jump to last post 1-44 of 44 discussions (127 posts)

Do you think Oblama's economic plans are going to save us?

  1. 59
    donrockposted 7 years ago

    Yesterday Oblama signed the stimulus package and by the time the stock market closed the Dow was down almost 300 points.. Today he spoke about the mortgage bailout. When he started the Dow was positive and now is down 30 points the last time I checked. I guess it's not convincing a lot of investors that the plans aren't that great. You'd think the Dow would be up today as a lot of people picked up some of the down stocks from yesterday.
    Hopefully in spite of what he does the economy will turn around in the near future. It will turn sometime and things will be done differently than they have been in the past. I wonder how long before we come back to what got us into this mess after the recovery.
    donrock

    1. ngureco profile image85
      ngurecoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do stocks in a company have any real value besides our fear and greed to trade them hoping to make a profit or to protect a profit? Don’t you think the more stimulus packages they sign, the more they confirm to the market that the economy is in a deeper mess?

      There is this guy called Prechter who is telling us to try Depression-era levels of less than 1,000 to the Dow and not to flock to bonds for safety: Municipalities will default and corporate bonds will be wracked by downgrades. He says even the U.S. government's credit status may sink low enough to make Treasury bills shaky. By the time this whole thing is over, you'll be able to buy your favorite neighborhood mansion from the bank at 10 cents on the dollar. These are Robert Prechter's gloomy prophecies that you can buy into or you can as well ignore them like I have done because I believe the economy will turn around in the near future.

    2. 59
      wonderkattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually when Obama started to speak the market was down 80 points. The 300 hundred point dropped followed the Asian and European markets. Hardly the fault of Obama.

      Hey lets face it the world is in a depression and Obama is our only hope in America to fix it. So back the fuck up and let him try. He's been in office only 20 days. This mess has been building for over  two years.

      Give the guy a chance. I still support him and not that douche, windbag rush!

      PEaceOUt!

    3. sgjerome profile image55
      sgjeromeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Who else can save the world economy beside Obama who are infront of the battle line

      1. 60
        babygirl97posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If he's all we have then were doomed!

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Who is Oblama...?

    1. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He's the Plesident. big_smile

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image88
        Rochelle Frankposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Lov it!

  3. lbtrader profile image61
    lbtraderposted 7 years ago

    Mr Plesident Oblama may have good intentions but i doubt the method that he is employing to turn the economy around will work....you cannot print money on intentions. Sure it may make people re invest in stocks that may have bottomed out but any wise investor wouldn't go near the stock market right now...unless that investor new how to use hedging techniques...IMO.

    You have to remember that should all of these dollars printed on nothing but intentions fail then it is the middle class and lower classes that must pay it all back to the feds at a percentage....if you have children then that oughta make you think.

    What's worst, taking a big hit now, or passing it on to the next generation....it's a matter of ethics and belief that there will be industry in years to come that will sustain the creation of new money......the super rich don't give a hoot...

    I hope i'm wrong....

    1. 59
      wonderkattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes you are wrong.!

  4. Audacious profile image59
    Audaciousposted 7 years ago

    Will somebody please find the President's scalpel?  So much for going to Washington and cutting out the fat!  Hope and change- yeah right! 

    Is it too soon to start the impeachment process? 

    To all who voted in Barry because they couldn't bear the thought of an inexperienced governor from Alaska being "one heartbeat" away from the Presidency; are you happy now?  Your children and grandchildren will be paying for your uniformed and irresponsible vote.  Unfortunately, so will mine.  Thanks a pant-load!

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      you're welcome.

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You're very very welcome that some of us were paying attention and actually read all we could on Obama and McCain and Ms.La Stupid Palin. Because we made the right choice. 

        What?  McCain would have called for an 'emergency' war someplace like Georgia, and caused WW III, all in the name of picking up the economy, and battling the evil empire in the grand old method of "busying giddy minds with foreign wars?"  La Palin calling for national prayer and banning books to appease the fundie Christians which were her constituency?

        I don't think so. 

        These things take time (incidentally, that's why most people are also lousy investors--they can't see further than the next downward blip on the market).  Obama has inherited a mess, and its gonna take a little time to clean it up.  Won't happen overnight.  But I am confident that the right steps have been taken and things will get better.

        Besides, gloom begets doom.  Think positively and the energy that goes into those thoughts and actions will go forward positively....  And, gee, sorry to be so NON doom and gloom, lol...

    2. livelonger profile image87
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This disaster was years in the making. It will most certainly take more than a month to fix.

    3. Nickny79 profile image88
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah whatever happened to that scalpel!  I guess 10,000 pages is the lean version of the bill.

    4. 59
      wonderkattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Audie baby, You think either McCain or Palin could have done better in 20 days? How stupid are you?
      Obama is just getting started and hopefully our economy will be better in the future so that we can pay this money back to our kids. We are in a depression and we been in it before Obama was ever elected.  You need to STFU! and wait.

      By the way if you didn't want to impeach Bush for all his crimes then "Barry" should be safe.

      PEacEOUt!

  5. lbtrader profile image61
    lbtraderposted 7 years ago

    I was just watching some youTube vids and found some info that might make you wiggle in your chair while you wait for another subject for another hub.

    The printing press has just inked an amount of money borrowed from the federal bank,,,not a government agency...at your expense.

    The government meanwhile are printing T-bills which they used to sell to the Arabs and China for future interest but this time the only buyer they can find is the federal bank...not a government agency...at your expense.

    Think about it....your children and grand children's welfare is being wagered here. Your pensions are being wagered here.

    And all the while some guy called Lindsey William is telling us that there is an oil well in America that could stop this massacre if the elects would run it through the offices.

    But there is an hidden agenda.

    Lindsay William is a preacher but i'm not sure that he isn't the devil's preacher...he predicted the entire oil collapse to a T. search that on YouTube.

    If he's right Obama's plans are a joke...america is being bankrupted by the powers that be.

    Scary isn't it...he predicts much worst coming in late march or april.....

    I'm not bashing the Americans here...it's a global thing.

    Pure evil genius.

  6. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 7 years ago

    Nope we are doomed !

