Another Failed Presidency
Lib Loo
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency
since Woodrow Wilson.
In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy
Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are
repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit
ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard
Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has
been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.
George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much
of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies.
Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to
the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets,
and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by
historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of
conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father,
while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned
at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome
being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was
electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing
of the Democratic Party.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing
everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in
forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy
Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing
because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed
loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because
he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of
American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is
failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his
intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president
riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his
tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free
fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point
advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about
himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised
or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't
connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the
rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American
character that intersects with their own where they display a command of
history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that
resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We
admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who
seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are
aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our
own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing
about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for
the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one
of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like
a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he
doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense.
His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't
add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in
don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this
man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers,
banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital
administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green
job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those
of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you
just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have
offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a
useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of
the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get
voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative
gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but
the wagon train keeps rolling along.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/another_failed_presidency.html
edi...@netpath.net
ago; at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for
whatever good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents
- at some point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Buerste
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:0d1f9100-27bd-4580...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Until now it seems that previous Presidents had some good people that
surrounded him and advised him. I don't think Obama has a base that has the
wisdom to help him do what's right for the whole country. There has never
been such an ambitious agenda nor has any agenda been so radically left or
right. No previous president has seemingly done so many of the wrong things
at the wrong time. A good doctor would have the patient recover from the
flu before doing open-heart surgery.
Obama advisors are to be blamed for the President's lack of empathy with the
country. It's too bad, when I first heard him speak, I was impressed. Now I
just shake my head and wonder "What is he thinking?"
hal
>It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks
>ago; at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for
>whatever good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents
>- at some point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
problems. And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
hal
wrote:
You're the one that's not thinking. Making the same mistakes over and
over will not fix this. Free markets will not correct this problem
like you loonies want us to think. More neglect will only make things
worse, not better. After what Hoover did you think you people would
learn something.
rangerssuck
Like Bush inherited a booming economy and proceeded to run it into the
ground. And all you wingers continue to blame Clinton for Bush's
problems. At what point during the eight years of Bush did he take
possession of the crap that he caused?
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
>>at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
>>good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
>>point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
> problems.
Absolutely true.
> And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
> done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
Also true however the time has come for Obama to accept responsibility
for the office he sought and won. He's staunched the disintegration in
process when he took office. Markets have stabilized, even though they
are still fragile, retail is recovering, the auto industry is as good as
it's going to get in the foreseeable, bank closures are down with only
small players going under. It's time for Obama to take responsibility.
I know that is hard given the bag of steaming shit handed him by Bush but
at some point Barak Obama must man up and stop blaming the last guy. The
economy is his now just as Iraq and Afghanistan are his. Personally I
mark today's economy as the benchmark for Obama's take-over. If it
continues to climb then he should be praised, if it tumbles again then
that, too, is his responsibility. A few hundred points one way or the
other is not an indicator either way.
It's time to look forward. The health bill/issue, for instance, should
be looked at objectively without blaming the past. What will this
legislation do in its entirety? Will it break the monopolies that have
caused the problem or will it merely band aid the problem? Will it truly
bring down health care cost or transfer the bill to another pocket while
still enrichening the corporate interests who now plunder the treasury?
Same with Iraq, why are we still there? Fuck Iraq.
Same with Afghanistan, why are we still there? Fuck Afghanistan. If al
quaeda rears their head again let Obama do what Bush didn't have the
balls, attention span, or intelligence to do. Nuke them.
Let Obama put forth a date to break up institutions who are "too big to
fail." Standard Oil and AT&T proved that anti-trust laws work. Let's
see the Attorney General unleashed to do his job and launch a Special
Prosecutor on the Bush Administration. Let's either enact true Election
Reform or prosecute any politician taking private campaign funds. Let's
cut the Department of Offense budget by 10%/year for 10 years and bring
them home. Let's nation-build America by funding education, job
training, revitalize manufacturing, end our dependence on foreign oil by
banning importation. Let the oil exporters eat sand. We can sell them
grain and meat at fair market prices. Let us prosecute intellectual
property rights while ending the immortal Corporate ownership with a
return to the original, rational, time limits. It's time for trade wars.
Let us resurrect the WPA and CCC for five years putting Americans to work
while restoring the infrastructure that Bush allowed to deteriorate.
