Shocking New Numbers-Obama Losing Americans...and Investors‏

@aquapub,

Think about it...if Obama can get unemployment down just 2 percentage points,that alone may get him a second term! Like it or not...some politico's say that's entirely plausible. He will rightfully claim it as a victory over the tired failures of the GOP during the BA.Also...I haven't heard the term..Do Nothing Congress Lately...Have You? ... Very Happy

2 Replies

@Citizen Kane,

Citizen Kane;64120 wrote:

Think about it...if Obama can get unemployment down just 2 percentage points,that alone may get him a second term! Like it or not...some politico's say that's entirely plausible. He will rightfully claim it as a victory over the tired failures of the GOP during the BA.Also...I haven't heard the term..Do Nothing Congress Lately...Have You? ...

Rightly? No. Democrats demonstrably destroyed the economy, then successfully blamed their disastrous policy failures on Republicans to get elected, and have now prolonged a recession that could've been over in about six more months (judging by the average length of recessions had we just allowed the market to correct itself) for what the Fed and the Congressional Budget Office now tell us will be at least another decade.

Oh yes, and we will spend generations paying just the interest alone...all for a sleazy socialist pork scam that kills jobs while pretending to create them.

And congratulations on noticing that Democrats are finally doing something. :beat:

Turning America into a 3rd rate power isn't exactly what we had in mind.

1 Reply

@aquapub,

aquapub;64130 wrote:

Rightly? No. Democrats demonstrably destroyed the economy, then successfully blamed their disastrous policy failures on Republicans to get elected, and have now prolonged a recession that could've been over in about six more months (judging by the average length of recessions had we just allowed the market to correct itself) for what the Fed and the Congressional Budget Office now tell us will be at least another decade.

Oh yes, and we will spend generations paying just the interest alone...all for a sleazy socialist pork scam that kills jobs while pretending to create them.

And congratulations on noticing that Democrats are finally doing something. :beat:

Turning America into a 3rd rate power isn't exactly what we had in mind.

Just for the heck of it...please list all the spending bills that Bush vetoed.
What's that? You mean he didn't veto a single spending bill??????????

:dunno:

0 Replies

@Citizen Kane,

Citizen Kane;64120 wrote:

Think about it...if Obama can get unemployment down just 2 percentage points,that alone may get him a second term! Like it or not...some politico's say that's entirely plausible. He will rightfully claim it as a victory over the tired failures of the GOP during the BA.Also...I haven't heard the term..Do Nothing Congress Lately...Have You? ...

Creating jobs, Government creating jobs. Out of what? Tax money? Jobs that create what? What product will any government entity "ever" produce that will make people want to buy it? What can any government do that private business can not?
Sure, Obama can create jobs. Jobs that build nothing. Jobs that create nothing. Just jobs that can fix bad roads, sweep streets. Those will be the low paying jobs that "government creates". The good paying jobs will be of the bureaucratic nature. Of course producing nothing but paper work and more fees for their victims (tax payers) to pay.
Get real. Obama is the epitomy of bureaucracy, as he understands nothing about the real world.

1 Reply

@g-man,

g-man;64217 wrote:

Creating jobs, Government creating jobs. Out of what? Tax money? Jobs that create what? What product will any government entity "ever" produce that will make people want to buy it? What can any government do that private business can not?
Sure, Obama can create jobs. Jobs that build nothing. Jobs that create nothing. Just jobs that can fix bad roads, sweep streets. Those will be the low paying jobs that "government creates". The good paying jobs will be of the bureaucratic nature. Of course producing nothing but paper work and more fees for their victims (tax payers) to pay.
Get real. Obama is the epitomy of bureaucracy, as he understands nothing about the real world.

The government isn't in the job of building things people will "buy". This is the capitalist right-wing nuttery doing you in.

Do you buy a road? How about a city-wide sewage system? Water reservoirs, bought one of those yet?

Ooh, I know! A network of satellites used to pinpoint the position of any person carrying a terrestrial based receiver... maybe we can give it a funky voice to tell you where to go when you wanna get somewhere. Have you bought one of these? No... not the device... I'm talking about the sats that make it work Smile

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;64317 wrote:

The government isn't in the job of building things people will "buy". This is the capitalist right-wing nuttery doing you in.