    1. 60
      babygirl97posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      yes we are doomed very much we are all going to die!!!

  7. eovery profile image61
    eoveryposted 7 years ago

    I do not see where borrowing more money when the massive debt is already the problem. 

    I would loved to have Romney as President right now.  Now that would have been great,  To bad too many people are anti[Mormon.  He would have done great.

    1. Eric Graudins profile image60
      Eric Graudinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      True.
      Obama has inherited the biggest "Poisoned chalice" in history.
      And is trying to fix it by mortgaging the future of America's unborn citizens.
      On the advice of many of those whose snouts were in the financial trough. And who stand to profit again from all of these bailouts.

      Our world  financial and consumer system is an illusion. a farce, It is not natural, and throwing money at it will not fix it.
      However, the necessary alternative of a collapse, and start afresh is very unpalatable to those wanting an instant fix.
      And so we go through the motions of fixing the problem of too much debt by creating loads more debt.
      Some of the "solutions" are truly laughable. Well, to me anyway.

  8. William F. Torpey profile image83
    William F. Torpeyposted 7 years ago

    It took George W. Bush eight years to bankrupt the country. It might take President Obama a few months to put on the path to recovery.

    1. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Amen, William. Geez, the way people are carrying on you'd think this all started the day Obama was inaugurated. Where was all the Republican outrage and obstructionism when Bush was running the economy into the ground? Bush didn't even include the war in the official budget. Didn't want to freak people out about what he was spending. And even not including the war he couldn't spend money fast enough.

      Obama is been in office a fat month and already people are screaming about how he's not fixing anything. It's a bit ridiculous.

    2. Audacious profile image59
      Audaciousposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Please, let us look at the facts.  Sure Bush spent with the best of them, but without going  into the whole "legitimacy" of the war thing at this time, much of the spending Bush ok'd was for the war.  That being said; compare budgets for a moment and for goodness sakes look at this bill.  I can give you specifics of all the pork if you would like, but seriously folks.  This is not a 'stimulus' bill, this is a 'let's spend money on every pet project we've ever desired' bill for the Dem's.

      This is not a matter of doom and gloom, either.  All the happy thoughts you can muster ain't going to replace reality.  Positive energy will not replace doing the right thing and it is important and necessary to point out what is wrong with Obamalosi's 'stimulus' debacle!  Ok, I know Obama didn’t write it, he’s just out hustling this lousy legislation.  Obama is also flying all over the country to tell everyone how bad things are and that things are going to get worse.  What’s that carbon footprint look like?  I guess he is of the “Do as I say, not as I do,” school of thought.  He also has the market cornered in the “doom and gloom” department.

      Come on people- this is no different than receiving a credit card in the mail with a $5,000 line of credit, having nothing in your bank account- living pay check to pay check, and going out and charging $5000 worth of stuff you don’t need and worrying about how to pay for it later. 

      Again I ask, where is that scalpel we heard all about when Obama was in campaign mode?

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    My only doubt is whether the recovery bailout is big enough to do the job. Our current situation is unprecedented, and no light is visible at the end of the tunnel yet. We hear more bad news every day from here in the U.S. and from other countries many of which have been hit harder than we have. The situation is quite serious in my opinion.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is extremely serious. I am beginning to think there is not enough money to fix it. sad

      It can hardly be blamed on Oblama, but he does seem to be following the standard approach, which I think is a mistake.

      Change, the man promised, and we are getting more of the same.

      1. bgpappa profile image85
        bgpappaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think it is a good start.  needs to start talking about personal responsibility as well

    2. Audacious profile image59
      Audaciousposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh Mr. Deed's.  You so silly!  Why don't we get government out of the way and let the free market system work?  Or would you rather just let the government own everything and tell us what we can drive, how much we can drive it, and charge us a per-mile tax for driving it?  Oh, and don't forget to keep the thermostat set at 68 degrees. 

      Have you ever read the book, "The Giver" by Lois Lowry?  Check it out sometime, we may be living in a world much like that described in the book if we allow Obama and Pelosi to get their way.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, I haven't read "The Giver" or heard of Lois Lowry.  According to Wikipedia she wrote childrens' books. Are you suggesting she has the answer to our current economic disaster? studied economics at Cornell and Harvard where I was taught that our modern, highly interdependent economic system requires sufficient regulation to assure that it honestly delivers the promised benefits of the free enterprise market. The Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDIC, the FDA, the FTC were created for this purpose. Apparently they haven't been doing their jobs in recent years. Unregulated markets aren't the answer. Your comment does not inspire confidence in your understanding of  economics and business.

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think it is fairly obvious when partisanship is naught but a knee-jerk reaction fulfilling whatever need the individual will make of it.  This is exactly my point when discussing the absolutely necessary choice of Obama in the the election.

          That went way beyond partisanship if you actually did any serious reading.

          Huh.  Harvard & Cornell.  Further proving my theory right about you, lol!  (I have theories!  It is like fun for me, smile ).

        2. Audacious profile image59
          Audaciousposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It is no surprise to me that a man of your credentials would discount a book written by an author of "children's books".  Dare I say this is an elitist view?  Sure, I'll say it- you sound like an arrogant elitist.  The book deals with a world where every aspect of the lives of its inhabitants is carefully controlled by the elders.  The parallels to what Obama and Pelosi are trying to pull off in 2009 are spot on and chilling.

          It is true that I cannot match your knowledge on matters economic, so to this end I will concede.  There is no question that the SEC, et al, dropped the ball and allowed many unscrupulous characters to run amuck with the money of many hard-working Americans.  Likewise, it is shameful and erroneous to place the blame for the financial meltdown at the feet of George W. Bush while giving Fannie and Freddie and the Pelosi run Congress a pass.

          The founding fathers of this great nation made it clear that our system of government will not work if men without morals and integrity are in control.  Obamalosi has definitely shown in the first 30 days of the new administration that truth is optional and pork is plenty.

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    It seems to me that the reason things are as bad as they are is because business was not reined in.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's right. The Federal Reserve and the SEC didn't do their jobs. And a fundamental error was made during the Clinton administration when the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking, was repealed. After that an unregulated "shadow banking" system emerged which employed too much leverage and took undue risks. It was all downhill from there.