Let's move to federal 5-year plans renewed every 3 years. Let's enact a
truly flat tax with no exemptions, exclusions, deductions or special
interests permitted. Let's hold legislators feet to the fire and ban
political parties. Let's move to a preferential voting system such as
the Borda Count. Let's abolish the Electoral College.
Time has come to cease looking backwards and chart our path into the
future.
>>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is the
>>all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>>
>>http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Fuck you spammers.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
>>at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
>>good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
>>point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
> problems.
Absolutely true.
> And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
> done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
Also true however the time has come for Obama to accept responsibility
>>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is the
>>all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>>
>>http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Fuck you spammers.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
>>at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
>>good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
>>point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
> problems.
Absolutely true.
> And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
> done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
Also true however the time has come for Obama to accept responsibility
>>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is the
>>all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>>
>>http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Fuck you spammers.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
>>at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
>>good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
>>point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
> problems.
Absolutely true.
> And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
> done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
Also true however the time has come for Obama to accept responsibility
>>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is the
>>all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>>
>>http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Fuck you spammers.
F. George McDuffee
<range...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Like Bush inherited a booming economy and proceeded to run it into the
>ground.
===============
In all fairness the economy that Bush inherited, with the
advantage of hindsight, was indeed booming but only because of
the financial equivalent of huge amounts of "crank" and "crack."
The surprise is not that the U.S. economy tanked, but it took as
long as it did.
The warning signs were all there from the S&L debacle, through
LTCM and the dot cons, and on into the creation of the megabanks
[e.g. CITI, BoA and quasi megabanks such as AIG, Lehman, Merrell,
etc. with all that this implied. The final blow seems to have
been the exemption of derivatives from regulation.
No matter how many truckloads of s**t the political parties hurl
at each other, the fact remains that they are both responsible
and both must answer for their actions, and in a rational society
after an economic disaster of this magnitude the majority of
Senators and Representatives would be replaced, and a "root and
branch" purge of the regulatory bureaucracy, including the
Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC and CFTC and possibly the FTC would
result.
The fact of the matter is that no regulatory change has occurred
and as usual the taxpayers are being required to clean up the
mess others created, and its business as usual for those
responsible, thus another bust is coming.
Gunner Asch
As I recall..Bush and Co tried 2-3 times to put a halt on the growing
buffoonery in the economy..and each and every time the Democrats voted
them down.
Can you give me the years this happened? Dont worry about the
Leftards being embarassed. Only creature that actually can think and
reason and have a sense of guilt would be embarassed.
Gunner
Buerste
<hal> wrote in message news:4b0a8f5c...@news.newsguy.com...
Most people are not socialists like you and we despise socialism.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:heeakd$kd0$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:33:50 +0000, hal wrote:
>> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
>> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
>> problems.
>
> Absolutely true.
Both Obama and Curly speculated that all of our troubles would be solved by
Obama in the first 6 months in office. We even gave him the benefit of the
doubt and spotted him an additional 3 months. Now they cry and claim they
need years. Ain't gonna happen, Obama is incapable of solving anything,
economy, health care, automobile industry, finding lint in his navel, etc.
Now Obama's economic fuck-ups will take decades to correct.
We're stuck with him for the next three years. Just hold onto something
tightly and it will be over as soon as it came. The hypnosis has almost
completely wore off and our problems will start to mend as soon as the
imposter is out of office. He's a one trick pony, so just grin and bear it
for the next three years.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:heeame$kd2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Also true however the time has come for Obama to accept responsibility
> for the office he sought and won. He's staunched the disintegration in
> process when he took office. Markets have stabilized, even though they
> are still fragile, retail is recovering, the auto industry is as good as
> it's going to get in the foreseeable, bank closures are down with only
> small players going under. It's time for Obama to take responsibility.
Yes, we have all been screaming at him to pull up his pants and take
responsibility. Although you are slow and haven't realized this until now,
we welcome your awakening and join with you in demanding that he pull up his
pants and take some responsibility.
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:d1flg5pqu9e7mdjvl...@4ax.com...
The truth is more or less the opposite, as most people who followed it over
the last few years already know. There's a new study out as of October that
documents the preemptions made by the Bush administration to block the
efforts by 49 states to tighten up on borrowing and mortgage qualifications.
As the study makes clear, it was an administrative decision, not a
legislative one. You can get most of it from the Executive Summary:
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/documents/Phase_I_report_Final_Oct5,2009_Clean.pdf
Based on your own criteria, I'm sure you won't find this embarrassing. <g>
Doubtless you'll just ignore it and move on, as usual.
