OT - Seriously, does Obama care about the markets at all?
topcat
This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
President sits back and builds his liberal empire. I know, I know, Bush's
fault, we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with Obama's
proposed policies. No Obama trend here
Interesting reads...
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22647
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-spreading-panic-2009-02-24.html
Will open window media player if you click....funny...
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/overmyhead.asx
TC
Aaron
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> President sits back and builds his liberal empire. I know, I know, Bush's
> fault, we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with Obama's
> proposed policies. No Obama trend here
If you already know then STFU already. Duh. Every other day we get
horrible news from last quarter, under BUSH, that drives the market
back down. It'll go up when it goes up. Obama can't MAKE it go up, and
neither could McCain and the lipsticked bulldog.
> TC
-Aaron
PeterL
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
in the market, so be it.
> I know, I know, Bush's
> fault,
Finally your eyes are opened!
> we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with Obama's
> proposed policies. No Obama trend here
Were you hyperventilating when the market dropped 30% to 40% during
Bush's tenure? Were you jumping up and down when the market went into
a bull mode during Clinton's tenure?
>
> Interesting reads...
>
Not really.
>
> TC
topcat
"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
in the market, so be it.
***********************
His policies are being met with resistence by the business world. That is
becoming very evident. His approach is the most radical we've ever seen from
a President with less than 100 days in power.
I'm hearing people who voted *for* him now saying - "Well, I *hope* he knows
what he's doing". Some endorsement.
> we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with
> Obama's
> proposed policies. No Obama trend here
Were you hyperventilating when the market dropped 30% to 40% during
Bush's tenure? Were you jumping up and down when the market went into
a bull mode during Clinton's tenure?
*****************
Yes and yes. Although I knew the Clinton "tech bubble" party would
eventually end. Bush was at least taking the right steps to calm the
markets.
>
> Interesting reads...
>
Not really.
*************
Really. You don't want a President who inspires confidence, not PANIC? If
the market loses another 1000 points or so, I believe we're going to have
real panic.
TC
Salad
So it would be best to let CITI corp collapse?
This one is too funny. "Healthcare and drug companies, such as Merck &
Co (MRK.N) and Johnson & Johnson Inc (JNJ.N), fell for a second day on
worries that U.S. President Barack Obama's budget proposal will strangle
profits as the administration tries to rein in healthcare costs."
Here's your man bush quote. "Data showing the U.S. economy shrank at an
annual rate of 6.2 percent last quarter also weighed on the market."
The oil markets are falling because few are driving.
Nobody really cared about the economy until Obama got into office.
aaron...@gmail.com
> "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Too late, from the tone of your and Bob's posts.
-Aaron, "can we start panicking now?"
intang...@yahoo.com
>
> His policies are being met with resistence by the business world.
Yeah those "free market capitalists" who keep threatening to shoot our
puppy unless we fork over more taxpayer cash.
Mickey
> On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>>
>> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
>> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>
> I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
> policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
> prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
> for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
> in the market, so be it.
Your statement above suggests you're not all that clear on what "the
market" is. You seem to think the market is somehow separate from the
economy or society in general. A President who ignores the market
(indexes) ignores what are arguably the most important indicators of the
economy. He would also be ignoring the equities that back up the vast
majority of retirement funds. If the market does not recover, there will
not be money to pay for all the nifty stuff he says he wants to do.
The Other Mickey
PeterL
>
> news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> >http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> > This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> > President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>
> I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
> policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
> prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
> for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
> in the market, so be it.
>
> ***********************
>
> His policies are being met with resistence by the business world.
Huh? The business world is very happy taking hand-outs from the
government. I don't see any "resistence" against taking any money. I
see the number of GOP governors who "resisted" with one hand, and
taking money with the other.
> That is
> becoming very evident.
Actually not very evident to me. What we see is the market is feeling
uncertain, and the market abhors uncertainty.
> His approach is the most radical we've ever seen from
> a President with less than 100 days in power.
>
I don't see that at all. His policy has been known to a large extent
when he was running for election. There isn't a whole lot of
surprises here. It may be "radical" but we are in extreme financial
distress at the moment. So radical actions are needed.
> I'm hearing people who voted *for* him now saying - "Well, I *hope* he knows
> what he's doing". Some endorsement.
>
There are 300 million people in the US. How many have you heard this
from?
> > we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> > the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with
> > Obama's
> > proposed policies. No Obama trend here
>
> Were you hyperventilating when the market dropped 30% to 40% during
> Bush's tenure? Were you jumping up and down when the market went into
> a bull mode during Clinton's tenure?
>
> *****************
>
> Yes and yes. Although I knew the Clinton "tech bubble" party would
> eventually end. Bush was at least taking the right steps to calm the
> markets.
>
Bush was taking steps to calm the markets? You've got to be kidding.
Bush couldn't get out of the White house fast enough.
>
>
> > Interesting reads...
>
> Not really.
>
> *************
>
> Really. You don't want a President who inspires confidence, not PANIC? If
> the market loses another 1000 points or so, I believe we're going to have
> real panic.
>
Of course I want a president who inspires confidence. The market was
down 40% from it's height during the last year of Bush's tenure. I
didn't see you panicking then.
> TC
PeterL
wrote:
While what you say is true, what I said was also true. Our
government's policy should be the long term welfare of the economy,
not short term actions to prop up the market. Sound economic policy
will eventually lead to a stable and growing stock market. The
economy drives the market, not the other way around.
>
> The Other Mickey
topcat
On Feb 27, 1:47 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> >http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> > This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as
> > the
> > President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>
> I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
> policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
> prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
> for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
> in the market, so be it.
>
> ***********************
>
> His policies are being met with resistence by the business world.
Huh? The business world is very happy taking hand-outs from the
government. I don't see any "resistence" against taking any money. I
see the number of GOP governors who "resisted" with one hand, and
taking money with the other.
****************
The bailouts are a separate issue. And I seriously doubt they're happy
taking the money. I know I'm not happy having to give it to them.
Economists, the CBO, investors, they are betting against Obama every day the
market goes down.
> That is
> becoming very evident.
Actually not very evident to me. What we see is the market is feeling
uncertain, and the market abhors uncertainty.
***************
That's because they see Obama's approach to this crisis as radical. They're
right.
> His approach is the most radical we've ever seen from
> a President with less than 100 days in power.
>
I don't see that at all. His policy has been known to a large extent
when he was running for election. There isn't a whole lot of
surprises here. It may be "radical" but we are in extreme financial
distress at the moment. So radical actions are needed.
********************
I don't understand how anyone can think taxing business and upper wage
earners into oblivion is going to create jobs and expand the economy. The
market certainly doesn't think it's going to work.
> I'm hearing people who voted *for* him now saying - "Well, I *hope* he
> knows
> what he's doing". Some endorsement.
>
There are 300 million people in the US. How many have you heard this
from?
