14
   

Obama: The Fundamentals of our Economy are Sound

 
 
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2009 01:58 pm
@farmerman,
By the way, tagging other people's posts with 'snarky' tags is tacky.

Don't you think?

http://able2know.org/user/farmerman/
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 08:56 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:
the recession dident start untill Obama's government took over.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is considered the arbiter of whether the US is in recession, declared that the United States entered a recession in December 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7759470.stm
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 09:52 am
@nimh,
Um, I think Rabel was being perhaps being intentionally sarcastic with that statement. I could be wrong, but most of his posts seem to blame George W. Bush and the GOP for the entire recession and everything related to it. Probably also global warming, all wars, famine, drought, floods, and warts.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 10:05 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Um, I think Rabel was being perhaps being intentionally sarcastic with that statement. I could be wrong, but most of his posts seem to blame George W. Bush and the GOP

Hmm, could be, but he's never had any love for Obama either, even if he ended up grudgingly voting for the man. No love at all, to put it mildly.

Anyway, better safe than sorry, at least the data's here now!

(Or datum, I suppose, cause it's only one..)
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 10:13 am
Well, the bell continues to toll for Geithner...

Now we have the golden-haired Keynsian economic guru of the left, Paul Krugman, decrying the Geithner plan to be released today as yet a third rehash of Paulson's original plan and one almost surely to fail...

Luckily for Geithner, the stock market seems to be rallying right now, at least in anticipation...with any kind of luck Geithner will have imbued sufficient confidence in relieving the banks, that the stock market will continue to improve. If instead, we see more analyses like Krugman's below, the markets will crash back down over the next few days and Geithner's days will surely be numbered...

Krugman wrote:
Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy " specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

<<<Snip>>>

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus " for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to " will change that fact.

<<<snip>>>

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails " as it almost surely will " it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.


source
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 05:43 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Well, the bell continues to toll for Geithner...


not.
Quote:
Dow soars nearly 500 points on banking plan
Program to remove some $1 trillion in bad assets from their books

March 23: The Dow closes up almost 500 points on news of a government plan to sell toxic assets and better-than-expected home sales.

NEW YORK - Wall Street got the news it wanted on the economy’s biggest problems " banks and housing " and celebrated by hurtling the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 500 points.

Investors added rocket fuel Monday to a two-week-old advance, cheering the government’s plan to help banks remove bad assets from their books and also welcoming a report showing a surprising increase in home sales. Major stock indicators surged about 7 percent, including the Dow, which had its biggest percentage gain since October.

Analysts who have seen the market’s recent false starts are still hesitant to say Wall Street is indeed recovering from the collapse that began last fall. But the day’s banking and housing news bolstered the growing belief that the economy is starting to heal, and that is what had investors buying.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

bad news for those who want the president to fail.

0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 09:13 am
@nimh,
Yes. I was being sarcastic. As foxfire said I am not crazy about this government but blaming a man for the recession when he has been in office less than three months is stupid! The finincial problems were apparent when Bush was elected in 2004 and instead of poring water on the fire the idiot poured gas on it with all the conseratives cheering him on. They still are thus my sarcasim. If you cant access a closed mind give up.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 09:51 am


PrezBO calming to have inherited every problem that we currently face is stupid.
It really doesn't matter how the problem(s) came to be, all that matters now is what PrezBO is doing to change things for the better.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 11:14 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Lot of economists say hyperinflation is coming, DTOM. Surely, this worries you?


not so much, alv. as far as i can tell. inflation began several years ago when gas prices started shooting up. everything else went up in price immediately.

or as ms. dtom commented a few years ago; "jeeezz... when i go to the grocery now, everything is five bucks."

i have to ask you this though. why are you so down on money being spent on education ? ( in the interest of full disclosure, both my wife and sister in law work for the school system at the college level. )

i get, and even agree that sometimes tenure can keep a lame ass teacher employed, but in the scheme of things they are a distinct and small percentage. but beyond that, i find it difficult to understand the attitude that education and decent wages for those who are teaching "our most valuable resource" and "america's future" are wasteful spending.

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:41 pm
uh-oh. i kinda biffed the quote tabs in the last post. sorry. shoulda been like this;


A Lone Voice wrote:


Lot of economists say hyperinflation is coming, DTOM. Surely, this worries you?


not so much, alv. as far as i can tell. inflation began several years ago when gas prices started shooting up. everything else went up in price immediately.

or as ms. dtom commented a few years ago; "jeeezz... when i go to the grocery now, everything is five bucks."

i have to ask you this though. why are you so down on money being spent on education ? ( in the interest of full disclosure, both my wife and sister in law work for the school system at the college level. )

i get, and even agree that sometimes tenure can keep a lame ass teacher employed, but in the scheme of things they are a distinct and small percentage. but beyond that, i find it difficult to understand the attitude that education and decent wages for those who are teaching "our most valuable resource" and "america's future" are wasteful spending.