(Gunner claims not to read my posts so maybe someone else will want to reply
to it here, so he at least sees it for himself.)
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b0ae766$0$22504$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
> The truth is more or less the opposite, as most people who followed it
> over the last few years already know. There's a new study out as of
> October that documents the preemptions made by the Bush administration to
> block the efforts by 49 states to tighten up on borrowing and mortgage
> qualifications.
>
> As the study makes clear, it was an administrative decision, not a
> legislative one. You can get most of it from the Executive Summary:
>
> http://www.ccc.unc.edu/documents/Phase_I_report_Final_Oct5,2009_Clean.pdf
>
> Based on your own criteria, I'm sure you won't find this embarrassing. <g>
> Doubtless you'll just ignore it and move on, as usual.
>
> (Gunner claims not to read my posts so maybe someone else will want to
> reply to it here, so he at least sees it for himself.)
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
wow, you reminded me, they say that's what eliot spitzer was doing in
washington when he got busted with the hooker, wasn't he supposed to give a
presentation to congress that would've made bushco look bad? spitzer was
battling with wall street to protect new yorkers from "predatory lending
practices". what's his name... cheney had a hard on for spitzer.
b.w.
Hawke
> The warning signs were all there from the S&L debacle, through
> LTCM and the dot cons, and on into the creation of the megabanks
> [e.g. CITI, BoA and quasi megabanks such as AIG, Lehman, Merrell,
> etc. with all that this implied. The final blow seems to have
> been the exemption of derivatives from regulation.
>
> No matter how many truckloads of s**t the political parties hurl
> at each other, the fact remains that they are both responsible
> and both must answer for their actions, and in a rational society
> after an economic disaster of this magnitude the majority of
> Senators and Representatives would be replaced, and a "root and
> branch" purge of the regulatory bureaucracy, including the
> Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC and CFTC and possibly the FTC would
> result.
>
> The fact of the matter is that no regulatory change has occurred
> and as usual the taxpayers are being required to clean up the
> mess others created, and its business as usual for those
> responsible, thus another bust is coming.
It's easy to blame the politicians for the problems but the blame really
lies with the special interests who call the tune. The health insurance
companies have three lobbyists for every representative in Washington
and they are wining, dining, and influencing them every which way from
Sunday. The financial industry has five lobbyists for each
representative doing the same thing for them. Same with the drug
industry, agriculture, defense, and all the others. So when politicians
do things that benefit these special interests and hurt average
Americans it isn't surprising. The Federal Reserve Board has members who
are also on the board at Goldman Sacs. The interconnectedness and cozy
relationships between business interests and the various agencies that
are supposed to regulate them are everywhere.
If those industries were not there at the public trough and with their
checkbooks influencing what Congress does we would see very little of
the troubles we are having. When small, powerful interests have captured
the agencies of the government, and the government itself, you no longer
have a democracy. That is what has happened to our country. There is no
one in our government who actually represents the people. And when they
actually try to do something to help regular Americans like with health
care reform you see how hard it is to overcome the special interests.
Unless we can change the undue influence of these monied interests
nothing is going to change. So the blame lies not with the politicians
but with the special interests that own them.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:aNBOm.44710$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
Yes, I haven't looked into it, but there's speculation that Spitzer was
"investigated" just in time to avoid a lawsuit that he was preparing to lead
against the feds. There are some comments I've seen about it but I haven't
seen any real investigation.
The whole thing struck me funny because the feds usually leave those whoring
cases alone, unless they want to get somebody -- or unless they act
completely insane and expose themselves to everyone, like Sanford did.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
===============
While certain, mainly symbolic, mileposts can be cited such as
presidential signing or Congressional enactment dates, it is well
to remember that legislation and changes in regulation are
usually long drawn-out processes and what is typically cited as
*THE DATE* is simply the last link in a long chain of causality.
In other cases, such as the S&L collapse, the event is an extend
process.
What follows is my personal list of critical occurrences, leading
to the current socio-economic crisis. You can come up with your
own list which may be equally valid.
