114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your "real" news report from FOX News is not credible, because they lie.
Prove the story I posted is wrong. Put up or shut up, ci. I am tired of your Fox News demagoguery. If not for them, we would know much less out here. I am tired of liberal propaganda, and at least they try to report a few things that are more correct than the Obama worshipers.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:16 am
@parados,
You may have some good points. I have run out of time right now. Will get back to this later.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
Rich people are heroes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoyDMICIeE
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
@okie,
Quote:
You did better than ci, parados, an interesting thing about leased property. However, does leasing property actually make any sense? I

You don't seem to know what FOX wrote, do you okie?
Are you really that out of touch with what the GOP wants to do?

Quote:
But Republicans say the government's not moving fast enough to shed some of its 3.3 billion in square footage across the country. The GOP side of the House transportation committee hammered this point in a report released in October. Republicans have also brought up the issue via their YouCut program, an online site that solicits ideas on potential cuts to the federal budget.

....

DeHaven said at this point the federal government should just auction off whatever it can to the private sector, at whatever price.

"Give it away. At this point I don't even care," he said.




I am really curious how FOX News expects the Federal government to auction off or give away the leased space. 3.3 billion includes all leased space as well as the space they own. Shoddy reporting by FOX or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Which do you think it is okie?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:19 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

You may have some good points. I have run out of time right now. Will get back to this later.

I am tired of you BS okie. You will not get back to it later. You will not admit that FOX obviously has misled in it's story. Yet it is obvious that FOX did just that.
This is just your attempt to run away from the truth and hope no one brings it up later.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:23 am
@parados,
One more quick post and then I have to go. But the point is that taxpayers would not want the government to give properties away. It should be done wisely, but neither would we want them to sell properties only to move into leased ones that end up costing taxpayers more money. I am not at all convinced this issue is being managed properly. If the government manages properties like they do other things, it remains a monumental waste. Obviously, this issue needs much more research, but at least the Fox report brought an important issue to our attention. What other network did?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:24 am
@okie,
FOX News is known for their lies. What more do I need to prove?

okie, Do you keep going back to anyone who continues to lie to you? You probably do, and the proof is your dependence on FOX News for most of your backup source.


okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote one lie, and we can talk about it and see if they are lying or you are. Same with parados.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:27 am
@okie,
One lie from FOX News? ROFLMAO If you have bothered to read the above list I've already posted (above), they are factual lies. You wouldn't know what a lie is, because you believe in FOX News.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:29 am
@parados,
Even more interesting is how FOX News confused assets with buildings. The report includes ALL structures which includes roads, bridges, airfield pavement, dams and all other things. Yet FOX said this..

Quote:
That's not to mention the dismal market which isn't exactly seller-friendly. Most the time, the federal government doesn't even sell the property it sheds. The most common method of disposing of property in 2009 was "demolition." It might sound like a waste, but the government still saves operating costs in doing so.

You would never know from reading their story that the demolition was anything other than buildings. They use the word "property" earlier in the story in relationship to buildings and then use it later and any reader would assume they still mean buildings when in fact it refers to destruction of other structures like bridges, roads etc. The most civilian assets disposed of was theTransportation department eliminated 1,235 structures of which there is no reference to how many of them are bridges etc.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:34 am
@okie,
Quote:
One more quick post and then I have to go. But the point is that taxpayers would not want the government to give properties away.

Then why is the GOP calling for them to do just that?

Quote:
Obviously, this issue needs much more research, but at least the Fox report brought an important issue to our attention. What other network did?

What important issue did they bring to your attention okie? They either intentionally LIED about what was really happening or at worst left out major details. The story is NOT what FOX reported. They fudged facts and left out major details. So.. tell us what is the important issue that FOX reported?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
The very first paragraph from FOX News in the story okie posted is a lie

Quote:
The federal government picked up thousands of new buildings in 2009, a real estate spree which raises questions about the Obama administration's
commitment to savings billions by shedding excess property.
That statement is factually incorrect and unsupported by any source. It is a LIE. It is told in order to make Obama and his administration look bad.

The Federal government did NOT pick up thousands of new buildings. It added new building assets which includes added leases on existing buildings that already have leased space. There is nothing there to support the claim by FOX. It is poor reporting and the only purpose seems to be to attack the Obama administration with the lie told by FOX.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:46 am
@parados,
What FOX News accomplished was that people like okie believes what they "sell" no matter its lies or non-factual content. Mis-representation is their specialty with people like okie, because they know it sells.

There's no cure for stupid.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 11:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
What better name for a news organisation than fox if you are going to be sly?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I wrote this aware that you are an accountant. I thought it best just to write it straight from the shoulder. A room-mate of mine, a young woman either from Tennessee, graduated from high school then took a waitress job with Howard Johnson so she could leave Tennessee. After making her way to Michigan, she began working at a bank and began taking the CPA exam in the 60s. After passing the first section, she worked for an accountant. When I met her, she had already passed the second and was studying for the third. She was torn because becoming an accountant wasn't what she had in mind. I have no idea what happened to her.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As does every other network, so whats the problem?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:24 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

As does every other network, so whats the problem?


It doesn't follow journalistic standards.Any news organization should be called to account for such shoddy reporting.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:27 pm
@parados,
It seems to follow the USA standard! Not that it is right.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:37 pm
@georgeob1,
What a silly response, george, but, then I have come to expect responses from you that arise out of your own ego and have nothing to do with reality.

It is interesting that you find political science one some sort of "fashionable" level.

I have no idea whether or not women's studies are still "fashionable" but I know why women were taking such a course in the 70s and 80s: because it was a group major. Generally, a group major means taking many credits more than the standard major and combining them in such a way as to allow the subjects to support each other. At the heart of every group major is a core that is the equivalent or near equivalent of a standard major in terms of hours (30 or 32). Women's study majors usually emphasized literature or history.

BTW, I knew a woman at the University of Michigan (class of 1969) who was among the first women to go into an MBA program. She had made up her mind in high school to earn an MBA, an unusual course for the class of 1965. She majored in psychology for two reasons: 1.) she thought that the business is nothing more than approaching the market from the psychological level and 2.) if she found business was not the career for her, she could become a therapist. She had two minors: French and journalism. She also saw all business as communication. She approached the study as a license she would receive after a demanding undergraduate career. In other words, as a key to unlock the door while she stood on a strong intellectual foundation.

Three friends of mine also earned MBAs. One holds a bachelor's in English from Smith. She was working in publishing when she met her husband. Publishing paid starvation wages and he was still in the Army, so she quit to become a wife and mother. Later, she started writing a business column for the local paper after the editor came to know her from town meetings. That experience made her decide to pursue business. I no longer know what happened to her.

The next is also a Smith alumna from the class after the woman described above. She majored in art and married a physician who pursued her. She actually loved his family and not him. He left her and stopped practicing medicine in order to no longer pay child support. She earned a certificate in programming. The MBA came about because she saw others promoted above her. Neither woman earned her MBA at what might be considered a "good school," but rather one that was convenient. Neither had difficulties with the subject matter.

The final woman went to high school and college with me. She had always intended to teach business ethics. She majored in Economics, then earned a master's degree in theology. She was teaching business ethics at our alma mater when the administration urged her earn a doctorate in economics. As her own children were beginning college, and as the health of her diabetic husband was deteriorating, she decided to skip the doctorate and earn an MBA at the local state university for economic reasons.

Now, none of these women follow what I have seen, and continue to see, as the stereotypical business major. Intellectually, I am in awe of each of these women.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
His source was Fox.
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 08/20/2025 at 10:38:18