114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 01:39 pm
@H2O MAN,
So, if the Obama administration owns all the businesses like you claim, why would they need an exit strategy?

What is your exit strategy Water guy?
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 02:03 pm
@parados,
How come waterman didn't tell us about our government owning all the businesses? When did they take over all the businesses? Our media failed to inform us about this dramatic change.

Or was waterman just talking through his ass again?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 02:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,



It appears cicerone imposter has mixed his meds again... he's making **** up again.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 02:40 pm
@H2O MAN,
That's all you can come up with? You are a loser!
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 02:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,


Was this a contest?

If it was, then I surely won.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 03:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

So, if the Obama administration owns all the businesses like you claim, why would they need an exit strategy?


You really need to get out more, Parados. O-Boy intends to turn the businesses over to blacks as reparation for slavery. It is all over the blogosphere.
But I still have my business and he will have to pry the key from my cold, dead hand.
(Sorry, not my style here)
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 03:35 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, if the Obama administration owns all the businesses like you claim, why would they need an exit strategy?


You really need to get out more, Parados. O-Boy intends to turn the businesses over to blacks as reparation for slavery. It is all over the blogosphere.
But I still have my business and he will have to pry the key from my cold, dead hand.
(Sorry, not my style here)


No, you got it!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 06:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, if the Obama administration owns all the businesses like you claim, why would they need an exit strategy?


You really need to get out more, Parados. O-Boy intends to turn the businesses over to blacks as reparation for slavery. It is all over the blogosphere.
But I still have my business and he will have to pry the key from my cold, dead hand.
(Sorry, not my style here)

Oooh, do I detect a hardening of opinion here? Are folks beginning to realize how radical Obama really is, and how dangerous this administration really is? I hope so. Thats the only way to stop the insanity.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 06:58 pm
@okie,
Don't be so naive okie. What procedures do you have in mind?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 07:23 pm
@spendius,
Procedures? Mainly just congressmen waking up in time to vote against more insanity and voters waking up in time for the next election.

This from one of Obama's own selections for Commerce Secretary. He woke up in time, and now he says:

"But Gregg, who was Obama's commerce secretary nominee until withdrawing his name from consideration, has emerged as the toughest critic of the president's handling of the economy and has helped galvanize Republican opposition to Obama's policies.

He warned on Monday that Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal will lead to unsustainable debt levels and send the country on a fiscal path resembling that of a "banana republic.""
[/size]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/28/gregg-goes-bipartisan-symbol-obama-critic/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 07:43 pm
Woo hoo!!!! Ya'll that are still convinced that President Obama and Congress can spend us into prosperity, just skim over this one. Everybody else, take heart! It appears that there is a glimmer of hope that the leaders of the still free world are coming to some of their senses! Tax cuts of course were a good idea, but at least some are recognizing that spending what you don't have just makes you poorer.

Quote:
From The Sunday TimesMarch 29, 2009

Germans wreck ‘global new deal’
Jonathan Oliver and Bojan Pancevski

GORDON BROWN’S carefully laid plans for a G20 deal on worldwide tax cuts have been scuppered by an eve-of-summit ambush by European leaders.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.

“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.

The Spanish finance minister, Pedro Solbes, also dismissed new cash being pledged at Thursday’s London summit.

“In these conditions I and the rest of my colleagues from the eurozone believe there is no room for new fiscal stimulus plans,” he said.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has insisted that “radical reform” of capitalism is more important than tax cutting.

The attacks on Brown’s ambitions for the G20 to inject more money into the world economy come at the end of a week where the prime minister has travelled to three continents to build support for his proposals.

The likely deadlock at this week’s meeting will kill any remaining hope that Alistair Darling’s April 22 budget will offer significant tax cuts.

The assault by European Union leaders also represents a defeat for President Barack Obama, who is desperate for other big economies to copy his $800 billion stimulus plan.

MORE HERE:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article5993184.ece
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 08:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Woo hoo!!!! Ya'll that are still convinced that President Obama and Congress can spend us into prosperity, just skim over this one. Everybody else, take heart! It appears that there is a glimmer of hope that the leaders of the still free world are coming to some of their senses! Tax cuts of course were a good idea, but at least some are recognizing that spending what you don't have just makes you poorer.