FYI
Presidential terms
1977-80 Carter Democrat
1981-84 Reagan Republican
1985-88 Reagan Republican
1989-92 GHW Bush Republican
1993-96 Clinton Democrat
1997-00 Clinton Democrat
2001-04 GW Bush Republican
2005-08 GW Bush Republican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States
Control of Congress
Year Congress President Senate (100) House
(435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
In no particular order my picks of the most significant
contributing factors in the economic implosion are:
(1) Savings and Loan Collapse [1980s-1990s c. 125 billion $
taxpayer hit w/ *BAD* bad precedent established]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/Historical/s&l/
(2) Rescue of LTCM 1998-early 2000 -- as this was a FRB/Greenspan
operation the taxpayer cost is not available, but it established
a *VERY BAD* precedent.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/ltcm.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-052es.html
(3) Repeal of Glass-Steagall (Nov 99)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=albMYVE7D578
(4) Elimination of derivate regulation (15 Dec 2000)
http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press00/opa4479-00.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission
Earlier CFTC administrative deregulation set up the Enron raid on
the California electrical markets.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22028.pdf
(5) Elimination of the "short sale" up-tick rule by SEC
administrative action (06 July 2007)
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-55970.pdf
http://daytrading.about.com/od/stou/g/UptickRule.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124459894195100821.html
(6) Refusal of the FRB et al. to control the dot con stock and
other asset bubbles through increasing margin requirements,
possibly to 100%. [1995-2000]
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199722/199722pap.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
(7) Senate ratification of NAFTA (17 Nov 1993)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Note that while listed separately, these are *NOT* independent or
isolated events. There was and is considerable synergistic
effect where the total of the effects is *MUCH* greater than the
simple arithmetical sum.
There are several more regulatory items/events such as the
reduction/elimination of minimum bank capital [tangible common
equity] requirements and loan reserves, and allowing of federally
insured banks to use operationally unlimited leverage. The
effect of this was *GREATLY* amplified by the globalization of
the financial markets. The resulting "Special Purpose Entities,"
Conduits, and "Special Investment Vehicles," located in
regulatory and tax havens such as Aruba contributed greatly to
fraud as SOP, e.g. Enron, AIG and GM.
FWIW -- the broader and more realistic measure of U.S.
unemployment is termed U-6 and includes people that have
exhausted their unemployment benefits [the so-called discouraged
workers]. The U-6 rate currently stands at 17.6%.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/06/broader-unemployment-rate-hits-175/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28243517/ns/business-economy_in_turmoil/
F. George McDuffee
<heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote:
<snip>
>Both Obama and Curly speculated that all of our troubles would be solved by
>Obama in the first 6 months in office.
The fact that both Obama and McCain both ran for the presidency
shows that neither one understood the situation. Who wants to be
elected Captain of the Titanic?
Now what?
Ken
F. George McDuffee
==============
Always be careful what you ask for as you just may get it.
If the POTUS was serious, the Fortune 500 corporations and their
boardroom dons (officers/directors) would be under RICO
investigation/inditment with their assets frozen as the proceeds
of criminal activity.
John R. Carroll
That, or something practically equivalent, might well happen George.
To date we have seen "So far, not so good" .
The Obama administration "owned" the mess we are in the day they took
office.
That, by the way, is something they have never denied and even embraced.
It's the embrace on might give a giant turd, but an embrace none the less.
What you can't blame anyone for is the extremely poor quality of America's
citizenry.
That's the real problem.
Want better kids?
Get better parents. It ain't necessarily the schools that are problematic.
What we have is a population of blame shifters.
Want a better America?
Get better American's, or at least get the ones we have in the game of
improving, not raping, the country.
One third of America's young drop out of school befoer graduating. That's
really something when you consider that the'd have only been ignorant tools
had they graduated.
--
John R. Carroll
Lib Loo
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:s62mg5dqs16ekstaj...@4ax.com...
McCain did not have a failed Presidency. Quit trying to divert.
Lib Loo
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:UNCdnR3esOFyj5bW...@giganews.com...
Everyone needs to pull up their droopy drawers, starting with Obama.
John R. Carroll
The only "drawers" you have any control over are your own.
Start there Brian.
--
John R. Carroll
Lib Loo
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:ONmdnUob6pJRipbW...@giganews.com...
You misspelled brain, you doofus.
Curly Surmudgeon
Gee, Libby Loo is still misrepresenting the words of others. That's why
he's permanently kill filed.
John R. Carroll
I didn't misspell anything Brian.
Hey, you and Gunner are now twins. He can't get his dick hard and neither
can you.
Perhaps he'll end up in a wheel chair and the two of you can race between
your trailer's and Seven Eleven to se who gets custody of the daily 40
ouncer.