  11. William F. Torpey profile image83
    William F. Torpeyposted 7 years ago

    It's not a scalpel, Audacious, it's a spatula. Obama is using it to swipe the cream from the top.

    The idea is to return America to its traditional values. The Stimulus Package is designed to help the middle class, not the super wealthy and the fat cat corporations.

    Forget the trillion dollars George Bush wasted on a useless, unnecessary war (if you can!) and consider how Dubya did everything he possibly could for eight long years to destroy our economy and stir up anti-American feelings throughout the world.

    The war spending you mention wasn't even in the budget! Bush Administration spending didn't go to help the economy it went to help the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Bush winked at big business as it moved good-paying American jobs overseas and turned our factories here into vacant buildings, leaving our cities and towns looking like ghost towns.

    President Bush took every opportunity to resume the Reagan Administration efforts to dismantle the labor unions and maintain low taxes for the big corporations while fighting against minimum wages and campaigning vigorously against our senior citizens by attempting to destroy Medicare.

    We had enough "happy talk" for eight years as the Bush Administration told us how great our economy was and how all we had to do was wait for the trickle down effect -- but the cream, as usual, stayed on the top while CEOs rode the gravy train. Meanwhile the brave men and women of our armed services paid a high price to control oil in the Middle East.

    It was Bush who played the fiddle while Washington burned, not Obama.

    The attack on 9/11 came on George Bush's watch. So did the rape of our treasury. We've given Barack Obama the task of restoring the wealth and reputation of this country. If there's gloom and doom anywhere, it's coming from the right.

    The thing we need to do now is to give the new president the support he needs to get the job done.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well said, William. I can think of nothing to add!

  12. JYOTI KOTHARI profile image74
    JYOTI KOTHARIposted 7 years ago

    No. It is not going to save US. What can be done in a country where Federal Reserve Bank is a private one? Can Obama restrict those private bankers who are minting money till date?

       Jyoti Kothari

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Federal Reserve is not private. It regulates, or is supposed to regulate, the banking system along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago
  14. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    If the US is an empire then one might assume that "The Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDIC, the FDA, the FTC" would be in the service of instruments of such, more than the inhterests of the citizen at large.

  15. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    " the absolutely necessary choice of Obama in the the election."
    Did we have any other?

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And you, knol, are intriguing and sometimes complex with your one liners, lol.  So I'd have to ask you, I guess--what I wonder myself, and if you intimate something here--if George Soros' support didn't just see him into office, never mind somehow the election.

      Conspiracy theory, or just how it works (?)

      OR--  If your comment meant the more obvious way--as an educated voter/selector, absolutely NO other choice.

  16. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "Conspiracy theory, or just how it works (?)
    OR--  If your comment meant the more obvious way--as an educated voter/selector, absolutely NO other choice."
    Well both really. Many of Obama's appointments are Council on Foreigm Relations who seem run things when the dems are in power. But then on the other hand Obama or McCain where McCain is a moron and the other is an idiot? I use the term idiot for Obama since he plans to keep the wars going
    in Afghanistan spreading to Pakistan.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, he does. That worries me, too. Here's a bit of hope that he's having second thoughts
      http://www.antiwar.com:80/porter/?articleid=14291

  17. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    I like Anti-war, especially  Ramondo. Seems they are having trouble raising money. Never see it this bad before.
    Right back at you.
    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum … 6-sun.html

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      They're probably correct. He's probably more capable of changing his mind than his predecessor. I can't imagine the generals are overjoyed about our commitment in Afghanistan.

  18. LifesStudent profile image60
    LifesStudentposted 7 years ago

    As a complete outsider (non-American) I feel a little trepidation as I wade in. 

    Will you all please look out the window? 

    This is NOT merely an issue for the US.  The ENTIRE industrialised world is in economic meltdown due to many, many factors.  We have been running our economies using an unstable, unsustainable model of endless growth and consumption and now our sins are coming home to roost.

    The respondents who talk about printing money that has nothing behind it are correct. 

    No one man can 'save us' - it is we who must save us. 

    We have the power as voters, consumers and citizens... for goodness sake stop throwing political jabs at each other - this is so much bigger than that, so much more important and so much more grown up than that.

    Self interest, greed, ego and political games got us into this mess and it doesn't help to continue them if we think for one minute we will get out of it.

    Governments all over the industrial world are offering 'stimulus packages' of one kind or another (despite being from differing political positions), I believe they will fail because they attempt to prop up a system that is unsustainable.  If you think of your children and their children in any way, you will realise that we cannot continue unlimited, uncontained and unregulated growth... what happens to a tree when it grows under those conditions?  It falls over... well the tree is falling and it will do almost no good at all to try and prop it up.  What is need is indeed a big knife, axe or saw.  In fact it would be better to start again.

    Also, living in a country (a free country not unlike yours) I do not understand your fear of Government ownership of the basic necessities of life.  Until 20 years ago these were public utitilies - owned by the people via the Government (a common wealth so to speak).  We were not told what to drive, how much, how often etc. etc.  That is fear and misunderstanding talking and does nothing to help solve our very serious problems. 

    I do hope I have not offended anyone but I do hope I give you pause for thought.  What we need here on a global scale is co-operation and innovation and dare I say it, respect and love.

    The End

  19. Horatio Baccus profile image59
    Horatio Baccusposted 7 years ago

    I'll be honest from the get go; I think Obama is doing and will do great things for this country and possibly the world.  That being said the instruments of our economy and commerce are not failing because of one set of policies or the other.  They fail because they were built on the back of a predatory system in which no moral society could ever be formed.  What morals can a society be said to have if it lets the sick die in the street and children go hungry in the streets?  Opportunity in this land still comes with price tag and as the gross deregulation has shown us; so do morals.  When the profit of acting without conscious climbs high enough, the Free Market will provide men and women who will crave even more.  Those arguing in defense of the invisible hand and it's plundering of house hold budget's, manufacturing jobs, and pension accounts are as out of step and relevant as Torries during the Revolution.  The clatter of pitchforks and the smell of boiling tar usually shuts them up.  Except for imbred idiots like the late Prescott Bush who along with several wealthy backers tried to support a fascist overthrow of Roosevelt.  What a foolish thing that would have been.  By throwing the poor a little relief Roosevelt saved an entire generation of the ruling class of America from being put to the wall by the growing angry poor and they tried to thank him with a military coup.  Oh well thank goodness for an honest Marine.  In short this not Bush's Failure or Obama's Failure or Pelosi's Failure, it is simply the failure of the Capitalism.  I am simply glad we have leaders who are willing to unshackle us from that thieving, molesting, depraved, and Doomed invisible hand.

