shipped the
>jobs overseas and glutted ourselves on cheap foreign goods and credit.
>We've been living high off the hog, but some never knew any different
>and think it's their God-given right. It ain't.
Correct. There is a whole new generation since the last big mess 21
years ago that apparently needs to learn the same old lesson the hard
way. Apparently some of the old farts have forgotten, too (or never
learned the first time).
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
Jeff
Obviously a good bit of these "assets" are worthless, but there is a
large number that has some value. Nobody knows what that value is and
using mark to market, you have insufficient assets to cover daily
operations. Something has to be done to establish some value. That I
believe is what Treasury is trying to do. Obviously it is the same crowd
that has gone headlong and without oversight to get us here.
>
>> At last count the Fed had dumped in $500 billion ad hoc. And was
>> treading water. That's why the change of approach.
>>
> The chickens are coming home to roost in the unsustainable debt
> cage. Delaying it by making it worse is a bad solution.
> I'm not alone in that view.
Well, you'll get no argument that it is incredible recklessness and
the regard to the notion that deficits don't matter. Add to that
monetary policy to drive down the dollar. It's been a horrible economic
policy and most unnerving is that they got here deliberately.
>
>> If anything initial failure of this bill has made this more expensive
>> in trying to satisfy "conservatives" by adding in tax breaks and other
>> unfunded perks to the wealthy. With this new bill, you'll probably lose
>> some blue dog democrats who are the only real deficit hawks. Franks
>> himself, said as much, and that he was sympathetic to their cause.
>>
>> It's all so much of the Bush who cried Wolf. Unlike all the other
>> times, the wolf really is at the door. Although his approach has been
>> watched for two years nothing was done.
>>
>> Now, I don't like this bill. But any business that doesn't have a hoard
>> of cash is going to be in big trouble.
>>
> Scare tactics. Those living on credit will have to adjust to reality.
> Businesses that rely on customer purchases of products bought
> on credit which can't be paid back will also have to adjust.
> Reality check time. Now or later.
> Check debt/savings stats. That says it all.
Well, we shall see. Buffett stepping into GE I found interesting. But
it's not buying on credit I'm talking about, I'm talking about keeping
either materials or inventory in stock until it is sold.
>
>> The first to go down will be the auto dealerships. Credit is tight to
>> non existent even for those with excellent credit. So no loans for the
>> buyer and no commercial paper to keep inventory for the dealer. The
>> largest Chevy Dealer is bankrupt.
>>
> Sales are slowing everywhere because people are too far into debt.
> So what?
Well you can't run a negative savings rate for years and expect to
maintain it. But this is a different kettle of fish. It is the perfect
storm.
> A deadbeat here and there is no big deal. Millions of them is another
> story.
>
Deadbeats fine, but there are a lot of big players that rely on
commercial paper to keep their operations going. Most large purchases
are financed. So what happens to companies that have to make payroll or
buy supplies. They know they will have the money in 30 days, but they
need to spend it now. That's a huge chunk of commerce there.
>> I suppose the remaining manufacturers will be crushed next. Then a
>> wave of restaurants will fold.
>>
> Boo hoo. Those with 250k of debt for their home, SUV, pick-up truck,
> electronics, etc, won't be able to put steak on the balance heavy CC
> and actually have to cook up some food.
Well, I could care less about them. And that has been part of the
problem. Those tax cuts to the wealthy, as near as I can figure, are
going on 3 trillion dollars. Trickle down has never worked. The rich
don't put it back in the economy and they really don't need it.
> We won't see eye to eye on this. I've been saying for years that we
> should be manufacturing most of our own goods and paying the higher
> prices for them, and not all on credit.
So, how are you going to purchase raw products and machinery without
access to capital? Existing manufacturing will get slaughtered and they
are. When you are operating on thin margins you don't have wads of cash.
Instead we've shipped the
> jobs overseas and glutted ourselves on cheap foreign goods and credit.