************
What kind of silly question is that? How about I say the 57 million that
didn't vote for him?
I live in NJ where 3 out of every 5 people are Dems. Many of the people I
speak to say they're very nervous about the "borrow and spend" approach
Obama is taking.
> > we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> > the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with
> > Obama's
> > proposed policies. No Obama trend here
>
> Were you hyperventilating when the market dropped 30% to 40% during
> Bush's tenure? Were you jumping up and down when the market went into
> a bull mode during Clinton's tenure?
>
> *****************
>
> Yes and yes. Although I knew the Clinton "tech bubble" party would
> eventually end. Bush was at least taking the right steps to calm the
> markets.
>
Bush was taking steps to calm the markets? You've got to be kidding.
Bush couldn't get out of the White house fast enough.
***********
You're only going to be able to blame Bush for so long.
>
>
> > Interesting reads...
>
> Not really.
>
> *************
>
> Really. You don't want a President who inspires confidence, not PANIC? If
> the market loses another 1000 points or so, I believe we're going to have
> real panic.
>
Of course I want a president who inspires confidence. The market was
down 40% from it's height during the last year of Bush's tenure. I
didn't see you panicking then.
************
Then you weren't watching. I was arguing with people who are normally on my
side about whether bailouts were a good idea or a bad idea, etc. I initially
thought *limited* bailouts were a good idea. I now see they were a terrible
idea.
But, you're only going to be able to blame Bush for so long. Bush's shot at
fixing it is done. Obama is now taking his shot, and so far it's been
waaaaaay off.
TC
Suzanne D.
<aaron...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df4b3910-4b4d-40b8...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 4:47 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Really. You don't want a President who inspires confidence, not PANIC? If
> the market loses another 1000 points or so, I believe we're going to have
> real panic.
>
> TC
>Too late, from the tone of your and Bob's posts.
I'm betting that the panic is less about not having enough money as it is
about possibly one day having enough money and having to admit Obama did
well. I think many people would rather live on the streets than succeed
under Obama.
--S.
The_LA_Flash
> I think many people would rather live on the streets than succeed
> under Obama.
"you know it's sad but true..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCF19cBWb0I
Tin@
Your lover TC is one of those people.
topcat
"The_LA_Flash" <Phil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2b0b264-24cc-4478...@a7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
***************
Maybe you want to live in a socialist country. I don't.
And, yes, I'm going to do as little a possible during Obama's one term. Make
just enough to survive.
There is no reason to achieve. Why bother? It's all going to be
redistributed in one way or another. Lots of other *former* producers (like
me) feel the same way I do. Watch what happens when the so-called rich
decide it isn't worth it anymore.
TC
Tin@
> "The_LA_Flash" <Phil3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a2b0b264-24cc-4478...@a7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 4:51 pm, "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_complai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think many people would rather live on the streets than succeed
> > under Obama.
>
> "you know it's sad but true..."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCF19cBWb0I
>
> ***************
>
> Maybe you want to live in a socialist country. I don't.
Uh oh, is a break up in the near future?
Salad
Many years ago I met a person that got divorced. He, from what others
said, was successful in his business. Because he didn't want to pay
alimony or give her part of the business he let it fail and run into the
ground. He had nothing, she got nothing.
I'm sure there's some like you that will give up. Maybe go to LV or AC
and gamble your money away. Others with the taste of the sweet life won't.
The_LA_Flash
> topcat wrote:
> > "The_LA_Flash" <Phil3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
But what happens if TC goes to AC and tries to gamble away his money
but he keeps winning no matter what he does? I once saw a Twilight
Zone that had a storyline similar to that….
Bob Rudd
@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, aaro...@msn.com says...
Like zob, you really don't understand the economics and the markets,
Aaron.
Everything Obama has suggested since he took office has negatively
impacted the markets and driven them significantly down.
--
I hope we can all be good neighbors online!
Bob Rudd
@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, po....@gmail.com says...
> > > for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
> > > in the market, so be it.
> >
> > Your statement above suggests you're not all that clear on what "the
> > market" is. You seem to think the market is somehow separate from the
> > economy or society in general. A President who ignores the market
> > (indexes) ignores what are arguably the most important indicators of the
> > economy. He would also be ignoring the equities that back up the vast
> > majority of retirement funds. If the market does not recover, there will
> > not be money to pay for all the nifty stuff he says he wants to do.
>
> While what you say is true, what I said was also true. Our
> government's policy should be the long term welfare of the economy,
> not short term actions to prop up the market. Sound economic policy
> will eventually lead to a stable and growing stock market. The
> economy drives the market, not the other way around.
>
>
Then you don't have trillons of dollars of deficit spending to prop up
businesses and industries that should be permitted to fail as they have
earned the right/responsibility to do so.
Suzanne D.
"Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:lb-dnZhkRM9_eTXU...@earthlink.com...
> topcat wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you want to live in a socialist country. I don't.
>>
>> And, yes, I'm going to do as little a possible during Obama's one term.
>> Make just enough to survive.
>>
>> There is no reason to achieve. Why bother? It's all going to be
>> redistributed in one way or another. Lots of other *former* producers
>> (like me) feel the same way I do. Watch what happens when the so-called
>> rich decide it isn't worth it anymore.
>>
>> TC
>
> Many years ago I met a person that got divorced. He, from what others
> said, was successful in his business. Because he didn't want to pay
> alimony or give her part of the business he let it fail and run into the
> ground. He had nothing, she got nothing.
> I'm sure there's some like you that will give up. Maybe go to LV or AC
> and gamble your money away. Others with the taste of the sweet life
> won't.
Those of us who actually care about ourselves will be successful and take
over the country, and idiots like TC who chose to become paupers to prove
their points will become our slaves.
--S.
Suzanne D.
__________________
He'll blame it on Obama.
--S.
Suzanne D.
"zob" <zob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42rhq4t2vgpsu6lqp...@4ax.com...
> The fact is, all you're doing now is echoing someone else's thoughts
This surprises you?
--S.
topcat
>
>>
>>"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>>>
>>> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as
>>> the
>>> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>>
>>I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
>>policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
>>prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
>>for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
>>in the market, so be it.
>>
>>***********************
>>
>>His policies are being met with resistence by the business world. That is
>>becoming very evident. His approach is the most radical we've ever seen
>>from
>>a President with less than 100 days in power.
>
> are. And now you're talking out your butt as if you had a clue.
>
> You said outright Tuesday night that you purposely avoided watching
> Obama's his speech -- You know, the speech where he laid out step by
> step what his policies and plans are to address the nation's economic
> issues. Had you watched it, you might be able to speak from a place
> of intelligence and knowledge, and refute specific issues and talking
> points. But instead you intentionally chose to keep yourself
> ignorant, and now you're making negative posts as if you know what the
> facts are.
