Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
3 days ago.
by jaxspp
rshill7
#1

Letters To Ed :-)

"We've been duped by the Republicans. Kentucky Sen. and minority leader Mitch McConnell in a news conference one day after the election, stated that the single and sole goal of the GOP over the next two years is: to make Barack Obama a single term president. What an arrogant and obnoxious goal and statement. There agenda before the election was to get votes by promising that there first goals were jobs, the economy and health care reform. It seems their goal is to grab power, not to do things for the people that are in need of jobs and or unemployment pay, health care for those that don't have it, and the people losing their homes. This is the same party that wanted the auto plants and their suppliers to go out of business. We are just coming back from what they did to this country, and now we have them back to do the same things to our country again. What a mess the next two years is going to bring to this country. Talk about partisanship." Carl D. Leow Rogers Cit

 
 

Member Comments

Freeman

So here is normanlakes train of "thought".

Yeah, but.... he but, Bush didn't, Bush did,,,,,

Come on. Tired, retread, finger pointing and weird.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

The wars are expensive, cost about what the administration deficit spent in the first 3 terms in office. No argument, but they did not cause damage to the U.S. economy.

That was, Mr. Read Up Onit, the housing bubble bursting and the associated liabilities of default credit swap / securitization and insurance of toxic mortgages. Where in the heck have you been for the last 6 years...under a rock?

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

Policies were encouraged by Bush.... He was wrong as well. Balanced budgets are great, surpluses are not. Gingrich takes credit, fine, doesn't change my mind.

What, exactly, is your point.

Let me answer that; all you read was "Clinton" in that article. You haven't made an attempt to discuss whether or not the policies were FUBAR, all you are interested in is defending a democrat and excusing his bad policy by pointing to Bush's letting it go on. (He did, by the way, express great concern to Congress about it's long term effects on the U.S. economy).

So, where is the point of the article in error? Did the crash of 07/08 start with bad policy in the housing market or not? If not, then why not?

And you all others shallow?

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

AND...Still not a word from you neocons about THE most damaging cause of our poor economy..TWO UNfunded WARS...brought to us by neocon zealots.

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

Right back atcha, weirdo!

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

In actuality, "free"man, I did read your little suggestion, and found it lacking. YOU over simplify a complicated situation, all you did was cite Wiesenthal's suppositions. Policies were continued under Bush, so your pathetic spin and blame assessment are Partisan in nature. By the way, "FREE"man, your boy Newt Gingrich has repeatedly crowed about he himself being responsible, along with Clinton, for the phony 'budget surplus'.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

You are one weird dude normanlake, one weird dude.

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

...Voila! There it is, right in front of the "Free"man's nose.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

...wait for it....

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

In a nut shell, unfunded liabilities are stopping the government form governing. They are forcing the government to devalue the U.S. Dollar by printing them by the tanker-load.

At some point the interest rates will have to rise, (or nobody will buy our Tbills), and the problem will be far worse, by orders of magnitude. The economy cannot flourish under these conditions. It's impossible.

Where am I wrong normanlake? Please enlighten us with your "read up on it" brand of quick intelligence.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

If the reverse were true, you would expect that not only our economy would be thriving but the global economy would as well.

Not the case. We have spent more in deficits alone, in the past 5 years than the cumulative budgets of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton and we still have an economy that will not start.

I, personally, feel that the spending argument is over. It's now time to do everything in our power, (govermental), to spur private sector organic growth.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

Governments will always deficit spend in a HEALTHY ORGANIC economy. The difference is to what degree they deficit spend. I don't think anyone, even Keynes, would think that trillion dollar deficits are stimulative. They are just too big and will have anti-stimulative effects as evidenced by our current condition.

We now have a global economy who's "safe haven" is in U.S. Dollars. Dollars that are being devalued at an unprecedented rate and will, when the tipping point is reached, cause a global depression. ANY IDIOT CAN SEE IT!!

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

Let's also, jax, stop picking on Romney for things that happen in his BLIND TRUST. He is not in control of that just as President Obama is not in control of his. Let's fix the tax code. Problem solved.

As far as the consumption, you are absolutely correct...kind of. Consumption, especially in the housing market, at that time was speculative based upon conditions that the GOVERNMENT put into place, not the free market. The GSE's were buying and securitizing sub-prime mortgages at an unreasonable rate. I think you would agree with that. The growth of the housing bubble was not due to organic economic conditions but artificial conditions crated by activist government, however well intentioned.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

Again normy, point to one source other than "history". Really? Back up whatever point you are trying to make.

Discussions are not composed of you just saying something is so and someone saying that it isn't.

In short, instead of calling me names, point out, specifically, where you disagree with the article and the position I advocate based upon it. If you can't do that then I'd think twice about babbling on about "history", "read up on it", and "find it yourself".

Man up and offer some facts or, at the very least, an intelligent argument that refutes the facts someone else offered.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

I'm all for infrastructure spending jax, where do you find that I am not?

My problem is that there is no money for it based upon the programs that the "Great Society" created. We have made a choice and it turns out that, however well intentioned, it has backfired on the government.

So, my issues are not with doing what government is supposed to do but that the funding needed to do it has been crowded out by social safety nets' negative cash flows.

There is a balance in the governments' deficit spending to counter the private sector's lack of spending in tougher times. Surpluses do nothing but remove capital from the private economy and foster the intrinsic tendency by government to figure out a way to spend it.

Posted 391 days ago.

Freeman

See, normanlake, jaxspp read the article.

You, normy, are about as relevant to discussion as cheese is to the moon.

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

And now, an intelligent word from Michele Bachmann..................................

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

"Free"man, I have plenty of evidence to support what I say here.....wait for it....HISTORY (101).

Posted 391 days ago.

normanlake

Yes, Amos they know what to do...protect the elites as they always do. Vague rhetoric like cutting spending(while protecting their own pork, and allowing huge tax breaks to BigOil, Big Ag, etc.) They promote'smaller Government', while attacking voting rolls, and invading womens bodies thru legislation designed to narrow acceptible behavior. Promote WAR by sabre rattling while fooling us into believing in 'intelligence' that indicates WMD plans by the Muslim hordes.

Posted 391 days ago.

amos57usa

Speaking of time; science was wrong again. Earth is not 13.7 billion years old after all, it's 13.8 billion years old which would make Jesus' dad so old that even the 3.2 million year old Australopithicus Afarensis 'Lucy' wouldn't date Him much less a 2,000 year old woman named Mary. (I don't know if the capital H for Him is reserved just for jesus or includes His dad :))

Politics is clashing with reality in the information age and the "stupid party" doesn't know what to do now so they are in the circular firing squad position again. Life is good:)

Posted 391 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or