--
John R. Carroll
HH&C
> F. George McDuffee wrote:
> > The warning signs were all there from the S&L debacle, through
> > LTCM and the dot cons, and on into the creation of the megabanks
> > [e.g. CITI, BoA and quasi megabanks such as AIG, Lehman, Merrell,
> > etc. with all that this implied. The final blow seems to have
> > been the exemption of derivatives from regulation.
>
> > No matter how many truckloads of s**t the political parties hurl
> > at each other, the fact remains that they are both responsible
> > and both must answer for their actions, and in a rational society
> > after an economic disaster of this magnitude the majority of
> > Senators and Representatives would be replaced, and a "root and
> > branch" purge of the regulatory bureaucracy, including the
> > Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC and CFTC and possibly the FTC would
> > result.
>
> > The fact of the matter is that no regulatory change has occurred
> > and as usual the taxpayers are being required to clean up the
> > mess others created, and its business as usual for those
> > responsible, thus another bust is coming.
>
> It's easy to blame the politicians for the problems but the blame really
> lies with the special interests who call the tune. The health insurance
> companies have three lobbyists for every representative in Washington
> and they are wining, dining, and influencing them every which way from
> Sunday.
That's almost interesting. So if the health insurance lobbyists are
so effective, why are you guys passing health insurance reform?
Lib Loo
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:V-KdnZxGcNVZgZbW...@giganews.com...
I'm flattered that you think I'm so smart, I guess I owe you a return
compliment. Lol, bring that pretty ass of yours here and you'll find out
whose dick can get hard sweetheart. Can you squeal really loud?
Tim Wescott
> It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
> at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
> good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
> point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is the
> all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>
> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
So Bush can blame Clinton for the economy for five years, but O only gets
a few months?
Republicans -- They're Pro Lie.
Lib Loo
"Tim Wescott" <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:hbmdneVvIclTq5bW...@web-ster.com...
LOL, Obama could blame both Bush's for all their terms and their grandfather
as well, just as soon as he pulls up his pants and starts taking some
responsibility.
Lib Loo
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:ogemg590dmlsbb6ee...@4ax.com...
> Actually his cronies in the ng's were blaming Clinton for the entire
> two terms. However, I hold myself to much higher standards than the
> ones that they set. IMO, he is very close to the transition phase
> where, while he is not responsible for the root causes of the current
> problems, he is indeed responsible for the direction (better or worse)
> that they are moving.
Yep, pull up your pants time. Thanks Douchebag!
Lib Loo
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:mpemg5ppsc9v6trjm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:28:46 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>
>>> It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks ago;
>>> at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for whatever
>>> good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents - at some
>>> point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> I seem to remember you guys saying that 9-11 was all Clinton's fault
> and Obama has only been in office a two months longer. You do
> remember that Bush had taken Osama off the watch list during that 9
> months don't you?
>
> If us Independents/Libertarians held Obama to the same standards that
> you guys held Bush to, we would have to wait until after he finished
> his second term before everything wasn't Bush's fault. However, I
> don't adhere to your standards.
All attempts to divert from Obama's failed Presidency are noted.
Stormin Mormon
"their" = plural.
Bad grammar to mix them in a sentence.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
news:hef5i9$aif$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Martin H. Eastburn
not doing his job there as well.
Martin
hal wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:31:47 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>> It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks
>> ago; at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for
>> whatever good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents
>> - at some point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>
> It will take years to correct the problems Obama inherited. He is not
> responsible for the economy. Nothing he did caused any of these
> problems. And nothing he can do will automatically reverse the damage
> done by 8 years of mismanagement and neglect.
Gunner Asch
So the U6 numbers added to the current unemployment numbers add up to
about 28%.
Fascinating. And the worst..worst year of the Great Depression was
35%
In a nation that was primarily farming. (59%)
And we are NOT somehow in the Great Depression Part Deux?
Gunner
Ed Huntress
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hefkqp$u7p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "everyone" = singular
> "their" = plural.
>
> Bad grammar to mix them in a sentence.
Not any more, Chris. English has changed. I don't know who changed it, but
you'll find that the style manuals generally approve of that construction
these days.
I hate it, but I don't get to vote. d8-)
(As is often the case with English, if you look back far enough, you'll find
a time when the rules were different. The issue of agreement in number was
pretty loose 'way back when, before the schoolmarms got their hands on the
language.)