>
> The fact is, all you're doing now is echoing someone else's thoughts
> order to be able to weigh the facts and arrive at an intelligent
> conclusion. I don't understand that. And it has nothing to do with
> political party. Why would anyone purposely insulate themself from
> knowledge and facts, and then negatively pontificate as if they knew
> they were talking about? You're an obviously smart guy, TC, but this
> makes you come across as petty and silly. You just stated that "His
> approach is the most radical we've ever seen from a President with
> your butt because you have no clue what his approach is.
>
> You're keeping yourself locked in a dark closet and complaining that
> there is no light outdoors. When it's you who are keeping yourself
> from seeing it.
>
>
Do you work for the administration? Are you on Obama's staff?
So that means you're mimicking what you hear from Keith Olbermann.
It's becoming quite clear what Obama is going to do. He's going to attempt
to build a socialist utopia. And I don't need to hear him lie to me in some
speech to know it.
TC
topcat
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:54:23 -0500, zob <zob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:47:33 -0500, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>>>>
>>>> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as
>>>> the
>>>> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>>>
>>>I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
>>>policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
>>>prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
>>>for the good of the country. These policies may cause short term pain
>>>in the market, so be it.
>>>
>>>***********************
>>>
>>>His policies are being met with resistence by the business world. That is
>>>becoming very evident. His approach is the most radical we've ever seen
>>>from
>>>a President with less than 100 days in power.
>>
>>are. And now you're talking out your butt as if you had a clue.
>>
>>You said outright Tuesday night that you purposely avoided watching
>>Obama's his speech -- You know, the speech where he laid out step by
>>step what his policies and plans are to address the nation's economic
>>issues. Had you watched it, you might be able to speak from a place
>>of intelligence and knowledge, and refute specific issues and talking
>>points. But instead you intentionally chose to keep yourself
>>ignorant, and now you're making negative posts as if you know what the
>>facts are.
>>
>>The fact is, all you're doing now is echoing someone else's thoughts
>>because you chose not to arm yourself with firsthand knowledge in
>>order to be able to weigh the facts and arrive at an intelligent
>>conclusion. I don't understand that. And it has nothing to do with
>>political party. Why would anyone purposely insulate themself from
>>knowledge and facts, and then negatively pontificate as if they knew
>>they were talking about? You're an obviously smart guy, TC, but this
>>approach is the most radical we've ever seen from a President with
>>your butt because you have no clue what his approach is.
>>
>>You're keeping yourself locked in a dark closet and complaining that
>>there is no light outdoors. When it's you who are keeping yourself
>>from seeing it.
>>
>
I'm sure. And I'm sincere in my feelings that socialism doesn't work over
the long haul. Sooner or later the producers give up. I'm just smart enough
to give up sooner rather than later.
TC
topcat
"Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2412cf50...@news.albasani.net...
****************
I really look forward to being an "I told you so" in terms of Obama's
policies. Of course, with this bunch it won't matter much, since they'll
never admit Obama doesn't walk on water.
BO will either *change* his policies (should his party lose big in the
mid-terms) in which case this bunch will say he didn't change them, "this is
what he was doing all along" -OR- he'll sink with them, in which case this
bunch will blame Bush or say his policies haven't had enough time to work.
TC
Tin@
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, cuz TV and real life resemble each other so often, dont they?
Tin@
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:47:33 -0500, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> >news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> >On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> >> This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> >> President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>
> >I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
> >policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
> >prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
> >in the market, so be it.
>
>
> >His policies are being met with resistence by the business world. That is
> >becoming very evident. His approach is the most radical we've ever seen from
> >a President with less than 100 days in power.
>
> Huh? You self-admittedly have no clue what President Obama's policies
> are. And now you're talking out your butt as if you had a clue.
>
> You said outright Tuesday night that you purposely avoided watching
> Obama's his speech -- You know, the speech where he laid out step by
> step what his policies and plans are to address the nation's economic
> issues. Had you watched it, you might be able to speak from a place
> of intelligence and knowledge, and refute specific issues and talking
> points. But instead you intentionally chose to keep yourself
> ignorant, and now you're making negative posts as if you know what the
> facts are.
Rush told him what the "facts" are, come on!
>
> The fact is, all you're doing now is echoing someone else's thoughts
> because you chose not to arm yourself with firsthand knowledge in
> order to be able to weigh the facts and arrive at an intelligent
> conclusion. I don't understand that. And it has nothing to do with
> political party. Why would anyone purposely insulate themself from
> knowledge and facts, and then negatively pontificate as if they knew
> they were talking about? You're an obviously smart guy, TC, but this
> makes you come across as petty and silly. You just stated that "His
> approach is the most radical we've ever seen from a President with
> less than 100 days in power." When in reality, you're talking out
> your butt because you have no clue what his approach is.
>
> You're keeping yourself locked in a dark closet and complaining that
> there is no light outdoors. When it's you who are keeping yourself
> from seeing it.- Hide quoted text -
Tin@
>
> - Show quoted text -
But wouldnt you have to be successful first for that to be true?
Suzanne D.
"Tin@" <tinas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:638467b0-7bf8-474e...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Not necessarily, but that's moot anyway.
--S.
Suzanne D.
"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
news:gob90...@news7.newsguy.com...
> I'm sure. And I'm sincere in my feelings that socialism doesn't work over
> the long haul. Sooner or later the producers give up. I'm just smart
> enough to give up sooner rather than later.
Good Americans try to do their best. Maybe you should move to some place
where the people whine a lot and have no pride.
--S.
Suzanne D.
> I really look forward to being an "I told you so" in terms of Obama's
> policies.
Again, it amazes me that people would rather be miserable than to be
successful under Obama. It amuses me to think of what you will do if you
actually become successful. Let me guess...spend as much money as you can
on electronics, cars, and vacations, and then complain when you have nothing
left to pay for food and rent. (I am already seeing this happening with
other people, so it's not as far-fetched as it sounds.)
--S.
Bob Rudd
I just went to the P.O this morning to pick up a registered package
containing 99 ounces of old silver coins as a hedge against the
continued free fall of the markets in the face of Obamanomics.
Hopefully, the historical trends of precious metals being the positive
fall back play in situations like now will again prove to be the case.
Tin@
wrote:
> "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I know, since you aren't successsful.
topcat
Good move. You can always get whatever ends up being the dominant currency
after Obama devalues the dollar via hyper-inflation.
TC
Gregory Morrow
Tin@ blabbled:
-------------
Your life would make a really wacky "reality show", TUN@ - for about TWO
minutes...!!!
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
Tin@ stupidly wrote:
----------------
That's kinda "rich" coming from the likes of you, TUN@...
LOL...
--
Best
Greg
do...@webtv.net
'The Flash' said:
"But what happens if TC goes to AC and tries to gamble away his money
but he keeps winning no matter what he does? I once saw a Twilight Zone
that had a storyline similar to that…."
In that Twilight Zone, Flash...the constant winner found out that he was
actually in hell.
But TC would be against Obama and...Hmmmm...sounds right.
