Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For the last ******* time, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the mortgage collapse. Nothing. What you have written is a lie, you have been patiently explained over and over again how it is a lie, and if you keep repeating it, you are a liar, Okie. And you know it - from time to time you've made posts which show that you know the truth of the matter.

Cycloptichorn

You are a nutcase living in denial and in a liberal fantasy world.

If that comforts you at night, just keep on wearing that little security blanket of yours. I'm happy sticking with the facts, which clearly show that the culprits in our financial crisis were greed on the part of banks and investment houses and lousy regulation.

You have no evidence at all to support your position - only ideology, which doesn't match the factual record. When you are challenged on this, you run away from the argument. It's tiresome and a little childish.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have no evidence at all to support your position - only ideology, which doesn't match the factual record. When you are challenged on this, you run away from the argument. It's tiresome and a little childish.

Cycloptichorn

All kinds of evidence stare us all in the face. Go ahead and defend your crooked party, but you will never gain one ounce of respect from me. You have basically lost it all already. You are so partisan, you would protect any crook if he had a D by his or her name. And you can continue to defend your cheap Chicago politician for a president, that despises his own country, its citizens, and the businesses we run, but rest assured of one thing, we will fight you in every upcoming election. You can enlist every crooked organization to get your slobs elected, using corrupt ACORN or anything else at your disposal, but rest assured you will be opposed.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

All kinds of evidence stare us all in the face.

Like what? You have never presented causal evidence showing that Fannie and Freddie had anything to do with the crash at all. You only claim that they 'distorted the market' and somehow forced banks to make bad loans. That's bullshit and you know it.

You also have no explanation at all for why the Commercial real estate market also tanked. That had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie - and everything to do with the causes I mentioned above.

Try and stay on topic and away from ranting about our President, Okie. The paragraph you wrote has nothing to do with what we are talking about, other than pointing out that you retreat into invective when you have no factual argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

All kinds of evidence stare us all in the face.

Like what? You have never presented causal evidence showing that Fannie and Freddie had anything to do with the crash at all. You only claim that they 'distorted the market' and somehow forced banks to make bad loans. That's bullshit and you know it.

You also have no explanation at all for why the Commercial real estate market also tanked. That had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie - and everything to do with the causes I mentioned above.

Try and stay on topic and away from ranting about our President, Okie. The paragraph you wrote has nothing to do with what we are talking about, other than pointing out that you retreat into invective when you have no factual argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

. I'm happy sticking with the facts, which clearly show that the culprits in our financial crisis were greed on the part of banks and investment houses and lousy regulation.

Those are not facts Cyclo. First off--what crisis? You call this a crisis!!! Have you tried getting a bunch of Amish running the banks? The shareholders would be up in arms. And they have millions. Bankers are chosen for their cunning and greed. Where are the pensions coming from? Nobody was complaining about greedy bankers in 1987. The regulation was approved by your congressmen and senators who were voted in.

And no matter how greedy the bankers and how lax the regulations there is nothing they can do if the population doesn't want to live beyond its means and live now and pay later.

You're just trying to be popular with the spendthrifts.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You said this about unemployment...

Quote:

Yes, because we are still dealing with the crisis that started on Bush's watch. Nobody expects it to get better overnight.

But Obama did promise that if his stimulus was passed it would keep unemployment at 8% or less, its now almost 10%.

Since it has jumped AFTER the Obama admin took office, and AFTER their stimulus was passed, are you still going to blame that on Bush?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You said this about unemployment...

Quote:
Yes, because we are still dealing with the crisis that started on Bush's watch. Nobody expects it to get better overnight.

But Obama did promise that if his stimulus was passed it would keep unemployment at 8% or less, its now almost 10%.

3 points -

1, that number came from an analysis which proved to be faulty; the economy got worse than they had predicted.

2, they have already admitted that they were in error about it, what more do you want?

3, the unemployment situation is partially still bad because the stimulus bill was far too small.

Quote:

Since it has jumped AFTER the Obama admin took office, and AFTER their stimulus was passed, are you still going to blame that on Bush?

Yes, because the underlying problems causing it all occurred during the Bush admin, and we are still feeling the effects. Is this even a serious question by you?

You're a firefighter. Imagine showing up to a house that someone lit on fire with their idiocy, and then getting yelled at by the same idiots b/c you can't put the fire out fast enough - and they are limiting the amount of water you can use in order to make it harder for you. This is the situation Obama faces.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am not certain whether I admire your tenacity or whether I feel you should just throw in the towel and ignore okie.

However, okie threatened that you will never gain his respect. Why would anyone want the respect of a man who thinks fascists are on the left? I certain okie's respect is nothing you need or want.

2 Replies

This crisis will probably never be resolved for several reasons:

1.) The human population of this planet is too large.

2.) The government did nothing to stop manufacturing plants from being sent over seas and corporate headquarters from being "established" in single rooms in buildings off shore that house hundreds of such dummy headquarters.

3.) There is too little competition. Every town has at least one Starbucks, one McDonalds and one Gap. As someone who closed his antique shop told me, antiques and nail salons are the only businesses left on Main Street and antiques are going the way of the dinosaur.

4.) Every town that hasn't a Starbucks, wants one, regardless of how good the local coffee shop is. In other words, conformity is rampant.

5.) We don't need much else. I have always thought advertising was subversive to common sense and a subtle twist on the first amendment. I think advertising prevents there from being a truly free market. My younger son recently said that anything that has to be advertised is unnecessary. When people need something, they generally know where to find it.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

5.) We don't need much else. I have always thought advertising was subversive to common sense and a subtle twist on the first amendment. I think advertising prevents there from being a truly free market. My younger son recently said that anything that has to be advertised is unnecessary. When people need something, they generally know where to find it.