> We've been living high off the hog, but some never knew any different
> and think it's their God-given right. It ain't.
I don't disagree with that.
>> Now, as far as the debt goes, the time to have paid down the debt was
>> when the times were relatively good. But all that money went to tax
>> breaks, a bloated medicare giveaway bill and a senseless war. If you
>> tighten credit further now you'll be doing the same thing that Hoover
>> did after the crash, and we can see where that lead.
>>
> There is no comparison of today to the 1920-30's.
> Why not blame it on Hoot-Smalley?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall doesn't look like such genius now. The
fact is that when you let the sharks do as they please, and there has
been steady effort to reduce oversight, you are always going to get
these disasters after the feeding frenzy.
>
>> It's going to take a while to dig out of this hole.
>>
> We'll see. I sure don't have a crystal ball. Just plenty of cash
> because I've always felt saving was more important than buying
> every toy and having min wage folks prepare my food and cut my grass.
> And whenever I found myself in debt I pulled in my belt and worked
> hard to get out. I didn't throw more debt at it.
> But that's just me, and maybe I'm wrong.
> Doesn't keep me from expressing my views.
Well, I don't have plenty of cash. I do have a stocked wood pile and
going on 300 sf of solar collector. Combine that with a frugal lifestyle
and I'm sure I'll be OK. Frankly, I'd be amused to watch everyone else's
lifestyle catch up with mine.
Jeff
>
> --Vic
Dennis
Perhaps you don't understand -- nothing in the bailout bill specifies
that the bad investments the treasury buys must be owned by US banks
and investment firms. In fact, Paulson said addition of any kind of
restriction on buying up foreign-held paper would result in a veto.
Dennis (evil)
--
Believing we can politely influence politicians is rather like believing we can reason with men who fly airplanes into buildings.
-- Claire Wolfe
Rod Speed
> Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Right. So the Chinese and Saudi bankers will loan the US
>> taxpayers the money to clean up their own ailing investments.
>> What's wrong with this picture?
> Plenty.
> The scare tactics about tight money coming from those pushing debt don't seem reflected by reality.
Have fun explaining the LIBOR rate.
> Or maybe lenders know their bad loans will still be
> backed by the taxpayer because of the scare tactics.
They do because they realise that Congress will pass it for sure and will just vary the detail.
Dennis
>Well, I could care less about them. And that has been part of the
>problem. Those tax cuts to the wealthy, as near as I can figure, are
>going on 3 trillion dollars. Trickle down has never worked. The rich
>don't put it back in the economy and they really don't need it.
And yet you adamantly support the biggest trickle down bill ever.
What makes you think that a significant portion of that big wad of
cash shoveled into the top will make it down to the folks at the
bottom who need it?
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
Jeff
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:40:53 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I could care less about them. And that has been part of the
>> problem. Those tax cuts to the wealthy, as near as I can figure, are
>> going on 3 trillion dollars. Trickle down has never worked. The rich
>> don't put it back in the economy and they really don't need it.
>
> And yet you adamantly support the biggest trickle down bill ever.
> What makes you think that a significant portion of that big wad of
> cash shoveled into the top will make it down to the folks at the
> bottom who need it?
500 billion has already been committed without it, ad hoc.
So look at the bill that just passed, the same as last week but with
billions in pork. I support that only because there is nothing else that
has a chance of working in the necessary time frame. The current
approach was even more expensive and obviously, obviously not working.
The next president will have to straighten out the financial mess.
There is nothing that can be done under W. Clinton aimed at the deficit
under the previous Bush and it took 6 years to right that.
We differ in that I think this is a crisis. I did not think that when
Colin Powell gave his dog and pony show before the war and I have not
thought that about the Patriot Act or Warrentless Surveilance, or
torture. GE, with superb credit, "borrowed" 3 billion from Buffett under
poor terms. That is how tight credit had gotten.
Neither do I think this will be sufficient in itself.
Jeff