Salad
You must have had bullion trucks delivering to your house during the
bush years.
do...@webtv.net
things...EVERYTHING went down the drain under 8 years of Bush.
Bob Rudd
o...@vinegar.com says...
Until near the end of last spring, I owned very little bullion and was
quite content with my stock positions. Obama's Presidency, more
specifically how he appears to have no real understanding of the markets
other than populist rhetoric, have led me to increase my positions in
all three of the popular precious metals. Note, I said precious metals
themselves rather than in companies than mine them.... big difference.
Aaron
> "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Feb 27, 1:47 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:15f908ab-4c5b-4c80...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 27, 1:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> > > This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as
> > > the
> > > President sits back and builds his liberal empire.
>
> > I would hate to have a president who'd let the market drives his
> > policy, and that goes for any president. Or to form policy simply to
> > prop up the market. The president's job is to plan long term policies
> > in the market, so be it.
>
>
> > His policies are being met with resistence by the business world.
>
> government. I don't see any "resistence" against taking any money. I
> see the number of GOP governors who "resisted" with one hand, and
> taking money with the other.
>
> ****************
>
> The bailouts are a separate issue. And I seriously doubt they're happy
> taking the money. I know I'm not happy having to give it to them.
>
> Economists, the CBO, investors, they are betting against Obama every day the
> market goes down.
>
> > That is
> > becoming very evident.
>
> uncertain, and the market abhors uncertainty.
>
> ***************
>
> That's because they see Obama's approach to this crisis as radical. They're
> right.
>
> > His approach is the most radical we've ever seen from
> > a President with less than 100 days in power.
>
> when he was running for election. There isn't a whole lot of
> surprises here. It may be "radical" but we are in extreme financial
> distress at the moment. So radical actions are needed.
>
> ********************
>
> I don't understand how anyone can think taxing business and upper wage
> earners into oblivion is going to create jobs and expand the economy. The
> market certainly doesn't think it's going to work.
>
> > I'm hearing people who voted *for* him now saying - "Well, I *hope* he
> > knows
> > what he's doing". Some endorsement.
>
> There are 300 million people in the US. How many have you heard this
> from?
>
> ************
>
> What kind of silly question is that? How about I say the 57 million that
> didn't vote for him?
>
> I live in NJ where 3 out of every 5 people are Dems. Many of the people I
> speak to say they're very nervous about the "borrow and spend" approach
> Obama is taking.
>
> > > we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> > > the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with
> > > Obama's
> > > proposed policies. No Obama trend here
>
> > Bush's tenure? Were you jumping up and down when the market went into
> > a bull mode during Clinton's tenure?
>
> > *****************
>
> > Yes and yes. Although I knew the Clinton "tech bubble" party would
> > eventually end. Bush was at least taking the right steps to calm the
> > markets.
>
> Bush was taking steps to calm the markets? You've got to be kidding.
> Bush couldn't get out of the White house fast enough.
>
> ***********
>
> You're only going to be able to blame Bush for so long.
That's right! Since you blamed Clinton right on up to 9/11/2001, we
plan on blaming Bush for at least that long!
=)
> TC
-Aaron
Aaron
> In article <938653b2-07ca-4b02-96d2-60eff2eafff8
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
>
> > > This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> > > President sits back and builds his liberal empire. I know, I know, Bush's
> > > fault, we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> > > the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with Obama's
> > > proposed policies. No Obama trend here
>
> > If you already know then STFU already. Duh. Every other day we get
> > horrible news from last quarter, under BUSH, that drives the market
> > back down. It'll go up when it goes up. Obama can't MAKE it go up, and
> > neither could McCain and the lipsticked bulldog.
>
> > > TC
>
> > -Aaron
>
> Like zob, you really don't understand the economics and the markets,
> Aaron.
>
> Everything Obama has suggested since he took office has negatively
> impacted the markets and driven them significantly down.
Of course, Bob. Zob and I are morons, and you are a genius. How could
I have missed it before!
-Aaron
Aaron
> In article <gob98402...@news7.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Rudd" <bobr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.2412cf50...@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <517516d6-13c1-4136-b3d9-213babce51e5
Hmm...as CEO and President of such a valuable and prestigious (though
unnamed) political analysis firm, I'm surprised you need any
protection against the fall of the markets.
I don't need any, and I'm just a senior engineer at a small consulting
firm...
=)
-Aaron
Bob Rudd
33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, aaro...@msn.com says...
Ok Aaron, you appear to want some.....
I've earned every damn cent I have, so has my wife... just like millions
of other Americans from all walks of life, both better and worse off
than we are. We've been blessed as well in many ways. I have every
intention of not just maintaining but increasing the financial position
we have attained, rather than meekly sit on the sidelines as the markets
are battered and exponentially begin to depress under the Obama fiscal
policies.
Precious metals provide a historical hedge against what is currently
going on in our markets.
Focus on attempting to increase, rather than just maintaining....or
continuing to watch your investments decline as "you don't need any."
>
> I don't need any, and I'm just a senior engineer at a small consulting
> firm...
>
> =)
>
> -Aaron
>
Bob Rudd
3badef...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, aaro...@msn.com says...
Mickey explained it all very well to you the other day. Do with that as
you please.
Suzanne D.
On Feb 28, 10:29 am, "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_complai...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -
> >But wouldnt you have to be successful first for that to be true?
>
> Not necessarily, but that's moot anyway.
> --S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>I know, since you aren't successful.
Of course, we all knew that's where you were going. I am actually pretty
successful, considering I work about five hours a week and get $200 for
that.
--S.
Suzanne D.
> containing 99 ounces of old silver coins
Good move. Now you won't have enough money to pay for rent and food, so you
can officially claim to be poor during Obama's presidency.
--S.
Suzanne D.
<do...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20064-49A...@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
> TC, Bob...ANYONE...please just give us a reasonable explanation of how
> things...EVERYTHING went down the drain under 8 years of Bush.
It was left over from the Clinton years.
--S.
Governor Swill
>Everything Obama has suggested since he took office has negatively
>impacted the markets and driven them significantly down.
That's because "everything Obama has suggested since he took office"
has told the markets that the taxpayers aren't going to make up the
losses the greedy bankers and investors suffered from their bad
decisions. That's why they liked Bush's bank bailout. Hundreds of
billions, no questions asked.
Swill
--
"It's going to take more than three weeks to unfuck eight years of
George Bush's bungling." -- Christopher Helms
Governor Swill
>I really look forward to being an "I told you so" in terms of Obama's
>policies. Of course, with this bunch it won't matter much, since they'll
>never admit Obama doesn't walk on water.
>
>BO will either *change* his policies (should his party lose big in the
>mid-terms) in which case this bunch will say he didn't change them, "this is
>what he was doing all along" -OR- he'll sink with them, in which case this
>bunch will blame Bush or say his policies haven't had enough time to work.
You make Obama sound just like a Republican. Now THAT'S a miracle!