  20. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "  I am simply glad we have leaders who are willing to unshackle us from that thieving, molesting, depraved, and Doomed invisible hand."
    High hopes. Think maybe his economics may do something to salvage us from the abyss. But the problem is the debt and future inflation. This could be dealt with by cutting the military from 60% of US budget down to say 20 or so.
    But Obama seems to want to have his empire and eat it too..

    1. Jewels profile image79
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't it America as a whole who wants it's empire and eat it too? Isn't that the foundation of the USA?

    2. Nickny79 profile image88
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That 60% figure is incorrect.  It's more like 40%.  Furthermore, only 4% of our GDP is related to military expeditures.  To put things in perspective it was 34% of the GDP during WWII.  I should add that it was military spending and not the New Deal that brought us out of the Depression.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What a waste of money. Actually, a detriment, not just a waste.

        1. Nickny79 profile image88
          Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I stand corrected.  The non-partisan, "Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations" graduate, has spoken.

  21. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "Isn't it America as a whole who wants it's empire and eat it too?" America is the first country in known history where the citizens of same do not know that their country is an empire. They think they are just doing better than everybody, because they are just a little bit more superior.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      American empire? Why would you say that?

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf

  22. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "American empire? Why would you say that?"
    I don't download files. Nothing personal I just don't download hardly anything. Why would I say that. Try US military in something like 160 countries, contant wars, what around 200 now. You never heard of the 'Great Game'?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The link is to a site entitled "Instances of the Use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2008."
      I didn't count the number of instances, but it appears to be in the hundreds. My comment was intended to be ironic.

  23. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Sorry my friend. It must have been that hmmmmp that I didn't get, and crossbred it over here. You had me wonderin' there for a few minutes.
    See the latest is that Gul of Turkey just got a 'State Visit' to Russia.

  24. 59
    max-gxl1posted 7 years ago

    Bail out plans have been tried in other countries and have failed. It will fail here, foolish spending doesn't make money. You don't see businesses without money running out and spending money they don't have unless backed by the Government. Seems crazy that we give a bailout to these companies. Most of the companies failing right now have horrible business plans anyway, such as gm.  Companies with smart plans are seeing success. In my part of the country there are plenty of jobs to go around.

    Bailing out today makes our children have to pay back the debt. Obama's negitive talk and bad decisions have pushed the stock market down in his first month of office. Usually at the change of a President it goes up after they take office.

    Investors won't invest money with the Obama robinhood plan take from the rich to give to the poor. It simply won't work, the rich create jobs. You have to cut there taxes if you want them to invest there money. Obama's supporters cry because they think that the rich should pay more. Why should they? I understand different tax brackets but don't get crazy. Give them there money so they can spend it.

    A lot of people from poor areas of the country have tried to disagree that the rich do not create jobs. If this isn't true, when was the last time you saw a poor man looking for employees for his business?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Suggest you take a night course in Economics 101 or buy and read a copy of Paul Samuelson's elementary economics text book "Economics."

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL...  Maybe I will, Ralph.  What I know I've culled together from reading here and there.  What I truly don't get is how it seems to be a chicken and egg routine with many of these 'conservatives.'  Thomas Frank's Kansas all over the country?

  25. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    It seems that for the past eight years taxes of the rich were lowered. It didn't work, they didn't create jobs...they lined their own pockets at the expense of the working poor.

  26. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Maybe if those who are poor support the rich it is because they themselves think they are going to be rich someday and they are practicing. Or maybe like gay Republicans, they want to play the elite role, and pretend they are accepted. Garanteed their money is.

  27. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
    You can try this one the first one up on the google page. But I'm sure it don't matter. You will have it your own way just the same. Even 40% of my town's money spent on the police. What is it a police state?

    1. Nickny79 profile image88
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Let's review Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:



      It is significant that this clause gives priority to "common Defence" by placing it first as foreign threats tend to put a damper on the "general Welfare."



      It would be an understatement to say the scope of the recent "Oblama" Bill is somewhat beyond these provisions.



      Of the eighteen clauses in article 8, HALF explicitly pertain to military matters.  ZERO explicitly pertain to "stimulating the economy" with deficit spending, and a generous interpretation might point to the first and last clause for implied, if not explicit authority, for social spending programs.  Nevertheless, the Constitution doesn't give implied powers when read with the 10th Amendment:



      Congress is empowered to do only what the Constitution says it can do.  If it's not in the Constitution, it's either unconstitutional or RESERVED to the States and people.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Of the eighteen clauses in article 8, HALF explicitly pertain to military matters.  ZERO explicitly pertain to "stimulating the economy" with deficit spending, and a generous interpretation might point to the first and last clause for implied, if not explicit authority, for social spending programs.

        Keyenes had yet to write his "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" when the Constitution was written in the context of an agrarian, small town society. As the mobster said to Don Ameche in David Mamet's movie, "Things Change,"  "Things change."

        1. Nickny79 profile image88
          Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Does that argument apply when a President wants to water-board detainees at Gitmo? Or only when Obama proposes to violate the Constitution?

          1. 0
            Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Just want to point out how dumb this statement is.  There are other codes and rules that were set forth previous to your much glorified constitution--sometimes on stone tablets (sometimes what we liberals call human rights)--that may or should have reference in regards to the Gitmo issue and repercussions of these detainees handling.

            That's it...  Just watching the fireworks remotely today....