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
================
It is well to remind ourselves that there are people behind the
U-3 and U-6 unemployment numbers, and that these people require,
now more than ever, governmental social services and increasingly
direct food aid, which must be paid for through taxes. As these
individuals are unemployed they cannot pay income, social
security, real estate, and most sales taxes.
While the mainstream American media, even the financial media
such as the WSJ and Bloomberg continue to report "good news" the
actual primary data without spin is not so rosy, indeed it is
downright scary, e.g. the continuing and rapid rise in gold
prices which can be considered a symptom of economic system
distress in exactly the same way a high and rising fever is an
indication of a serious infection in an individual.
It is appalling but not surprising that the limited time and
attention of the U.S. Congress is now occupied with head injuries
in the NFL rather than the current socio-economic status and
probable/plausable reasons for the economic spasm/contraction and
how another such spasm/contraction can be prevented.
Even such critical topics such as raising funds to continue the
MidEast wars in this time of skyrocketing government deficits [at
all levels] is largely ignored.
The good news is that the elected and bureaucratic "leadership"
in our government and our business leaders appear to be totally
out of touch with reality and have no understanding of the
current economic-political situation, while applying the
economic "cures" of the 1930s (and even the 1890s), even though
the conditions, context and situations are totally different.
The bad news is that large numbers of our "glorious leaders" are
"skimming" as much cash/wealth for themselves as possible, even
as this "bleeds" the system to death and "kills the goose that
laid the golden eggs."
Gunner Asch
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
Since you are a very smart man George...Id like an honest opinion on
wither or not we are going to go into another Great Depression (or are
already in the opening stages) and the nation will either go into
bloody revolution, or simply sink into the abyss and it will be years
before it recovers a portion of its once mighty state.
Id love to see some actual opinions from you, on the "rubber meets
the road" aspect of all this..and where we are all going in this
handbasket from hell.
Feel free to speculate. No one is going to hold it against you.
Gunner
Hawke
>> It's easy to blame the politicians for the problems but the blame really
>> lies with the special interests who call the tune. The health insurance
>> companies have three lobbyists for every representative in Washington
>> and they are wining, dining, and influencing them every which way from
>> Sunday.
>
> That's almost interesting. So if the health insurance lobbyists are
> so effective, why are you guys passing health insurance reform?
It hasn't happened yet and guys like Joe Lieberman, who are completely
owned by the health insurance industry, are holding things up. In the
senate it only takes one guy to stop a bill. That kind of thing is what
gives the special interests the ability to stop things that large
majorities want to see done. It's a lousy system and it thwarts
democracy and the will of the majority for the benefit of a wealthy
special interest group that can buy what it wants.
Hawke
Hawke
All attempts to blame the new guy for the mess the last guy made are
also noted.
Hawke
Hawke
I'm still waiting for Bush/Cheney to take responsibility for the things
that went so horribly wrong under their two terms. That hasn't come even
after eight years. But you want Obama to apologize after less than a
year. That's about right for you. Don't expect any accountability from
republicans and expect a Democrat to take responsibility for everything
even if it's not his fault. That's the right wing standard. It's crazy
and explains why only 22% of the country admits being one of you.
Hawke
Buerste
<hal> wrote in message news:4b0a8f5c...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:36:40 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>news:0d1f9100-27bd-4580...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>> It's like syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker said a couple weeks
>>> ago; at some point, Obama "owns" things - and is responsible for
>>> whatever good, or bad, is happening. No more blaming prior presidents
>>> - at some point. And Obama's been president 9 or 10 months now.
>>>
>>> http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
>>> the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>>>
>>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
>>
>>surrounded him and advised him. I don't think Obama has a base that has
>>the
>>wisdom to help him do what's right for the whole country. There has never
>>been such an ambitious agenda nor has any agenda been so radically left or
>>right. No previous president has seemingly done so many of the wrong
>>things
>>at the wrong time. A good doctor would have the patient recover from the
>>flu before doing open-heart surgery.
>>
>>Obama advisors are to be blamed for the President's lack of empathy with
>>the
>>country. It's too bad, when I first heard him speak, I was impressed. Now
>>I
>>just shake my head and wonder "What is he thinking?"
>>
> You're the one that's not thinking. Making the same mistakes over and
> over will not fix this. Free markets will not correct this problem
> like you loonies want us to think. More neglect will only make things
> worse, not better. After what Hoover did you think you people would
> learn something.
And, you would replace the free market system with...what?