Governor Swill
>I just went to the P.O this morning to pick up a registered package
>containing 99 ounces of old silver coins as a hedge against the
>continued free fall of the markets in the face of Obamanomics.
>Hopefully, the historical trends of precious metals being the positive
>fall back play in situations like now will again prove to be the case.
Good luck buying a gallon of milk with those.
Governor Swill
><do...@webtv.net> wrote
>> TC, Bob...ANYONE...please just give us a reasonable explanation of how
>> things...EVERYTHING went down the drain under 8 years of Bush.
>
>It was left over from the Clinton years.
It's all Jimmy Carter's fault.
The_LA_Flash
> "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0f7dd68-1491-4f1c...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 10:29 am, "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_complai...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >But wouldnt you have to be successful first for that to be true?
>
> > Not necessarily, but that's moot anyway.
> > --S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >I know, since you aren't successful.
>
> Of course, we all knew that's where you were going. I am actually pretty
> successful, considering I work about five hours a week and get $200 for
> that.
> --S.
....and don't forget you have two degrees which is two more than you
know who.
Bob Rudd
@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:33:00 -0500, Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <938653b2-07ca-4b02-96d2-60eff2eafff8
> >@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, aaro...@msn.com says...
> >> On Feb 27, 4:10 pm, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> >> > http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
> >> >
> >> > This is peoples retirement funds drying up right before their eyes, as the
> >> > President sits back and builds his liberal empire. I know, I know, Bush's
> >> > fault, we have to give Obama's plan "a chance". I think it's now 7 out of
> >> > the last 8 days the market has been down. I know, nothing to do with Obama's
> >> > proposed policies. No Obama trend here
> >>
> >> If you already know then STFU already. Duh. Every other day we get
> >> horrible news from last quarter, under BUSH, that drives the market
> >> back down. It'll go up when it goes up. Obama can't MAKE it go up, and
> >> neither could McCain and the lipsticked bulldog.
> >>
> >> > TC
> >>
> >> -Aaron
> >>
> >
> >Like zob, you really don't understand the economics and the markets,
> >Aaron.
>
>
> and I take offense.
>
> Based on the repeated and proven failure of "supply side" economics
> since the Reagan era, building enormous national debt and deficits, I
> would maintain that it is you who are clinging to a tired, failed
> economics policy with outdated understanding of the economics and
> markets.
>
Zob, you're a nice guy but you really do not understand economics or how
the markets really work.
Bob Rudd
bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com says...
Hehehe, the mortgages are covered. The cabinets are stocked. If the
fiat paper we call money becomes next to worthless, in addition to being
an investment, the old silver coins will have considerably more
worth/value as true coinage and money.
Salad
Maybe you can provide a primer.
We've seen the results of an anything goes, whatever floats the banks
and Wall St boats, what regulations we don't need to stinking oversight
or regulations economy. Maybe you can tell us how it should really work.
Mickey
You likewise seem vague in your understanding of the market and its
relationship to the economy. There really has not been a no holds barred
free market in this country since at least as far back as Teddy
Roosevelt. It would probably be futile to explain that large systems are
inherently self regulating and why when you regulate a complex system
you probably weaken or remove the system's ability to regulate or repair
itself. Rather than trying to explain the economic system and how
regulation can actually destabilize an economy, I suggest you read the
first four paragraphs of the linked article and the section entitled
"The Usefulness of Fever."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever
Not the be all and end all on the subject, but this is a fair metaphor
for many complex systems. Ironically, (or stupidly) the main reason to
regulate the market is exactly because it is regulated. Remove most of
the regulation presently in place and post a huge "Caveat emptor" sign
over the exchanges and we wouldn't get into these messes.
The Other Mickey
Suzanne D.
"The_LA_Flash" <Phil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4e37873-4588-4676...@k9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
______________________
I am naturally successful, but my biggest failing has always been my lack of
gumption. When I really want something, I get it. Period. I have always
had the skills, ingenuity, intelligence, and creativity to get to whatever
point I have wanted to get to in any area of work or education. I did a lot
with education, but I never did much with work. I was always the person who
was up for promotion but wouldn't accept it because I didn't want the extra
work or I knew I was about to move or have a baby or whatever. (Actually, I
did get promoted a couple of times despite my lackadaisical attitude about
it.) Had I continue working at my old book store, I probably would have
been the manager of my own store by now. As it is, I run my own company and
bring in $200 a week by messing on the computer for a few hours a week, and
this suits my lazy ass fine. Should the time come when I need to do more, I
have complete confidence that I could double or triple that amount with the
gumption to do it.
My husband is no different. Having run a yearly fireworks stand since high
school which ultimately completely paid for his entire four years of
college, he started his current career at the very bottom, and through hard
work and effort is now the manager of his own store. There are whisperings
about him becoming a new district manager. We both have been this way
nearly all of our lives.
And our kids are continuing the trend. The 8-year-old is about to set up a
daily lemonade stand to catch the kids coming home from school. We figure
on at least 10-20 kids buying a 25-cent glass of lemonade daily. The
12-year-old plans to pick our apricots and peaches this year to sell
roadside. There's just no stopping this family.
Saying we are not successful is just an insult that means nothing.
--S.
Suzanne D.
"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r3njq4538hth2l8bj...@4ax.com...
> "Suzanne D." <bbb_bus_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>><do...@webtv.net> wrote
>>> TC, Bob...ANYONE...please just give us a reasonable explanation of how
>>> things...EVERYTHING went down the drain under 8 years of Bush.
>>
>>It was left over from the Clinton years.
>
> It's all Jimmy Carter's fault.
No silly, it stopped being Carter's fault when Clinton took over.
--S.
Tin@
wrote:
> "The_LA_Flash" <Phil3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
LMAO that you think that's success, maybe from Hokeyville where you
live....
Salad
It reminds me of my friend. He said "A Chistian busineman is an
oxymoron." I suppose that could be expanded to the henhouse being
guarded by the fox.
James Robinson
> I just went to the P.O this morning to pick up a registered package
> containing 99 ounces of old silver coins as a hedge against the
> continued free fall of the markets in the face of Obamanomics.
> Hopefully, the historical trends of precious metals being the positive
> fall back play in situations like now will again prove to be the case.
Precious metals did well in the Great Depression because the US increased
the official price of gold from $20 to $35, leading to great demand for the
metal. Gold mining stocks did extremely well thereafter. Don't expect the
same result today.
Bob Rudd
mickey_a...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net says...
> Remove most of
> the regulation presently in place and post a huge "Caveat emptor" sign
> over the exchanges and we wouldn't get into these messes.
>
>
>
That is a pretty decent summation of what would work best.
The two easiest short term answers until then are: 1. To restrict the
practice of trading stocks short to those who actually own the stocks
being sold short and 2. Restricting home mortgages to only those who can
meet the basic qualifications from "the old days" of having "20 percent
down" before being able to walk in the door to request a mortgage for
any house.
