114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 03:28 pm
@okie,
Quote:
You think Marxism has some good points we should use.


Not only CAN, but DO use. We do use certain elements of socialism in our society - when it is judged to be the best way to solve a problem.

Quote:
Folks, you will have to pardon me, but I grew up in a time when all politicians of every stripe condemned and vowed to defeat communism, as it was considered an evil idealogy. That also included Democrats. I guess until the last 15 or 20 years or so.


This is because 'communism' was the scare word that was replaced by 'terrorism' in our modern times. Politicians who didn't pledge their fealty to the cause of defending it were attacked incessantly by people like you and Beck, who now do the same thing towards 'terrorism.' It's political censorship. Did you not realize this was the case?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 03:32 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

As an aside, Mysteryman, may I ask what you think about the Senate race in your state of Kentucky? Rand Paul (Rep) - who has the support of the Tea Party movement - seems to have about a 5 point lead over Jack Conway (Dem) in this open seat vacated by a retiring Repub.
Rand made some gaffes early on. Last night, in a debate, Conway made a bizarre (unsubstantiated) allegation suggesting that Paul once engaged in some ritual involving female bondage and pagan or unchristian behavior. Is Conway nuts?


It's not quite 'unsubstantiated.' The lady involved has given a detailed account of what happened. However, it was clearly a stupid college prank, and not really worth discussing regarding modern politics - in which Paul is enough of a wacko that there's plenty to hit him with.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 03:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If there is any dirt on any conservative, the Democratic investigative corps will be feverishly checking it out, thats for sure. None of us should forget the plane loads of investigative reporters sent to Alaska. And I even heard some whacko bought a house next door to the Palins, so that he can peer over the fence and spy on them, who knows what he is doing or how much he is getting paid to do it?

I just did a search and apparently the guy has moved out.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/05/politics/main6837145.shtml
" Sarah Palin's neighbor of three months on Wasilla's Lake Lucille, author Joe McGinniss, is packing his bags and notebooks and leaving Sunday for his home in Massachusetts to write the book he has been researching on the former governor and Republican vice presidential candidate."
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:05 pm
Back to news from the economy...
Last week, JP Morgan announced 3rd Q earnings of $4.4bn while Citigroup today came in at $2.2bn. We - the public - own 12% of Citi. The government will be selling off our shares gradually. Citi shares were up 5.5% today.
I have written before about how the profit numbers for banks are shamelessly manipulated. They charge against current earnings an estimate of future losses on loans and credit card balances. An estimate which they often low-ball.
The thing to note is that Morgan's revenues were down 11% while Citi's were down 6%.
Bank of America is out with their results tomorrow.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:11 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, The biggest problem is their low-balling the real estate disaster that have not been accounted for in their books. You can't have about five years of bad and sub-prime loans when the housing and building markets were going through the roof, then all of a sudden, those problems have disappeared. Nevah happen. They're showing false profits that doesn't account for their real estate and derivatives' real values. You don't go from bankruptcy to earning billions over night. There are many accounting tricks, but that's not one of them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:11 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

If there is any dirt on any conservative, the Democratic investigative corps will be feverishly checking it out, thats for sure.


You know it works both ways, so why just blame the Dems?

Quote:
None of us should forget the plane loads of investigative reporters sent to Alaska.


Why would we forget? They dug up plenty of good dirt on Palin, embarassing stuff that she couldn't justify. That and her innate idiocy were primer reasons for the voters' rejection of her as a valid voice in American politics.

McCain was an idiot for picking her, it really was the cap on his entirely reactive, terribly-ran campaign.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The funny thing that happened when McCain picked Palin is that Palin is now more popular than McCain, and has more popular power.

Our politics are now in the dredges of the sewers that make no sense intellectually or common sense-wise.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The weird thing is that mountains of dirt can be dug up about Democrats, but it doesn't seem to matter. The mainstream press ignores it and instead attacks the people that did the research. This is a weird world we live in anymore. Things have been turned upside down. Freedom loving conservatives are hated and demonized, while liberal whackos and radical fanatics are admired. I have come around to the theory that politics is a religious thing at its foundation. Just maybe the hippie generation was only the beginning of the culture rejecting all constraints of principles, including constitutional principles, and moral foundation, and that includes politicians as well.

So I agree with ci that things do not make sense, but I have a different perspective than his.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:40 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

The weird thing is that mountains of dirt can be dug up about Democrats, but it doesn't seem to matter. The mainstream press ignores it and instead attacks the people that did the research. This is a weird world we live in anymore.


Uh, when has this happened lately? I seem to recall a several-year long feeding frenzy with Clinton, where the press happily lapped up every bullshit story that anyone could come up with from his past, and we had Republican Congressmen shooting watermelons in their back yard to try and prove that Clinton killed Vince Foster.

Quote:
Things have been turned upside down. Freedom loving conservatives are hated and demonized, while liberal whackos and radical fanatics are admired.


How do you know that they love Freedom any less than the people you support?

Quote:
I have come around to the theory that politics is a religious thing at its foundation. Just maybe the hippie generation was only the beginning of the culture rejecting all constraints of principles, including constitutional principles, and moral foundation, and that includes politicians as well.