            Hope Ralph comes back to rip something up, wink

            1. Nickny79 profile image88
              Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And suppose there are 20 different inconsistent codes with 20 different inconsistent interpretations--which one do we pick and how do we pick it?  Oh I forgot, we don't have to worry about that, we have the NY Times Op-Ed writers to pick for us.

              1. 0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Horribly myopic as usual, smile.

                But of course, abortion rights should be granted maybe down to the municipality level!!!  That makes lotsa sense.

                Always entertaining...

                1. Nickny79 profile image88
                  Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Translation:  I don't have an adequate response, therefore I need to make accusations of myopia.

                  1. 0
                    Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Translation:  I did not exactly get what that meant, therefore I will make a back-handed personal attack, even though I am fond of accusing others of personal attacks myself when it justifies my argument.  I don't truly realize how hilarious I sometimes am.

                    *footnote-- As stated previously, responder "is just watching remotely," but if she felt like it, could rip your 'logic' on this point this side of heaven if she felt like typing that much.  Alas, she does not, and has other work to do.  Therefore, she hopes Ralph comes back and eats you for dinner, smile

              2. 0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                1. The original intent of the US constitution could arguably be defined as encompassing a meaning related to Natural Law (which can be found in many human codes of ethics, going as far back as the Code of Hammurabi) which is different from Divine Law or Constant Law. If there is any original intent in the constitution, it is to be found in ethical realism. Without an understanding of what inalienable rights are and what individuality is as opposed to whatever, we lose a sense of distinction and law, life, and love all fall into a senseless ball of mixed 'whatever you want freedom', which is categorically a childish understanding of "liberty.”

                The wannabe masters of the universe that cry out 'original intent' before smashing the constitution (along with our rights) to bits, are engaging in a practice known as doublespeak, which is very closely aligned with postmodernism. The agenda is deceit--their practice, dishonesty--their goal, intellectual slavery. People are so much better for business when we are like manageable cattle.

                (I.E, postmodernism is the systematic destruction of semantics, of which the loss of meaning is analogous to the confusion of tongues.)

                2.  But to be pragmatic about what we are dealing with—the constitution is hundreds of years old and has altered thanks mainly to legislatures. It seems correct to say that the current form of the Constitution is a law brought about by legislatures, and that there is no one intention behind this law.  In other words, times have changed--and have changed the constitution.

                The trick of course, is in a vision not so myopic and not so farsighted that one sees both the forest and can distinguish the trees as far as interpretation. Also, not to have an agenda when you do attempt an interpretation.  smile

                And I do not want to hear anything more about New York Times Op Eds, thank you....

                1. BDazzler profile image83
                  BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Ahhh ... and I was SO afriad you two didn't love each other any more tongue

                  1. 0
                    Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    He should think about <trying> to make a rebuttal to this.  This is the level he should be at.  Probably will be toooooo embarrassed now, though, lol...

                    And thank you, Taveuni!  smile

                2. taveuni13 profile image59
                  taveuni13posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Brilliant, insightful stuff in this, thought it worth repeating in full, thank you.



                  Gee, I wonder. roll

                  I too laugh at the parrying between left and right and the semantics surrounding the Constitution.  Each twists it as far as they can to suit their own ideologies.  But of the two choices, I will take domestic pork over imperialist fear any day.

                  The so called "terrorist threat" is just another tool to keep people in fear about the wrong things, to keep their eye off the ball of what really matters in the lives of most people.  The term AlQaida was never used by BinLaden in any of his communications with the west until after the western media started using it.  They then used it because it worked to their purposes, and the right has played right into their hands, but also into their own deceptive intentions.  I too think Bin Laden is dead, likely has been for years.

                  "An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."- Plutarch

                  Seems we have to learn this lesson over and over again.

                  For people, and I think this counts most I run across in online debates about the economy, who seem terrified of spending "printed money" to try and make a difference for the vast majority of American people,  I recommend this video.  I actually recommend the whole "Crash Course", though it takes some time and I don' t necessarily agree with all of it.  But what you can't really dispute, and that most don't get I think, is that money in our system is simply loaned into existence and until we change our entire, unsustainable economic and financial model based on levereged,  exponential economic growth, proponents of this system will always try and mask the spectre of the inherent but equal problem of catastrophic decline.  This is where we absolutely need government in place to reign in this beast.

                  1. SparklingJewel profile image65
                    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    So, I watched up to chptr 14 of the Crash Course...and will have to do the rest later.

                    Oh, God help us...the assumptions the majority of people have made about the future. I like what I see in this video series so far.

                    and i have to admit that what i want to try to do is put into words my whole "abundant consciousness" concepts for life...but I am not there yet. but is is interesting the "intuitive" way I have lived and created my life...no judgments on my self !

                    More later big_smile

                3. Nickny79 profile image88
                  Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The original intent of the US Constitution involves a life long, scholarly perusal of the lives of the founders and subsequent drafters, their letters, their memoirs, their books, the Federalists Papers and a close reading of the US Constitution itself--both the version that is in force today, and variations and drafts that were rejected.  It should be a painstaking philological exercise where every syllable, punctuation mark and even its silences should be considered with slow deliberation.  The text, the framers, the drafters are to be the first point of reference.  Versions of "Natural Law" (and there are many), other human codes of ethics and Hammurabi are at best of tertiary importance when it comes to understanding this document. 

                  I do not propose that the intent will be self-evident in all cases (though often enough it is) and I do not pretend that perhaps there were not several inconsistent intents--nevertheless, we can achieve with reasonable certainty, a sense of the meaning the drafters intended to convey when they wrote the Constitution and its Amendments.  This political soul searching is of paramount importance and should generally be the first and controlling point of reference when applying the Constitution to new circumstances.  Otherwise, how are we to distinguish between rival interpretations?  what is the baseline standard for choosing one reading as opposed to another.  Such interpretative subjectivism can only lead to an ideological disregard of the document or at worst a propagandistic after-reading to justify pet theories in the guise of objective analysis.  Indeed, this happens all too often in the more recent decisions rendered by the Supreme Court.