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:heina5$kmg$1...@aioe.org...
Isn't Joe supposed to represent his voters? How many people in his state
are dependent on the insurance companies for jobs? How many of those people
buy goods and services from other citizens? Seems to me that Joe is doing
his job.
Buerste
At what point does Obama "Officially" take responsibility? Give us a date!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>>
>> You're the one that's not thinking. Making the same mistakes over and
>> over will not fix this. Free markets will not correct this problem
>> like you loonies want us to think. More neglect will only make things
>> worse, not better. After what Hoover did you think you people would
>> learn something.
>
>And, you would replace the free market system with...what?
The big problem..is that we havent had Free Markets since FDR.
The government has been hand in glove with keeping the losers
alive..and they simply take the money..nod and keep on keeping on.
A free market would insure that the losers fail and the winners rise
to the top.
Gunner
Lib Loo
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:kA6Pm.24667$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
Curly said it would be 6 months, so that puts the date as July 19, 2009. Of
course his pants are still drooping, why doesn't he pull up his pants and
take some responsibility?
Rich Grise
That's why the liberals and other socialists are terrified of the free
market - it lets the losers actually lose, and forces everybody to pay
their own bills instead of sucking at the teat of astronomical taxes.
Thanks!
Rich
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
It's a good thing that liberals and other socialists have you to inform
usenet of what they think, believe and fear. Otherwise no one would have
known...
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Wed, 25 Nov 2009
01:50:23 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
There has been some argument that we haven't had a free market
since the Saxon Kings. That the rampant capitalism of the 17th, 18th
and 19th centuries was a much a result of organizations and
individuals getting the Government to create a climate favorable to
them making a lot of money. East India Company, for example.
But I'll agree, with this much, Government buying up companies
because they are "too big to fail", implies that other companies are
"too small to succeed."
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Dan
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Wed, 25 Nov 2009
> 01:50:23 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:10:13 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> You're the one that's not thinking. Making the same mistakes over and
>>>> over will not fix this. Free markets will not correct this problem
>>>> like you loonies want us to think. More neglect will only make things
>>>> worse, not better. After what Hoover did you think you people would
>>>> learn something.
>>> And, you would replace the free market system with...what?
>>
>> The big problem..is that we havent had Free Markets since FDR.
>>
>> The government has been hand in glove with keeping the losers
>> alive..and they simply take the money..nod and keep on keeping on.
>>
>> A free market would insure that the losers fail and the winners rise
>> to the top.
>
> There has been some argument that we haven't had a free market
> since the Saxon Kings. That the rampant capitalism of the 17th, 18th
> and 19th centuries was a much a result of organizations and
> individuals getting the Government to create a climate favorable to
> them making a lot of money. East India Company, for example.
That's the difference between Capitalism and a "free market" (thought he
definition of free market is different for each individual who defines it).
> But I'll agree, with this much, Government buying up companies
> because they are "too big to fail", implies that other companies are
> "too small to succeed."
No, it implies no such thing. It implies that the free market part of
Capitalism is a failure...
Dan
Hawke
You're on the bottom aren't you? And you like a system in which you are
a loser? Anyone see a problem with that thinking? How amazing is it that
you can get people who have nothing to believe that a system that put
them there is a good one? It's understandable why the winners think the
system is a good one. But the losers too? Me, I don't like losing, but
Gummer thinks it's fine. Any system that I can't win in I'm not going to
like. Which is why I don't like Capitalism. It's not just a system where
there are winners and losers. It's a system with a few winners and
mostly losers. To me that isn't a good system. A good system has a lot
of winners and only a few losers. If that means you have to give up the
few that have way too much that's fine by me.
Hawke
Hawke
No he's not. He's representing the industries that donate the majority
of the campaign contributions he gets to get elected. I guarantee most
people in Connecticut are not connected to the health insurance
industry. He's doing the bidding of special interests not the majority
of his constituents. He's also a U.S. senator and as such has an
obligation to the country as a whole. Sometimes a senator has to do what
is best for the country and not just his state. Joe is an ass and an
embarrassment. I'd kick him out of the party for not following the party
platform if I was a Democrat. You wouldn't find a republican stabbing
his own party in the back like Lieberman is. I knew he was bad news the
day Al Gore chose him as his running mate. The day I heard that I knew
Gore was finished. As usual, I was right.