Do you buy a road? How about a city-wide sewage system? Water reservoirs, bought one of those yet?

Ooh, I know! A network of satellites used to pinpoint the position of any person carrying a terrestrial based receiver... maybe we can give it a funky voice to tell you where to go when you wanna get somewhere. Have you bought one of these? No... not the device... I'm talking about the sats that make it work

Government builds roads by using private contractors. Never give government credit for anything other than a source of distribution.
The only talent is stealing, making law that legalizes that theft, then distributing the booty.
The only thing they do better is spend more money convincing some that
"what they do, they do for us".

1 Reply

@g-man,

g-man;64359 wrote:

Government builds roads by using private contractors.

So that's what "DOT" means...

Quote:

Never give government credit for anything other than a source of distribution.

Do you know any private contractor that would single-handedly fund an international highway system? A network of military satellites? Sewage and water processing systems?

Quote:

The only talent is stealing, making law that legalizes that theft, then distributing the booty.

Deregulation. At least you got that right.

Quote:

The only thing they do better is spend more money convincing some that
"what they do, they do for us".

Like Wall Street, right? Bang up job, by the way.

1 Reply

@aquapub,

The title of this post and the title that this article it's based on claims that Obama is losing americans.

There are two problems with this.

First, the statement "Obama is losing Americans" implies to me that either he or his policies as a whole are losing support from Americans. He's not. His general approval ratings are very high and so is his approval ratings on the economy in particular. And his policies are not. Some of them are popular. Some of them are unpopular. They run the gamut of popular opinion. When this article claims that BO is "losing Americans", it's doing so based solely on a poll showing that most americans aren't in favor of nationalizing banks. But that's just one single issue within BO's economic policy. To use that one issue to claim that "Obama is losing Americans" is a partisan spin tactic.

Secondly, although a large majority are opposed to "nationalizing" banks, when the question is rephrased to "temporarily taking over" banks, a majority of the American population is in favor. Your source omits this. And since BO wants the takeovers to be temporary, "temporarily taking over banks" is actually a better choice of words.

Aquapub, your source is a piece of crap.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;64388 wrote:

So that's what "DOT" means...

Do you know any private contractor that would single-handedly fund an international highway system? A network of military satellites? Sewage and water processing systems?

Deregulation. At least you got that right.

Like Wall Street, right? Bang up job, by the way.

You make my point. Thanks. Roads, military and yes, sewers. That's what government does best.
Everything else they touch, turns to ****.

Wall street makes no promises. Whatever goes to wall street, is not stolen but enters the fray by choice and with plans that actually turn into jobs of production. Not service or bureaucratic positions.

1 Reply

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;64410 wrote:

Secondly, although a large majority are opposed to "nationalizing" banks, when the question is rephrased to "temporarily taking over" banks, a majority of the American population is in favor. Your source omits this. And since BO wants the takeovers to be temporary, "temporarily taking over banks" is actually a better choice of words.

What has any government shown you that makes you think they can manage money? History? Get real.

Economic downturns are natural. The best thing the government can do is leave it alone. It heals itself as history exposes.

Obama is painting the situation as horrible so as to send the people into a panic so he can be the savior. He's scaring the hell out of wallstreet and wall street rules via "REALITY".

Obama, sweet and cute as his white ass is, is an evil, agenda driven socialist moron.

0 Replies

@g-man,

g-man;64582 wrote:

You make my point. Thanks. Roads, military and yes, sewers. That's what government does best.
Everything else they touch, turns to ****.

Tell your local police and fire department that. They're your government, you know.

Quote:

Wall street makes no promises. Whatever goes to wall street, is not stolen but enters the fray by choice and with plans that actually turn into jobs of production. Not service or bureaucratic positions.

To pharaphrase Stewart... HE RAN A PONZI SCHEME. THAT MEANS, INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY INVESTING MONEY, HE STOLE IT!

1 Reply

@aquapub,

"What has any government shown you that makes you think they can manage money? History? Get real."

My point wasn't that i think nationalization is a good idea or a bad idea. I've heard Republicans, among others, criticise Obama for not nationalizing enough banks. But I don't know much about economics so i can't say one way or another. I was simply pointing out that the Aquapub's source was being dishonest.