Sure seems that way sometimes. But, is rejecting constraints such a bad thing, really? It seems that our nation has done that from day one.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Regardless of which side of the political fence you dwell, cyclops, I wonder if there are some common feelings to all? For example, I have a question for you on the other side of the political spectrum. Many people I know are very very uneasy about the country right now, many aspects of it, including the economy, the leadership, etc. and so forth. I don't know how to explain it, but there seems to be a feeling of more stuff is about to happen but nobody can venture a guess at what it is going to be. I guess apprehension, maybe extreme or more than usual apprehension would describe it? My question is how do you feel about things, and how about your friends that tend to think as you do politically? Or are you still really jazzed by having one of your guys like Obama in the whitehouse, you really think things will become more and more wonderful?
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:50 pm
@okie,
Obama will do better the next time around i.e. in his second term. Now he knows what the score is and how Republicans behave.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 04:50 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Regardless of which side of the political fence you dwell, cyclops, I wonder if there are some common feelings to all? For example, I have a question for you on the other side of the political spectrum. Many people I know are very very uneasy about the country right now, many aspects of it, including the economy, the leadership, etc. and so forth. I don't know how to explain it, but there seems to be a feeling of more stuff is about to happen but nobody can venture a guess at what it is going to be. I guess apprehension, maybe extreme or more than usual apprehension would describe it? My question is how do you feel about things, and how about your friends that tend to think as you do politically? Or are you still really jazzed by having one of your guys like Obama in the whitehouse, you really think things will become more and more wonderful?


Guess what? You're describing the way that the Democrats felt when Bush was running the show and the Republicans were running both houses. It's natural to feel distress when your 'team' isn't doing good, and when the other guys are moving the ball down the field (so to speak).

I think things are getting steadily better, in both the short and long run. I don't have a sense of 'impending doom.' Even if the Republicans win the House (which I still don't think they will) Obama will just slap them around for two solid years and blame them for nothing getting done in Washington, and then go on to demolish your 2012 candidate (who is strangely still completely anonymous).

Unlike some others, I never went Gaga over Obama's ability to turn things around on a dime. It takes time to change things, and I think that he's done pretty well so far - but will have several more years to get stuff done.

Cycloptichorn
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It takes six months for any economic change to be felt. The case of preventing a Depression to occur was remarkable. For the unemployment to drop it will be a while as the loans to small businesses begin to work their way down.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
and then go on to demolish your 2012 candidate (who is strangely still completely anonymous).

I pick this out as a strange comment, cyclops. Good grief, we are still 2 years away from the next presidential election. Maybe Republicans like the idea of seeing healthy competition for being the candidate, that is what primaries and all of that are for. After all, some of us do not believe that a person should be coronated by virtue of their name or something. I don't even think Obama should be automatically nominated to run, after all, what has he done so special?

Quote:
Unlike some others, I never went Gaga over Obama's ability to turn things around on a dime. It takes time to change things, and I think that he's done pretty well so far - but will have several more years to get stuff done.

Cycloptichorn

I still go back to what McCain said, it isn't change that is the issue, its what kind of change? So far, the change we have seen has been for the worse. I am all for change, as McCain said he was, if it is the right kind of change, such as get rid of the corrupt rascals in Washington. We could start with Fannie and Freddie, which represents part of the entire mechanism of the housing collapse that started this whole mess, and so far we've seen absolutely nothing. Not even a token effort, nothing.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:19 pm
@okie,
okie, You wrote:
Quote:
So far, the change we have seen has been for the worse.


Please detail out for us what has become worse since January 2009? You made another claim without providing any evidence or facts to back up what you say. I want to see on what basis you can make such a claim.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:19 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I don't even think Obama should be automatically nominated to run


You voted for GWB and if there was a coronation he was it - the dumb ass.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:22 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
and then go on to demolish your 2012 candidate (who is strangely still completely anonymous).

I pick this out as a strange comment, cyclops. Good grief, we are still 2 years away from the next presidential election. Maybe Republicans like the idea of seeing healthy competition for being the candidate, that is what primaries and all of that are for. After all, some of us do not believe that a person should be coronated by virtue of their name or something. I don't even think Obama should be automatically nominated to run, after all, what has he done so special?


Well, usually you can look and see who the front-runners are going to be around this time; there's a list of politicians who you can look at and say, 'yeah, that guy (gal) could be my party's candidate.' For either side. But this cycle, who are the Republicans going to put forward? I can't see anyone who doesn't have a problematic history.

As for Obama, what has he done that is so special? Passed the biggest progressive legislation of the last 30 years. He got done what Clinton couldn't. Reformed the financial industry in very necessary ways. Drew the war in Iraq down.

And most importantly (in terms of why he should be renominated), he creamed you guys last time. He is a winner at campaigning. It would be dumb to look past that for an unknown.

Quote:
Quote:
Unlike some others, I never went Gaga over Obama's ability to turn things around on a dime. It takes time to change things, and I think that he's done pretty well so far - but will have several more years to get stuff done.

Cycloptichorn

I still go back to what McCain said, it isn't change that is the issue, its what kind of change? So far, the change we have seen has been for the worse. I am all for change, as McCain said he was, if it is the right kind of change, such as get rid of the corrupt rascals in Washington.


Obama doesn't have the power to get rid of Republicans Laughing

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:23 pm
@talk72000,
Compared to Bush, your intelligence meter doesn't even make the needle move.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:25 pm
@okie,
Shows us the bumps from the golf ball hits. Gosh you voted for the dumb ass twice.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 05:27 pm
@okie,
Your needle moves in the red negative zone - all the time.
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 02:44:26