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:41 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
Your question was not addressed to me, so I hope it is okay if I answer.

FACT: Before the federal government got involved in funding and imposing rules and regulations on the schools, the schools were far better. I went to a very small town school and have kept in contact with a large number of my classmates from that school. Most of us continued with some form of higher education, but we are all agreed that our high school diplomas represented an education--we all could read and write competently, knew how to do basic math, had a good grasp of literature, history, geography, basic science, and were equipped to accomplish whatever we needed to do. There were no social promotions and nobody graduated without honestly earning the requisite credits. And the drop out rate was extremely low. We are in agreement that a highschool diploma from that school at that time provided the equivalent or better than four years of college now.

FACT: Thomas Sowell who went to a segregated school in inner city New York in the 1940's has since done exhaustive studies on education and, after comparing test scores of his school for black kids, with the nearby inner city school for white kids, he found the scores to be comparable. He knows that he received an educated that equipped him to compete with anybody. And while he is in no way condoning segregation, etc., he has written extensively on the highly visible deterioration of education the more the federal government has become involved. The USA spends far more per capita on education that almost any other developed nation while lagging behind most in the results.

FACT: It is now the private schooled kids and home schooled kids who are excelling and the public schools continue to fall behind in the quality of education and what the kids are learning. The drop out rate is scandalous in many many places and as the kids continue to be dumbed down, the MO seems to be simply to reduce the requirements or standards rather than improve the quality of education.

Conclusion: The federal government sucks as the purveyor of public education. We should be discouraging the federal government from throwing still more billions of dollars at it, and rather be encouraging the federal government to get out of federal education in all capacities other than compiling statistical information and making that available. If we care about our kids, we must let the states and local communities keep their tax dollars and tailor the schools to their own kids as they once did and really start educating them again.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:


FACT: Before the federal government got involved in funding and imposing rules and regulations on the schools, the schools were far better.


This is not a fact, but instead, an opinion.

Quote:
We are in agreement that a highschool diploma from that school at that time provided the equivalent or better than four years of college now.


You are incorrect, to put it simply. I guarantee you didn't study the things we studied in college in your high school. What hubris you display!

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:45 am
@Cycloptichorn,
No it is a fact. I have read the studies and have witnessed it first hand. I am not a teacher, but have taught in the classroom as a substitute or in very limited areas of expertise. I have served on a schoolboard. And I have raised kids through the system and currently have a grandchild in the system. I'm not making my observations in a vacuum.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:47 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
Off topic: I think if you quote and then do a preview, that is what you get. It ends up looking like you quoted yourself.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:48 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No it is a fact. I have read the studies and have witnessed it first hand. I am not a teacher, but have taught in the classroom as a substitute or in very limited areas of expertise. I have served on a schoolboard. And I have raised kids through the system and currently have a grandchild in the system. I'm not making my observations in a vacuum.


You're still incorrect. That is your opinion, not a fact. I am not persuaded by your anecdotal evidence, as there's no way to back it up on the internet.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well perhaps we can agree that based on your criteria, my opinion is at least as good as yours.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well perhaps we can agree that based on your criteria, my opinion is at least as good as yours.


Sure, why not?

As for your high-school degree equaling a modern college degree, however; 'fraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. It is the sort of thing someone who didn't graduate college would claim, but it's just not true.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 10:03 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
By the way, tagging other people's posts with 'snarky' tags is tacky.

Don't you think?

http://able2know.org/user/farmerman/


I think it's more than tacky, didn't expect that kind of cowardly bullshit from farmerman.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 10:08 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
FACT: Before the federal government got involved in funding and imposing rules and regulations on the schools, the schools were far better.

Before there was some way to measure the performance, how you know? I suspect that the quality varied wildly. I suspect that rich communities had great schools, and poor communities had poor schools.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Those of our generation who now have college degrees (which is most of us), masters degrees, and PhDs all share the opinion that our highschool diploma was as good or better than most four year college degrees now. You can call it bullshit all you want, but you can't dispute it with anything other than you don't want to believe it. It was a damn good school and I deeply regret that my grandchild and my plethora of great nieces and nephews have not had the opportunity to attend a school that was any way comparable.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:13:24