                  "Ethical realism" means nothing to serious Constitutional analysis. An "understanding" of "inalienable rights" and "individuality" presupposes that such abstractions can be ascertained with reasonable certainty--but how are we to know that person X's understanding is correct, person Y's incorrect, and person Z's partly correct, partly incorrect.  The fundamental question is what is the STANDARD for adjudicating rival interpretations of such fundamental concepts?  The closest thing we have to an "objective" standard is the text of the Constitution and the "intent" of the drafters to the extent that such intent can be ascertained.



                  Before you can accuse the masters of the universe of smashing rights, you need to know what they are, their scope and applicability.  If our founding documents and the meaning they were intended to convey is not your point of reference, what is?




                  And suppose the legislature legislates a dictatorship--is that constitutional?  Is that a valid constitutional alteration?  If it is not, how do we determine what are valid constitutional adjustments? or is an ad hoc shaping, determined by the ideological winds of the day.  And suppose the winds are totalitarian or otherwise uncongenial to your pet theories?  Then what.



                  The trick of course is not to read the Constitution like a freestyle poem.

                  1. 0
                    Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks, Nick...  Still horribly myopic (you are a conservative) for my taste, but not unpleasantly so.  Just brittle and (somewhat, read thorough) academic--similar to those academic literary critics who look for stains and cracks in an original manuscript and how the author (or the Founding Fathers, in capital letters) tied their shoes in order to look for original intent or meaning in a document.

                    wink And what if the Constitution were written as a freestyle poem, what then?  What if that was uncongenial to your pet theories?  Would you have to interpret the Constitution with 'your ideas' of what a freestyle poem indeed is?  ....You know I have to dis you.  smile

                    I don't think you realize how much we actually agree, because you are not familiar with postmodernism as a theory or its many guises...which in this case regarding language states that there may be many theories, all of leveling degrees (the systematic breakdown of language and understanding), which would present a problem, yes.  But that is OK, because on many of my sources, the law professors discussing these constitutional issues didn't know either.

                    lol...  So perhaps with your "basic con law" lessons learned, you may be a lawyer rather than a Rush Limbaugh substitute after all.

  28. Nickny79 profile image88
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Therefore, it should not surprise you that a good chunk of the Federal Budget is spent on the military.  The states are supposed to take care of most everything else that's not listed in Article 8.

  29. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Nothing surprises me anymore. Just saw this morning that the Rick Santelli rant, made famous far and wide this week, producing the new Boston Tea Parties against Obama taxes is all funded by the mulit-bilionare Koch family, the largest privately owned company in US and founders of the John Birch Society, maybe a favorite of some. Grassroots for billionaires.

    1. Nickny79 profile image88
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Translation:  "I don't have a satisfactory reponse to an actual analysis of the Constitution; therefore, I'll make digital noise about Rick Santelli and attempt to enflame class envy."

  30. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" When is the last time the US congress declared war what about 70 years ago.
    The religuous got their bible and the right wingers got their Constitution that they pull out at every opportunity. Problem is neither has much to do with reality. Therefore these always resort to name calling like grade school cause quite naturally pretty tough to square the circle.

    1. Nickny79 profile image88
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, I'll be sure to make that argument next time you want to grant 5th Amendment rights to terrorists.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How come everything you say oozes fear?

        Are you really this scared?

        1. Nickny79 profile image88
          Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Everything I say oozes with love--love for my country and its traditions and its Constitution.

          I propose a truce, Mr. Knowles--we agree about some matters.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            big_smile A truce is good. We do agree on some matters.

            But there is a fine line between love, hate and fear. Not that I am trying to tell you what you should say, but much of what you say seems to stem from fear. Or at least that is how it comes across to me. And others judging from the reactions you get. Not so much what you say, but how you say it. I mean - I would think the 5th amendment applies to everyone. And who labels anyone a "terrorist"? The same government you seem to mistrust. Would you take their word for it that XZY is a terrorist? But not that they can be trusted to spend your money? big_smile

            Fear is the great destroyer of freedoms and rights.

            1. Sufidreamer profile image80
              Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I sense apprehension, and that is understandable. If it were a simple case of liberal v conservative, or whatever, we would throw a few verbal bombs at each other and have a laugh along the way. I have no problem with 'old-fashioned' conservatives, but they are a dying breed, as are 'old-school' liberals. I am pretty sure that Nick laments the dumbing down of the media and education as much as the rest of us - it is difficult to find reasoned debate nowadays. People are not taught how to think for themselves any more, which is the real danger. sad

              This is much more serious, a breakdown of the complete system. Whatever our political persuasion or nationality, people have stolen from us and appear to be getting away with it. The people can forgive a small amount of corruption and 'creative accounting' from the elite, but the scale of this theft is yet to unfold. Reagan and Thatcher started this 'greed is good' culture, but the Democrats and Labour continued the trend, and are no better.

            2. Nickny79 profile image88
              Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You are free to make whatever observations you please--I'm not interested in justifying my manner of expression.

              Substantively, the point is that my two previous interlocutors, and those of their ilk, are selective readers of the Constitution.  If they can't read their ideology between the lines, they wax poetical and start talking about a "living constitution" which conveniently lives in a manner consistent with their ideology alone.  Although conservatives may, in practice, be guilty of the same selective reading, they attempt, in principle, to use as their point of reference the text and the original intentions of those who wrote it.  When circumstances are such that the text needs to be changed (e.g. slavery or women's suffrage) amendments are enacted through a very specific process.

              Consider the following:

              The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States.  It reads:

              "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

              Suppose NY interprets this as saying anyone duly convicted of murder shall be sentenced to slavery for life and auctioned to the public on the steps of the courthouse with proceeds used to pay for legal fees.

              Suppose NJ interprets this as saying anyone duly convicted of murder shall be sentence to 30 years slavery in state owned factories.

              CT however disagrees with NJ and says that the 13th doesn't allow slavery as a punishment to a crime but only involuntary servitude.

              MA disagrees with with CT and say both involuntary servitude and slavery are permitted to punish a crime.

              And a Democrat Congress disagrees with everyone and says slavery or involuntary servitude may not be used to punish crimes at all, notwithstanding what the 13th amendment says because it violates a convicts "human rights".