"Economic downturns are natural. The best thing the government can do is leave it alone. It heals itself as history exposes."

I haven't heard many economists say that the government should just let the auto makers and banks fail, and that we shouldn't have a stimulus package. In fact, i haven't heard of any economist who thinks that.

If keeping the government out of it was better for the economy, I would expect lots of top economists to be arguing just that. Since they aren't, i will assume that it isn't a good idea.

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;64595 wrote:

1. Tell your local police and fire department that. They're your government, you know.

2. To pharaphrase Stewart... HE RAN A PONZI SCHEME. THAT MEANS, INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY INVESTING MONEY, HE STOLE IT!

1. I only ask policemen to prevent crime. Which they are abject failures at. They excel at producing revenue through tickets.

Firemen are people being defined as "heros" because they are paid to put out fires and save lives. They are nothing more than employees who chose their vocation.
They are "NOT" my government. Simply paid servants.

2. Parahrasing Stewart does not add credence to your point or is it on subject. I am not defending thieves. Justice is served in a small portion concerning the perpetrator of this ponzi scheme.
I am defending capitalism. The government had no business doling money out to mismanaged institutions. Bankruptcy has always been a viable option and should have been entertained. Business's who allow unions to run them into the ground deserve to be in the ground and the whining unions belong there with them. Tax payers owe them nothing. Of course out of the kindness of our hearts, soup kitchens should be maintained where ever needed.

1 Reply

@g-man,

You said you didn't know much about economics so I'll explain it to you in real simple terms.

If government puts money into building a road. They hire a guy to build a road, the road is finished, the job goes away. If they increase money for unemployment or food stamps, that's nice. If they give money to La Raza or Acorn, we call that a payback on a campaign promise. That's what Obama's "stimulus" package did. Many economists didn't call it a real stimulus package.

There are many companies with a lot of money in the bank. Their sales have dropped because no one is buying. They've laid off and hunkered down. Obama's cap and trade will raise their costs. He is also closing tax loopholes (i.e. for sales made overseas) which will raise their costs. He's also making noises about executive compensation. How do you think they feel right now? He's not "business friendly". Even Warren Buffett who likes him criticizes him for his policies which are not business friendly. They're scared. They aren't going to invest their money in their own businesses. They don't have any incentive. They've just seen Congress slap a 90% tax on executive bonuses and practically lynch an executive (Liddy) who wasn't even working when all this came to pass. Now, if they had a real business friendly administration with a real stimulus bill with tax cuts and tax credits and incentives to invest their own money in green initiatives and research and new products etc., they might develop new products and they would invest their own money sitting in the bank and use that to hire people instead of the govt having to use govt money. If they came up with a new product, they'd hire more people! The job from the tax credit they got from the govt wouldn't go away like the construction worker's! See how that works!

Here's another interesting concept. As much as I hate to say this, what happens when someone makes $100 million? They go out to restaurants a lot. They hire gardeners and cleaning staff and nannys. (hopefully american citizens). They stay in hotels. They buy three houses and pay property taxes in three states. The buy three expensive cars and pay expensive license fees and insurance. Wouldn't that help the economy? Wouldn't we all benefit? Here's another goofy thing. I'll never make a million dollars but I like the fantasy that it's possible in this country. That maybe tomorrow I could come up with a brilliant idea and actually do it. I guess I don't want to live in a country where I can't have that dream or where someone would tax it or give it to someone else. Is that where you want to live?

1 Reply

@kmtina cv,

kmtina;64696 wrote:

You said you didn't know much about economics so I'll explain it to you in real simple terms.

If government puts money into building a road. They hire a guy to build a road, the road is finished, the job goes away. If they increase money for unemployment or food stamps, that's nice. If they give money to La Raza or Acorn, we call that a payback on a campaign promise. That's what Obama's "stimulus" package did. Many economists didn't call it a real stimulus package.