Hawke
Hawke
There is no specific date. But when the policy decisions he makes
actually show their outcomes then they're his responsibility. But here's
an example. Reports are that Obama is going to send another 30,000 or so
troops to Afghanistan. That means his decision is to stay and to
escalate. Whatever comes of that is on his shoulders not Bush's. That's
how it'll be for the rest of his decisions. As long as he's dealing with
Bush's mistakes he's not responsible but that time is coming to a close.
By the way, I'm now saying this decision by Obama is a big mistake. So
take note. I'm criticizing what Obama is doing. An escalation in
Afghanistan is the wrong decision and a mistake by Obama. I just
criticized him. That's something you never heard the right wing do when
their guy was in office.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
>> At what point does Obama "Officially" take responsibility? Give us a
>> date!
>
> There is no specific date. But when the policy decisions he makes
> actually show their outcomes then they're his responsibility. But here's
> an example. Reports are that Obama is going to send another 30,000 or so
> troops to Afghanistan. That means his decision is to stay and to
> escalate. Whatever comes of that is on his shoulders not Bush's. That's
> how it'll be for the rest of his decisions. As long as he's dealing with
> Bush's mistakes he's not responsible but that time is coming to a close.
> By the way, I'm now saying this decision by Obama is a big mistake. So
> take note. I'm criticizing what Obama is doing. An escalation in
> Afghanistan is the wrong decision and a mistake by Obama. I just
> criticized him. That's something you never heard the right wing do when
> their guy was in office.
>
> Hawke
Truth.
Stormin Mormon
leftist liberal, to me. I'm a constitutionalist. I like to
have the freedom to win or lose, by my own choice.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net>
wrote in message news:hemo3d$es8$1...@aioe.org...
HH&C
I don't take money from the insurance industry and I don't want
universal health care.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hems3k$dcg$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:35:38 -0800, Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> At what point does Obama "Officially" take responsibility? Give us a
>>> date!
> Truth.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
Indeed. I thought you said July 19th.
Gunner Asch
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It hasn't happened yet and guys like Joe Lieberman,
Would that be Democratic Senator Leiberman?
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Gunner Asch
wrote:
He did. Repeatedly. With great emotion.
Hawke
Then you just haven't had a health problem come up where they deny your
claims. You can almost be 100% sure that one of these days you are going
to need hospitalization. When that happens you will find out how good,
actually how bad, your insurance is. Until this happens you will remain
clueless. It only takes one time for them to say no when you are in
desperate need before you see why universal health care is a must.
Obviously, you will need that experience before you learn what everyone
else already knows. Until then you will continue to believe Rush.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:49:49 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
> <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It hasn't happened yet and guys like Joe Lieberman,
>
>
> Would that be Democratic Senator Leiberman?
That would be DINO Lieberman.
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
<snip>
>The fact of the matter is that no regulatory change has occurred
>and as usual the taxpayers are being required to clean up the
>mess others created, and its business as usual for those
>responsible, thus another bust is coming.
<snip>
More information on the total US governmental failure to examine
what went wrong with the economy/financial system and the
complete failure to implement *ANY* (let alone comprehensive)
regulatory reform to prevent a reoccurrence, at least from the
same/known causes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091126/cm_uc_crrscx/op_1712114
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34158023/site/14081545
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100002318/dubai-is-just-a-harbinger-of-things-to-come-for-sovereign-debt/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.172a2f217acbdb6e4e9b446773ee0f1c.111&show_article=1
Larry Jaques
<ph...@mindspring.com> scrawled the following:
> But I'll agree, with this much, Government buying up companies
>because they are "too big to fail", implies that other companies are
>"too small to succeed."
Any week now we may be facing a gov't (which is "too big to fail")
fail. Cross your fingers and toes that it doesn't happen!
--
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've
decided to keep us in the dark.
Stormin Mormon
"too large to fail". Problem is, that the society constantly
changes. We no longer need gaslight, but ipods are selling
good.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
message news:0981h5p02fuo8quje...@4ax.com...
RAM�
$k2e$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I keep waiting for them to bail out Amalgamated Buggy Whip.
> "too large to fail". Problem is, that the society constantly
> changes. We no longer need gaslight, but ipods are selling
> good.
>
Gas lights (exterior yard lamps that burn Natural Gas) are quite popular
along much of the Texas Gulf Coast since electricity often fails during
major storms but the gas supply continues without interruption... <grin>
FWIW, you might want to check out buggy whip sales figures - they're rising
just as they have been for over 50 years...