Bob Rudd
o...@vinegar.com says...
Business and economics only worship at the altar of: net profit, return
on investment and earnings before interest and taxes. There's a reason
for the saying "It's just business."
I'm not for as completely a free economy with a "Buyer Beware" sign as
Mickey suggests, but it only takes a handful of regulations "for our
protection" to be put in place before I find myself standing right
alongside Mickey and what he said.
"Money," apart from one's personal finances, is not something easily
understood by many. We can all take the lessons from balancing our
checkbooks and insist that our government apply the same to its own but
apart from that, the various nuances of finance and economics are not
considered or understood by most of us. There's nothing wrong with
that, they are very boring and dry subjects. Economics is called the
"dismal science" for a reason and that's largely because it can make
your eyes roll to the back of your head while trying to really
understand it, if the essentials of it don't ruin your mental health
first.
Given our current mess, (apart from blaming the government) we also need
as individuals to look in the mirror and answer to ourselves if we've
overreached and overextended our personal finances as adults? Calling
our the government is fine and good but who wanted the government to put
the laws into effect that brought about our current situation? We did,
as both individuals wanting houses that we had no business even
considering along with businesses that wanted their part of the pork as
well.
The blame is there to be equally accepted by all involved and deservedly
so.
Bob Rudd
says...
Right now the ratio of the cost of gold relative to the cost of silver
is 80-1 when, historically, it is 50-1. That's why silver is a better
play. Platinum is really down but until industries dependent on it
(like the automotive industry) begin to come back, its a longer term
hold.
Metals rise as stocks tank. What you said was a one-off situation. We
should go back to a gold standard but we're not going to ever in our
lifetimes.
Salad
I know. There's no honor. No rules. Just survival of the fittest.
>
> I'm not for as completely a free economy with a "Buyer Beware" sign as
> Mickey suggests, but it only takes a handful of regulations "for our
> protection" to be put in place before I find myself standing right
> alongside Mickey and what he said.
Along with the talented Mr Madoff.
> "Money," apart from one's personal finances, is not something easily
> understood by many. We can all take the lessons from balancing our
> checkbooks and insist that our government apply the same to its own but
> apart from that, the various nuances of finance and economics are not
> considered or understood by most of us. There's nothing wrong with
> that, they are very boring and dry subjects. Economics is called the
> "dismal science" for a reason and that's largely because it can make
> your eyes roll to the back of your head while trying to really
> understand it, if the essentials of it don't ruin your mental health
> first.
>
> Given our current mess, (apart from blaming the government) we also need
> as individuals to look in the mirror and answer to ourselves if we've
> overreached and overextended our personal finances as adults? Calling
> our the government is fine and good but who wanted the government to put
> the laws into effect that brought about our current situation? We did,
> as both individuals wanting houses that we had no business even
> considering along with businesses that wanted their part of the pork as
> well.
>
> The blame is there to be equally accepted by all involved and deservedly
> so.
>
The fox was guarding the henhouse.
Bob Rudd
o...@vinegar.com says...
We are all the foxes and the country is the henhouse, however. Each one
of us that wants "something," whether it's lower taxes (but raise
someone elses), a tax break (personally or group) because of our
"situation/cause," etc.
The politics aside, the American people are guilty for the mess we face
now. Our government just gave us what we, individually/group/business,
wanted. Every program has a price, every tax and tax break favors/harms
someone etc.
Everyone wants someone else to make the sacrifice(s). Everyone has a
reason why they need to be protected. Collectively, we all need to grow
up in this regard and accept that we all should stop asking for more and
begin to pay as we go, including paying down what we already owe, both
as a nation and as individuals.
Salad
IOW, best elect the leaders that permit us to drive the country into the
toilet.
Mickey
You're not far off, but the better question might be to ask was whether
the hen house really needed guarding in the first place.
Another way of looking at this is also medical, the use of antibiotics.
Antibiotics when used too broadly and too often, inevitably breed newer,
tougher, more drug resistant organisms. That's the macro level. At the
micro level, indiscriminate use of antibiotics lowers the average titer
level for individuals, so that when an epidemic (or potential epidemic)
begins, individuals (or communities) are more likely to contract the new
disease (or new strain of an old disease) and pass it on. Thus incident
becomes outbreak becomes epidemic becomes pandemic. In trying to protect
indiscriminately the feeblest members of society from weak, but for them
POTENTIALLY dangerous, infections you expose the entire society to
broadly lethal diseases which previously did not exist.
To follow up on your hen house metaphor, the modern domesticated chicken
does not have the survival instinct of its wild cousins. We have
regulated chickens. By grouping them in hen houses, we have concentrated
our risks. Foxes, like most predators, will tend to kill only the
weakest prey and only enough to meet their needs. When you use a dog to
protect the hen house, you expose the chickens to a former predator
whose behavior is LESS predictable than the fox's. (A dog is an
imperfectly regulated former predator.) When a dog gets loose in the hen
house, because the link between aggression and hunger has been altered
through human controlled breeding and conditioning, the dog might kill
all the chickens out of aggression rather than taking just the chickens
necessary for the fox (and its kits) to survive.
The Other Mickey
Bob Rudd
No, elect the leaders who have the courage to stand up and tell us that,
"sorry, I'm going to do the right thing and insist that the budget be
balanced every year. There will be pain and I'm going to do my best
that it be equally shared as we are all Americans. American citizenship
is a privilege and everyone, individuals and businesses, need to equally
pay for it in order to assure that no one take advantage of each other
or the system."
At that point, we're really on the road to true recovery.
Mickey
That's pretty much what the country just did. Obama is not pulling us
out of Iraq, nor, if you bother to notice the nuances in his statements,
has he really committed to it. In short, other than putting a date
certain on when we MIGHT leave, he is simply following through on George
W. Bush's policy. The budget proposals coming from his office and mouth
are not about addressing the recession as much as seizing the means of
production as per the thoroughly discredited theories of Marx and Engel,
and you would have to look very hard to find anything more destructive
to future growth than his tax policies and carbon cap and sale malarkey.
Wake up and smell the hemlock.
The Other Mickey
Mickey
I'm not suggesting a completely free economy. That is not possible
without a complete destruction of our present society. Some decisions
once made cannot be unmade, something not well understood by the general
public but only too well understood by politicians, particularly those
of the left. Much as the country might wish to retreat from FDR's and
LBJ's worst ideas, it is pretty much impossible. (That doesn't mean we
can't mitigate them, just that we won't ever escape them totally.) The
path upon which Obama would set this country, based on his proposals
from this last week, will destroy this country or cripple it for
generations to come, just as many of these same policies crippled and
ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union.
The Other MIckey
Salad
Bring back bush. He knew how to do things right.
topcat
"Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:9tidnar7fIq8fDfU...@earthlink.com...
That's a non-answer Salad.
TC
Suzanne D.
"Tin@" <tinas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4364db7-e1d9-4d24...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
How is having two college degrees and running my own business that brings in
approximately $40 an hour NOT successful?