As Daniel Hannan said:
"You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. "
Seems pretty basic, Foxfyre, but maybe community organizers haven't learned it yet?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 08:41 pm
@okie,
Quote:
"You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. "
Seems pretty basic, Foxfyre, but maybe community organizers haven't learned it yet?


It is more outrageous than that. The stimulus idea is the concept of "retail therapy" on steroids. You don't feel good, confident, so you go out and buy stuff which is supposed to make you feel better. Sometimes it does, for like a day. But if the problem is that you don't have enough income to cover your debts, adding to your debts with retail therapy does nothing but make the problem worse.

Obama thinks that America's confidence problem is closer to that of a woman who does not feel confident in her body, so she digs out the credit card for a new pair of tits and thus solves the problem. Obama has the wrong conceptual model.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 09:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, What is the correct conceptual model? You must be a very good economist who must know much more than Obama's team.

Please show us the way?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 07:24 pm
Good evening. Yall have been quiet today. I reckon that is because it's St Gertrude's Day. For Catholics, we note that she was, 4 centuries ago, the advocate for what we now know as "random acts of kindness." Maybe, for reasons unknown to you, you haven't been attacking each other. Resume again tomorrow.
So President Obama has forced out Rick Wagoner and his team at GM. Tomorrow, Mr Obama will talk about giving more money to GM and Chryler. $20B or more.
Maybe it is the prudent thing to do. Maybe not. But the public is getting sick of it and Mr Obama knows it.
If I were a betting man, I could see those auto companies go into a "gentle" bankruptcy beginning tomorrow, but probably in a couple of months.
Happy St Gertrude's day. Be kind to someone today.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 07:50 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, It's the wrong move for Obama, because bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out with taxpayer money. They're trying to do too many things with taxpayer money when they should watch every dollar they spend to stimulate our economy.

They are gambling big time with crossed fingers that things will work out, but there's no guarantees on anything they are doing. They should stick with the basic necessities only until such time tax revenue begins to increase to a reasonable level to do the other social program things. They're not making the tough calls by including everything in the kitchen sink. The sewers are gonna back up and ruin everything on the table.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 08:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
between the "big" three and and parts industry we have burned though about $25 billion in four months....GM lost $38 billion in 07, $31 billion in 08, and things are far worse in the industry today. If we are going to bail these bad boys out without running them through bankruptcy we better add some new printing presses down at the fed to print money.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 08:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
The "old" US auto companies should not be saved with taxpayer money.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 08:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

between the "big" three and and parts industry we have burned though about $25 billion in four months....GM lost $38 billion in 07, $31 billion in 08, and things are far worse in the industry today. If we are going to bail these bad boys out without running them through bankruptcy we better add some new printing presses down at the fed to print money.

You don't fix failing businesses by giving them more money, you do it by reforming the business model. Bankruptcy would do that, it would force much bigger concessions from the unions and other contracts that are bloated and uneconomic. There is a reason why Michigan has one of the highest rates of union membership and the highest rate of unemployment. Giving more money to GM and Chrysler is like giving a drunkard more whiskey.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 08:34 pm
@okie,
Quote:
The officials said the administration did not view Chrysler to be viable as a standalone company. Under the plan, the government would provide up to $6 billion to forge the alliance between Chrysler and Fiat, but if the companies failed to reach an agreement or find an alternative plan for viability, Chrysler would not receive additional federal aid.

Fiat executives have talked to the White House auto task force about a proposal to acquire a 35 percent stake in Chrysler in exchange for small car technology, transmissions and other items that Chrysler has valued at $8 billion to $10 billion.

General Motors, meanwhile, would have a limited window to work with the United Auto Workers union, bondholders and other stakeholders and would receive an undisclosed amount of "interim financing" over 60 days to restructure the company. The officials said the administration would determine how much GM would need in "permanent capital" during the 60-day period.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Sources-Obama-to-give-GM-2-apf-14777567.html

It is reported that GM could take as much as $20 billion over the 60 days...I am failing to see how all parties agree to haircuts in 60 days. Somebody is going to refuse to deal, hoping for a better deal in the courts. Seems to me that this should be done through standard bankruptcy where a judge decides and where the companies can void dealer contracts.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 10:43:04