There are many companies with a lot of money in the bank. Their sales have dropped because no one is buying. They've laid off and hunkered down. Obama's cap and trade will raise their costs. He is also closing tax loopholes (i.e. for sales made overseas) which will raise their costs. He's also making noises about executive compensation. How do you think they feel right now? He's not "business friendly". Even Warren Buffett who likes him criticizes him for his policies which are not business friendly. They're scared. They aren't going to invest their money in their own businesses. They don't have any incentive. They've just seen Congress slap a 90% tax on executive bonuses and practically lynch an executive (Liddy) who wasn't even working when all this came to pass. Now, if they had a real business friendly administration with a real stimulus bill with tax cuts and tax credits and incentives to invest their own money in green initiatives and research and new products etc., they might develop new products and they would invest their own money sitting in the bank and use that to hire people instead of the govt having to use govt money. If they came up with a new product, they'd hire more people! The job from the tax credit they got from the govt wouldn't go away like the construction worker's! See how that works!

Here's another interesting concept. As much as I hate to say this, what happens when someone makes $100 million? They go out to restaurants a lot. They hire gardeners and cleaning staff and nannys. (hopefully american citizens). They stay in hotels. They buy three houses and pay property taxes in three states. The buy three expensive cars and pay expensive license fees and insurance. Wouldn't that help the economy? Wouldn't we all benefit? Here's another goofy thing. I'll never make a million dollars but I like the fantasy that it's possible in this country. That maybe tomorrow I could come up with a brilliant idea and actually do it. I guess I don't want to live in a country where I can't have that dream or where someone would tax it or give it to someone else. Is that where you want to live?

Sure, we'd benefit... if it weren't all stashed in an offshore account.

Do you want to live in a country where, because of tax loopholes, companies and individuals who make more than you pay less in taxes? Is that where you want to live?

Oh, by the way, where I live the PP taxes have been eliminated for many of these expensive cars, homes, boats, etc... because the rich didn't want to pay their fair share, basically walking on our backs. Gotta love that dream!

0 Replies

@aquapub,

"If government puts money into building a road. They hire a guy to build a road, the road is finished, the job goes away. If they increase money for unemployment or food stamps, that's nice.... Now, if they had a real business friendly administration with a real stimulus bill with tax cuts..."

Whether the government gives a tax cut or pays someone to do a job, it's putting money into someone's hands/ putting it into the economy. The difference to me is that if you give someone a tax cut, they might save the money rather than go out and spend it (especially in a recession where ppl feel financially insecure). But if you give an unemployed person a job, that person has to spend most of his paycheck because he has to pay for the necessities of life. If you put money into job creation, a greater portion of it is likely to be spent by the recipients than if you put it into tax cuts. The same is true with something like unemployment benefits or food stamps.

"Now, if they had a real business friendly administration with a real stimulus bill with tax cuts and tax credits and incentives to invest their own money in green initiatives and research and new products etc., they might develop new products and they would invest their own money sitting in the bank and use that to hire people instead of the govt having to use govt money. If they came up with a new product, they'd hire more people! The job from the tax credit they got from the govt wouldn't go away like the construction worker's! See how that works!"

I think you have some good arguments. But there is a point i'd dispute- do tax cuts really create as much jobs as direct job creation? Lets say the government pays for 20 construction workers. It has just created 20 jobs. But if the government gives tax cuts to 20 businesses, how many jobs has it created? I know if i were a small business owner in this recession, i wouldn't hire new workers no matter how big the tax cuts were. Businesses have been laying off workers because consumer demand has gone down. I'd have to be confidant that consumer demand was back before i'd take the risk of hiring workers back.

So i don't think that tax cuts sound very effective. They're too likely to be saved rather than spent, and they're not likely to create many jobs. Job creation (outside of the government) is determined by demand. And since giving tax breaks to businesses doesn't raise demand, those tax breaks are unlikely to lead to that much job creation.

0 Replies

@aquapub,

You bring up the fact that the government jobs like construction or road building are temporary. I'm not sure that's as important as you think it is. If ppl are working and making money in government jobs, they'll spend the money and consumer demand will go up. If consumer demand goes up, businesses hire more ppl. If businesses hire more ppl, then ppl will no longer need the government jobs. That's how Kenyesian economics is supposed to work. Government jobs are supposed to jump start the capitalist economy; not replace it.

I'm not saying that Obama's stimulous will do this. I'm saying that, in theory, directly creating jobs might not be a bad idea.

0 Replies

Shocking New Numbers-Obama Losing Americans...and Investors‏

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Shocking New Numbers-Obama Losing Americans...and Investors&#8207;

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Shocking New Numbers-Obama Losing Americans...and Investors‏