--S.
Tin@
> "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it any truer than the
lies No Balls and Greg have spread about me. They're just words,
nothing backs up what you say.
Salad
Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.
20-20 hindsight is wonderful.
A time machine is a solution.
Why can't a women be like a man?
> TC
>
>
Nathan Sanders
"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
>
> > Bring back bush. He knew how to do things right.
>
> That's a non-answer Salad.
Too bad not enough people realized that 4 and/or 8 years ago...
Nathan
Mickey
Don't be silly or use silliness as excuse to ignore the obvious. This
discussion has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. Nearly nothing that
Obama has proposed has anything to do with getting us out of the
recession. If anything, most of them will deepen and extend the
recession. Damn, don't they teach history or mathematics in school
anymore? At times like this, it would be better if Congress and the
President were to go on an extended vacation (say, a couple of years)
and let the country heal itself.
In this thread, I've been trying to get you to think for yourself rather
than swallowing all the horse shit being shoveled by the DNC. (The RNC
is hardly better.) Just when I think you might being starting to reason
through a problem, you disappoint with something like the above. While
we've fought a bunch in this ng, I don't think you are irremediably
stupid, far from it. As Aretha might say, "THINK!"
The Other Mickey
James Robinson
>
> It would probably be futile to explain that large systems
> are inherently self regulating and why when you regulate a complex
> system you probably weaken or remove the system's ability to regulate
> or repair itself. Rather than trying to explain the economic system
>
> Ironically, (or stupidly) the main reason to
> regulate the market is exactly because it is regulated. Remove most of
> the regulation presently in place and post a huge "Caveat emptor" sign
> over the exchanges and we wouldn't get into these messes.
Your faith in the self-regulating market is misplaced. It is precisely
because things like natural monopolies form in deregulated markets that
the regulations were passed in the first place. Because of regulation,
you no longer see people like Morgan, Gould, Vanderbilt and so on, who
were able to manipulate the markets to their favor, and the detriment of
others.
Even a laisez faire economist like Greenspan has acknowledged that he
once believed that the banks would not logically get themselves into
trouble, and could run under minimal regulation. He now admits that he
was wrong.
The reality is that regulation is necessary, but the trick is in
determining how little regulation is required, and resisting the
bureaucrat's urge to run everything. The old Interstate Commerce
Commission was an example of regulatory authority gone wild. The current
Surface Transportation Board, which replaced the ICC with a defanged set
of regulations, is now showing signs of having too great an opinion of
itself. It seems to be the natural tendency of bureaucrats.
James Robinson
> That is a pretty decent summation of what would work best.
>
> The two easiest short term answers until then are: 1. To restrict the
> practice of trading stocks short to those who actually own the stocks
> being sold short and 2. Restricting home mortgages to only those who can
> meet the basic qualifications from "the old days" of having "20 percent
> down" before being able to walk in the door to request a mortgage for
> any house.
Isn't it ironic that you advocate minimal regulation, then immediately
propose a couple of new regulations?
Bob Rudd
Salad, you want a serious discussion but all you bring to the table is
the same old crappy rhetorical slogans.
Bob Rudd
209.myvzw.com>, nathan...@aol.com says...
They considered, rightfully, the Democrat alternatives as far much
worse.
Bob Rudd
mickey_a...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net says...
> In this thread, I've been trying to get you to think for yourself rather
> than swallowing all the horse shit being shoveled by the DNC. (The RNC
> is hardly better.)
Both should stop the shoveling and roll up their sleeves to come up with
positive programs and new alternatives. I totally agree.
> Just when I think you might being starting to reason
> through a problem, you disappoint with something like the above. While
> we've fought a bunch in this ng, I don't think you are irremediably
> stupid, far from it. As Aretha might say, "THINK!"
>
> The Other Mickey
>
A-yup.
topcat
"Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.241503e9a...@news.albasani.net...
I have two questions the liberals won't answer -
1. When Bush was spending like a drunken sailor (and not only on the wars,
remember "medicare prescription drugs") the liberals were up in arms, now
Obama wants to spend twice as much and the liberals are silent. Why?
2. Obama said he going to leave 50 thousand troops in Iraq even after what
he is calling a "withdrawal". Why aren't the liberals up in arms about this?
Isn't this just Obama imposing the American empire on the poor, poor middle
east the same way they said Bush did?
Apparently, if Obama does the same thing as Bush, it's now okay, because
he's the one doing it.
TC
Nathan Sanders
"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
> 1. When Bush was spending like a drunken sailor (and not only on the wars,
> remember "medicare prescription drugs") the liberals were up in arms,
Because Bush's spending was supporting Republican pet causes.
> now
> Obama wants to spend twice as much and the liberals are silent. Why?
Because Obama's spending is supporting Democratic pet causes.
Seriously, this warrants a "duh" if anything ever did. Both parties
want our money and want to spend it to support their own pet causes.
They obviously aren't going to complain too loudly about spending when
their own causes are going to benefit.
> 2. Obama said he going to leave 50 thousand troops in Iraq even after what
> he is calling a "withdrawal". Why aren't the liberals up in arms about this?
They are, you just haven't been paying attention:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62987.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/27/obamas-iraq-wit
hdrawal-plan-disappoints-anti-war-activists/
http://www.canada.com/Democrats+chafe+Obama+Iraq+troop+pullout/1335611/
story.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5817
883.ece
> Apparently, if Obama does the same thing as Bush, it's now okay, because
> he's the one doing it.
Apparently, you pay only highly selective attention to the world
around you, so everything magically seems to you to be lining up
exactly with your preconceived bias.
Nathan
Bob Rudd
says...
Nice to meet you, first James. Welcome to the ng.
I do advocate minimum regulations. However, I'm proposing nothing
really new at all. The standard down payment for decades was 20 percent
down in order to qualify for a home mortgage. The same thing for
selling stocks short, previously you had to own them before you could
sell them short.
Clinton essentially changed the vast majority of mortgage regs which
precipitated the current housing crisis and Bush ordered the short stock
selling regulation change which played a massive role in the market
meltdown along with the mortgage crisis at its side.
Obama has yet to change either back to the way it was when the systems
and markets were working. These two changes, reversals actually, would
go a very long way to restoring confidence in the market and wouldn't
cost us 700 plus trillion in stimulus bailouts.
Mickey
> Mickey <mickey_a...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net> wrote:
>> It would probably be futile to explain that large systems
>> are inherently self regulating and why when you regulate a complex
>> system you probably weaken or remove the system's ability to regulate
>> or repair itself. Rather than trying to explain the economic system
>> and how regulation can actually destabilize an economy ...
>>
>> Ironically, (or stupidly) the main reason to
>> regulate the market is exactly because it is regulated. Remove most of
>> the regulation presently in place and post a huge "Caveat emptor" sign
>> over the exchanges and we wouldn't get into these messes.