Another very goofy statement from pom, who obviously knows nothing about running a business. Advertising is to a certain extent a "necessary evil." When I say evil, I don't really mean it, what I mean is that it does not improve the product that you are selling, but all it does is attempt to inform the buying public of your product or service.

Actually I will agree with you to a small extent, as in the business that I have owned and operated, we have done very little advertising. We have found that word of mouth and satisfied customers are the best advertising over time. When we have advertised many years ago soon after launching the business, I made a point of making the ads very low key and totally non-promotional.

In my opinion, some advertising can be taken too far and I personally make a point of not patronizing a business that I have a severe dislike for their advertising. I can cite a couple of examples, one being nationwide, I will not buy any insurance from Geico, simply because I perceive their ads as juvenile and I think they portray an attitude of condecension toward their potential customers. Also, there is a local auto sales business that constantly is promoting their cars with supposedly "once in a lifetime" sales events and come ons that I think are deceitful in nature, so I make a point of never darkening their door.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I am not certain whether I admire your tenacity or whether I feel you should just throw in the towel and ignore okie.

That's like telling a bystander to stop gazing at a gory car accident. The bystander knows nothing good will ever come from his gaze, but ....

1 Reply

@Thomas,

In a way, I understand the appeal of a response to okie. Just one more argument will clinch this! One more definition! The last word!!!

But, okie posted a link to an old thread of his. He wanted to compare left and right on several issues.

First of all, there was a problem with the sheer size of the proposition. Let's throw 21 issues on the table and see how the left and the right each feel about them!

21 issues?! Confused

Well, a few people . . . Walter, Beth, Setanta, Parados, Dys . . . offered some erudite comments. Within less than 24 hours of starting the thread, okie lost it and took over like the major domo he likes to play here.

I just don't think that okie is here for any other reason than to fly his own flag and to insult others.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Right on!!!

1 Reply

@rabel22,

Thank you!

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I just don't think that okie is here for any other reason than to fly his own flag and to insult others.

That from the king of insulters, ha ha. No, pom, I am here to speak what I believe to be correct and right in regard to political issues. I am not here to agree with you and the liberal establishment. Any disagreement with you is taken as an insult by you. That is your problem, not mine.

1 Reply

Good afternoon. Forgive me for digressing from our regularly scheduled sniping.
I read recently that state and local governments in the U.S. may have to shed some 800K jobs. Some 250K may have already occurred. Teachers, firefighters, police as well as 4 guys leaning on shovels staring at a pothole.
Today I read about this brouhaha that actually involves a huge amount of money.
Who Is Right? You Be The Judge?
Okie books a room at the Johnboy Inn in Smallville through my website. $100 for the room plus a 10% local tax. $110 goes on his credit card. $10 goes to the local government.
Cyclo gets a room at the same hotel for the same night, except he books through some independent online service. It lists the price of the room as being $100 and then says the "total price" is $110. That goes on his credit card.
The online service provider charges 20% so the Johnboy Inn ends up with $80 instead of $100. The tax, instead of being $10, is $8, even though Okie and Cyclo are each paying $110.
The state of Washington claims that they are owed something like $150M from the $2 they are being deprived of on each room.
Lobbyists from the localities and the on-line booking outfits are scurrying around, lining up supporters.
Meanwhile, Cyclo and Okie are staying just across the hall from each other. I hope they end up meeting in the bar. Chairs will be tossed.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, because the underlying problems causing it all occurred during the Bush admin, and we are still feeling the effects. Is this even a serious question by you?

You're a firefighter. Imagine showing up to a house that someone lit on fire with their idiocy, and then getting yelled at by the same idiots b/c you can't put the fire out fast enough - and they are limiting the amount of water you can use in order to make it harder for you. This is the situation Obama faces.

1. The underlying problems "causing it all" were created by the Democrat Congress elected in 2006 and began to serve in January of 2007. They failed to heed Bush's numerous pleas to curb the government supported Fan & Fred economically distructive actions.
2. That same Democrat controlled Congress--including Senator Barack Obama--passed the distructive TARP bill that Bush signed.
3. That same Democrat controlled Congress in 2009 continued to fail to heed Bush's pleas to fix Fan & Fred.
4. President Obama continued the distructive TARP program, expanded it and added to it the distructive Stimulus program.
5. Barack Obama has yet to correct his own errors duplicating and expanding Bush's errors.
6. The OD (i.e., Obama Democrats) repeatedly blame others for the distructive consequences of their own actions.

Suppose those firemen you mentioned duplicated and expanded the arsony perpetrated by the arsonists that caused the fire, and then blamed their failure to put out the fire on the arsonists who set it, when a previous--but not the current--fire chief was present. That would of course be crazy! Likewise so are the Obama Democrats crazy.

It's even crazier for the OD to blame their failure to correct their worsening of our problems on insufficient TARP and Stimulus financing when those programs, like Hoover's and Roosevelt's similar programs, have been shown to not work regardless of the amount of their financing.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Thr Republicans controlled Congress even during Bill Clinton's Administration. Republicans had controlled Congress for more than twenty years right up to 2006.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Quote:

Thr Republicans controlled Congress even during Bill Clinton's Administration. Republicans had controlled Congress for more than twenty years right up to 2006.

you might want to fact check this statement

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I did check but the crucial years were from Clinton's time and there were Republican presidents combined with renegade right wight Democrats, made a mess.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know