              I just gave five plausable interpretations of the 13th Amendment--I can come up with dozens more.  The same can be done for every word in the Constitution.  How do we resolve such divergent perspectives? 

              1.  Look to the text.
              2.  Look to the intentions of those who wrote it.
              3.  Attempt to adapt the spirit of the text and its authors to circumstances.
              4.  If all else fails, amendment the Constitution through the permittted procedure.

              People like Knowly and Deeds will chant "times change times change" and ignore the Constitution when its convenient to their perspective; likewise, when it suits their purpose, they are transformed into public guardians of our "Constitutional rights" and will invoke every clause and amendment to support whatever advocacy is in vogue at the moment.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What does that have to do with giving people labelled as "terrorists" the same rights as every one else?

                Or the doomed-to-failure economic plans of Mr. Obama?

                1. Nickny79 profile image88
                  Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  As to your second question, not only is Mr. Obama's plans doomed to fail, but strictly speaking they are unconstitutional for anyone who cares to read the text.  More on point, Knowly is unjustifiably critical of why the federal budget spent so much on the military--he claims 60%, in reality its 40% or a mere 4% of the GDP.  My point is that the raison d'etre of the federal budget is in large part to fund the military, not social welfare programs--my evidence being Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. 

                  As for your first question, strictly speaking they are "alleged terrorists" and they acquire the label "terrorists" when a court of competent jursidiction finds them to be so.  Furthermore, non-citizens outside the jurisdiction of the US courts system do not have 5th Amendment rights as a matter of law.  If you disagree with this you are free to start a political action committee and lobby for something different.

              2. 60
                NewRepublicanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I would like to believe that I try to follow the Constitution as strict as possible.  We should try to respect the intentions of the Founding Fathers.  However, sometimes it just doesn't make sense to follow strictly what they intended at times what they wrote.  I'm pretty sure, the Founding Fathers (especially because of the time it was written in) intended anything they wrote to be applied only to Whites. 

                I'm trying to be bipartisan here so don't feel that I'm betraying my Republican loyalty. But to be fair both Republicans and Democrats have interpreted the Constitution to their liking.  The Bush Administration has arguably bended the Constitution in ways that have never been bended before.  Their argument is that "times change" and that this is a post 9/11 world.  Does that make the Administration's decisions wrong because they "abused" the Constitution?

                1. Nickny79 profile image88
                  Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Please refer to item 4 in the list above.

                  1. 60
                    NewRepublicanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Fair enough.  However, the Bush Administration did not do item 4.

  31. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Bin laden is dead according to Benazir Bhutto as stated on David Frost show before she was murdered, Bin Laden killed by a Pakistani General, I think she named if I remember right. Been dead some 5 years yet another
    17 thousand to kill his butt.

  32. 60
    NewRepublicanposted 7 years ago

    oh with that said here is my partisan rant lol.  i do not think Obama's plan will save us.  i've mentioned this before, but Japan did a very similar thing in the 90's and it prolonged their situation for an entire decade.  in fact, i'm curious to find out anywhere in history where a solution such as this has helped the situation or at least has not made it worse.

  33. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "As for your first question, strictly speaking they are "alleged terrorists" and they acquire the label "terrorists" when a court of competent jurisdiction finds them to be so"
    So this is why all the non-terrorists in getmo who are so dangerous they can't be brought into the US proper, can't have trials, should be kept in detention
    indefinitely, all evidence if there is any must be kept secret, what the Bush
    gang tried to do. Actually me thinks there were to be no trials because there
    were have to be evidence of which there is none because there is no al-Qaeda as portrayed.

  34. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Last night I saw a clip on television which I took as an indication that HubPages' audience is growing fast and reaching some of the biggest movers and shakers. The clip was of Rush Limbaugh reciting almost verbatim NickNYs claims that Obama's economic recovery program is un-Constitutional. He didn't give credit to Nick, but it was clear that Nick's comments on this thread were the source of Rush's remarks. Congrats to Nickny!

    1. Sufidreamer profile image80
      Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He should forget about becoming a lawyer - I am currently designing some 'Nick for President' stickers. The 2012 campaign starts here.

      You heard it here first! smile

      1. BDazzler profile image83
        BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Serious question ... Nick, is Rush quoting you, or were you quoting Rush?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Count me in!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Count me in provided I get on his short list for Secretary of Labor!

          1. Sufidreamer profile image80
            Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Not my call, but you should be able to persuade him! If I get a job as the Ouzo import quality controller, that will do me nicely.

            Nick - You must immediately write a Hub with your election aims and manifesto. This could be the start of the road for the true 'Peoples President.'

            Hooray for the President-Elect! smile

    2. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So!  Ralph had Nick for breakfast instead!  Well, I knew there would be a meal.

      They say Rove and Limbaugh are both nasty practitioners of Republican postmodernism--Nick, too!  And he says he doesn't like postmodern art, wink.

  35. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Lita: liked your concept of the 'cooler'. Hadn't heard that one before. Maybe I even watch the movie. Got Netflex now.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "The Cooler" is a nice little movie about a Las Vegas casino. Worth seeing.

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yep, saw it on the Independent Film Channel a week or so ago.  Thought it might be Coen brothers, but it turns out it is this South African director, I believe.  Impressed, though.

        smile  Oh, no, Knol!  I hope that wasn't some intimation of something--you and your one liners!  FYI, in case it is--  I came up with the previous thoughts on the constitution by reading through a bunch of law blogs and adapting/paraphrasing what I found rang true to the 'argument' (if you can call it that--because the lack of logic on one side is obvious) + my own thoughts on postmodernism.  Not hard.  You do the same thing writing any persuasive paper...

        Though some prefer listening to hate radio, lol

  36. Jeraldine profile image60
    Jeraldineposted 7 years ago

    No I do not think President Obama is going to save us because President Obama is not God.  Everything that is happening to us right now is part of the devine plan, and a bigger picture.  We are looking for love in all the wrong places.  Mat 7:1  "Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you, Mat 7:2  for God will judge you in the same way you judge others, and he will apply to you the same rules you apply to others. Mat 7:3  Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye? 