>
> Your faith in the self-regulating market is misplaced. It is precisely
> because things like natural monopolies form in deregulated markets that
> the regulations were passed in the first place. Because of regulation,
> you no longer see people like Morgan, Gould, Vanderbilt and so on, who
> were able to manipulate the markets to their favor, and the detriment of
> others.
But only to the detriment of others in the market. There are ways to
raise capital and divide equity in corporations other than stock markets.
A truly deregulated market has not been possible, probably since
Hamilton was a pup, but certainly since Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. My
point is that the unintended consequence from regulation are often much
worse than the problem the regulation was intended to address (as you
point out later with the ICC).
> Even a laisez faire economist like Greenspan has acknowledged that he
> once believed that the banks would not logically get themselves into
> trouble, and could run under minimal regulation. He now admits that he
> was wrong.
Greenspan wasn't really a free trader, (more of a power junky) otherwise
he wouldn't have spent almost the entirety of his time in the Fed trying
to influence (read manipulate) the market through monetary policy. That
is no less regulation than is statutory regulation. If you want to find
the single biggest driver of the present mess, look no farther than
Greenspan's Fed policy.
> The reality is that regulation is necessary, but the trick is in
> determining how little regulation is required, and resisting the
> bureaucrat's urge to run everything.
It's not necessary, but we are stuck with it. As I've pointed out
before, somethings cannot be undone (or entirely redone) just because
wisdom gained from experience says we shouldn't have done them in the
first place. The risk we run now is that whatever new regulations get
cooked up in the present frenzy don't make things even worse than they
are already. Regulation, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. There
is entirely too much fire under the regulatory skillet right now.
> The old Interstate Commerce
> Commission was an example of regulatory authority gone wild. The current
> Surface Transportation Board, which replaced the ICC with a defanged set
> of regulations, is now showing signs of having too great an opinion of
> itself. It seems to be the natural tendency of bureaucrats.
You make my case.
The Other Mickey
fmomoon
"Nathan Sanders" <nathan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nathansanders-9D1...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...
> In article <gofe8...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. When Bush was spending like a drunken sailor (and not only on the
>> wars,
>> remember "medicare prescription drugs") the liberals were up in arms,
>
> Because Bush's spending was supporting Republican pet causes.
I also remember a distinct lack of support when Mrs. Clinton offered her
health reform plan when she was 1st lady. Of course, that may have been
warrented...
>
>> now
>> Obama wants to spend twice as much and the liberals are silent. Why?
>
> Because Obama's spending is supporting Democratic pet causes.
:) yes, it does seem to work that way, doesn't it? One would think that
there are, *gasp*, two political parties!
--
Moni
Suzanne D.
__________________
Wow. So after all of that, and you have absolutely nothing left to say, it
comes down to, "You're lying." That's the best you have, huh? First
"You're not successful" (how you could possibly know this, I have no clue),
then "That's only success in your boondocks town," and finally, "You're
lying about the whole thing." Make up your mind.
--S.
topcat
"Nathan Sanders" <nathan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nathansanders-9D1...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...
Uh....I was talking about the liberals in this group....where's Gavin?
where's universe?, where's Salad? to complain about the things I wrote?
At least you admit liberals are hypocrites. *I* complained about Bush's
spending.
But, hey, thanks for the useless "lecture".
TC
Tin@
Same way Sanna knows I live in a shitty neighborhood, but can't tell
me why? This response flies in this group, so why should I ignore how
things are done here?
> then "That's only success in your boondocks town," and finally, "You're
> lying about the whole thing." Make up your mind.
> --S.-
Just acting how people do in this group, don't like it, then leave.
Nathan Sanders
wrote:
You didn't specify that, of course. In typical TC style, you
brainlessly lumped everyone together, and now you're trying to blame
me for your lack of clarity. But we all know full well that if I had
pointed to complaints from liberals on the newsgroup, you'd have just
responded with "Uh....I was talking about the liberals in Congress",
rather than admit you misspoke.
Besides, since when is anyone, let alone liberals specifically,
required to post their political complaints on this newsgroup? You're
the only one who seems to think that political complaints are
mandatory, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of OT threads you
start containing your personal political complaints.
By and large, the "liberals" only post in political threads to correct
your factual errors and illogical arguments. They'd be happy just
sticking to discussion AI, rather than having to combat the pollution
of the newsgroup that comes from your aggressive negativity and
willful ignorance.
> At least you admit liberals are hypocrites.
I "admit" that politicians want to support their parties' pet causes.
That's not hypocrisy---it's self-interest.
You want hypocrisy? Here we go:
Hypocrisy is claiming to be in favor of limited government, but
favoring increased government regulation over people's lives.
Hypocrisy is ranting and raving about the evils of marijuana, while
giving tobacco and alcohol a pass.
Hypocrisy is claiming that every life is sacred, but supporting
capital punishment.
Hypocrisy is preaching about family values, but having a secret
mistress (or manstress, as the case may be).
Hypocrisy is arguing that Congressional pork is ineffective and the
wrong thing to do, but accepting the money for your state anyway.
Hypocrisy is decrying "activist judges", but applauding a federal
court that stops a state from counting its own votes.
Hypocrisy is chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited
Children, but sending sexually explicit text messages to minors.
Hypocrisy is blasting illegal drug use as abhorrent, and then doctor
shopping to get your own drugs illegally.
Nathan
Tin@
> In article <goggi80...@news4.newsguy.com>, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Nathan Sanders" <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:nathansanders-9D1...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...
> > > In article <gofe8002...@news5.newsguy.com>,
There's a blatant lie. How many threads have Salad or Intangible
started, bitching about something with Bush, McCain or Rush?
>They'd be happy just
> sticking to discussion AI, rather than having to combat the pollution
> of the newsgroup that comes from your aggressive negativity and
> willful ignorance.
>
> > At least you admit liberals are hypocrites.
>
> I "admit" that politicians want to support their parties' pet causes.
> That's not hypocrisy---it's self-interest.
>
> You want hypocrisy? Here we go:
>
> Hypocrisy is claiming to be in favor of limited government, but
> favoring increased government regulation over people's lives.
>
> Hypocrisy is ranting and raving about the evils of marijuana, while
> giving tobacco and alcohol a pass.
>
> Hypocrisy is claiming that every life is sacred, but supporting
> capital punishment.
>
> Hypocrisy is preaching about family values, but having a secret
> mistress (or manstress, as the case may be).
>
> Hypocrisy is arguing that Congressional pork is ineffective and the
> wrong thing to do, but accepting the money for your state anyway.
>
> Hypocrisy is decrying "activist judges", but applauding a federal
> court that stops a state from counting its own votes.
>
> Hypocrisy is chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited
> Children, but sending sexually explicit text messages to minors.
>
> Hypocrisy is blasting illegal drug use as abhorrent, and then doctor
> shopping to get your own drugs illegally.
>
> Nathan- Hide quoted text -