    Nothing on this earth happens without God's permission and devine orchestration and intervention. Even President Obama do not open his eyes to a new day unless God says so. I just hope he realizes that, and act accordingly. Just like he gets up and run, and exercise I hope he gives that kind of faithfulness to God.  Maybe you don't believe in God, but it does matter because it does not stop God from being God.  You know what I say often, "In the end we will see".

    Again he's an instrument used by Devine intervention. What instrument will you play?  Will you play the song of the solution or play the song the problem?  He has a desire to get our country up out of the miry clay and up out of an horrible pit. He needs to be given a chance to show if his plan will work, not our opinionated oppositions. He's just getting started. He's an instrument that choses to be used and to lend his members (body) to creating change, hope, unity, fairness and justice. 

    The fall of our economy did not start with President Obama it started a long time ago when stopped trusting in God, and started looking at themselves as god.  It started from men who thought they were above the law and whose greed, self serving antics, and compromise, started to trust in their own power.  Men who turned their backs on the Real God.  Sir/Madame you are just seeing the birth paines of what's ahead.

    There is nothing any of us can do, to turn our country around,  until we stop finding fault and blame.  We are just as much apart of what's happening as those "men" we trusted and allowed to govern our country based upon integrity, dignity, trust, truth and love for their fellowman.  God says, "How can you say you love God whom you have never seen, and do not love your brother who you see every day.
    We are divided and "split" in that (Democrates, Replubicans, Liberals, Agnotics, Atheistics you name it....."split" instead of working toward unity") A nation divided against itself cannot stand.  No I don't think President Obama is the answer to our economic woes.  But I do see him attempting to be apart of the solution and not apart of the problem.  How about you?

    1. 60
      babygirl97posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad that at least 1 person on here is a liberal jk everyone on here are liberals!!!

  37. 59
    wonderkattposted 7 years ago

    Only in America could a hillbilly heroin using, child mloesting, fat retarded, facist pig addict rise up to lead the republican party.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    pEACEout

  38. 59
    wonderkattposted 7 years ago

    Rush wants to "debate" Obama?

    Rush is a radio DJ and represents maybe 20 million people. Obama represents 300 million American and is the leader of the free world. If Obama debates rush will Wolfman Jack come out of retirement to debate Obama too? Will Kasey Kasem challenge Barack to make his own top ten list?

    It's a fact that Rush started this thing with Obama's White House. Rush wanted America and it's president to fail.

    Rush is the terrorist. He deserves to be tried for his treason. Once he is dead and put into a grave we should all go by with a full bladder and 6-pak so that we can show him how we really  feel.


    Rush is scum and should be treated as such.

    Peace OUt

    1. livelonger profile image87
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He is a worthless gasbag who is hugely unpopular among the other 280 million Americans who don't listen to him. I think it's clever (Democratic) politics to have him be the face of the GOP today. After all, sniping from the sidelines, without putting out any real ideas of their own, is what the Republican party has devolved into.

      1. 60
        babygirl97posted 7 years ago in reply to this




        you guys are idiots seriouslyyou guys are so stupid at least RUSH speaks the truth and isn't screwing over our economy like that monkey is doing to us! Actually i take that back a monkey would do a better job that obama!

             You just got severed! (and PALIN would have been so much better!)

  39. Tom Rubenoff profile image91
    Tom Rubenoffposted 7 years ago

    Let's not be stupid.  Nothing is going to save us.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Would you like Dr. Jack Kevorkian's phone number? He lives not far from me!

  40. aesthunter profile image59
    aesthunterposted 7 years ago

    I do not think pushing in more money into troubled banks is doing any good. I am looking forward to another shock to the economy in the form of the credit swaps; the money involved in this great product, envisaged by investment bankers is huge.

    The number of incomprehensible plans and investments abound in the financial sector nowadays. I believe the market has taken this downturn after the 1980's when banking was deregulated.

    This sense that  individual self-interest would protect our banking system is stupid. Deregulation only spewed more competition, leading to all these high risk, incomprehensible plans.

    More competition has meant, more cost cuts, which has mostly been borne by the employees of the companies. The ratio of the salary of a CEO to that of the normal employee being at 41 times in 1980's, is now hovering around 411.

    And there has also been a dwindling in terms of public spending in the USA, there have been lesser social support programs. Private jails, private armies the government just wanted to become a small nucleus, which I believe has never worked out well throughout history. I believe rather than looking at the short term perspective of saving the banks, they should right away look at rebuilding the economy, and this they could start of by investing in more infrastructure and social spending. more than the banks if the trust of the common man in the government is restored, they might ignite the sparks for reconstruction in terms of domestic spending.

  41. 60
    babygirl97posted 7 years ago

    Please som1 tell me if I'm the only 1 who isn't a liberal in here????????

  42. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Nickny a conservative Rush fan, also, Sprinkler Man, eovery are conservatives, and direxmd is probably a constitutional conservative.

    So!  There are a few of you.  Just not many...

    (I am DEFINITELY not a Rush fan, lol.  Just helping you out.)

    1. 60
      babygirl97posted 7 years ago in reply to this

         

      thanx! you are still cool as long as u don't trash him!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There's no need to trash Rush. He takes care of that himself quite effectively.

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL  Literally THE first girl Rush Limbaugh fan I have ever 'met.'

  43. roastedpinebark profile image60
    roastedpinebarkposted 7 years ago

    I talked to a professor at a nearby university about the us's current economic situation.  In a recession, its usually about halfway through that we actually can identify a recession as a recession so this situation basically could have been going on for far longer than analyzed have predicted.

    A key to look at upon analyzing is when the curve bottoms out, which it hasn't.  Basically things are going to keep getting worse for now and it may not have anything to do with Obama...yet.

    I think that the stock market reflected what the economic plans and procedures that have been taking place under the new presidecy will do in the next two to five years at least.  I hope that this is wrong, but printing more money and raising taxes (yes taxes are going up) will just decrease the buying of commercial goods and slow down the economy.  Some of the things I have said are highly debated and I apologize if I have offended anyone with what I have seen on this issue.

  44. johnb0127 profile image76
    johnb0127posted 7 years ago

    Economic plans?  What economic plans???

 
working