Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 111

• 0%

  GWHayduke4 months ago

  Thats right.....just yesterday Ben Bernanke said that things look to be clearing up, "the worst appears to be over."

  That despite the likelihood that '08 will see a record number of bankruptcies and increasing interest rates to stave off greater inflation. Too late for most.

  Very smart guy, very bad politician.

  Reply

  15 Replies

  • 0%

    Teech4 months ago

    Ben. Listen to your boss! To bolster the dollar, Just keep printing money. To get out of a hole, dig faster! To get out of debt, borrow more money. When faced with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that you made a mistake, fire the messenger and lie. But, don't admit a mistake and change policy cuz that's called "flip flopping." To put out a fire, throw gasoline on it....but not too much, the stuff is getting seriously expensive.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      earthlingerer4 months ago

      Yeah, he should just be a man and choose his death... Inflation or Recession.

      Or else Depression.

      Reply
    • 0%

      libsRfunny4 months ago

      "Just keep printing money."

      The government doesn't just "print money."

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        Jaydee404 months ago

        And you think Libs are funny, the government has been printing more money than they claimed since Kennedy was in office. The shrub just automated the entire process.

        Reply
      • 0%

        foksipayne4 months ago

        they do just keep printing money. then they give it to us in a stimulus package so we can "waste" it on our bills instead of using it to buy junk, to stimulate the economy...

        Reply
      • 0%

        dissent4 months ago

        oh yes it does. google fiat economy/currency and get a clue

        Reply
  • 0%

    libsRfunny4 months ago

    "That despite the likelihood that '08 will see a record number of bankruptcies and increasing interest rates to stave off greater inflation. Too late for most."

    The dollar just gained on the Euro today and reached it's greatest value against the Euro since 2005. Not everything is gloomy.

    FTA:

    "On Friday, the Labor Department reported that American employers axed 49,000 jobs in May, the fifth straight month of job losses..."

    I wonder how many of those jobs were minimum wage jobs lost due to the mandated increase in minimum wage.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      Jaydee404 months ago

      You mean like the 10 to 12 percent layoffs announced by Ford the end of May? Are those minimum wage? How about Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal or Columbia sportswear?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        foksipayne4 months ago

        And harmon-becker automotive in Indiana.

        Reply

    • lovermanComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

      • 0%

        Beau78904 months ago

        He meant to say the dollar hit its greatest value against the Euro since three weeks ago:

        http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/graph120.html

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • lovermanComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

          • 0%

            Beau78904 months ago

            I was joking. What's three weeks? (And I thought the chart was interesting...and that only covers this year.)

            Reply
        • 0%

          dissent4 months ago

          he meant to say the dollar gasped while drowning

          Reply
    • 0%

      dissent4 months ago

      "The dollar just gained on the Euro today and reached it's greatest value against the Euro since 2005. Not everything is gloomy."

      where have you been? the dollar has been in freefall since the euro was first introduced with no sign of recovery

      Reply
• 0%

  nikkibabe4 months ago

  Yet to come:

  . more foreclosures

  . more bankruptcies

  . airlines going out of business

  . unemployment

  . out of reach gas prices

  . out of reach food prices

  . jump in food stamps use

  . more handouts, thanks China

  . bank failures with unpaid home equity loans

  . more tax cuts to top 1% (thanks McCain)

  . end of employer offered medical benefits (thanks McCain)

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    saintetienne4 months ago

    . more foreclosures

    . more bankruptcies

    . unemployment

    . out of reach gas prices

    . out of reach food prices

    . jump in food stamps use

    . more handouts

    . bank failures

    Hmmmm..... sounds like FDR's America, circa 1937.

    Reply
• 0%

  walden34 months ago

  Unemployment is higher than the 5.5% reported. It's probably twice that.

  Inflation is higher then the 4% reported.

  Good luck to all.

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    nostalgia4 months ago

    Time to get serious about sending illegal immigrants home and opening their jobs to unemployed US citizens?

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      walden34 months ago

      I agree. In my town there is a huge Brazilian population. Less of them are coming here because of our economy. I had some wood delivered last week. The guy was Brazilian. He told me that he's been in the US for 22 years and never saw the economy as bad as it is now.

      I think the real threat from Mexico is some political, cultural or environmental disaster in Mexico that prompts millions to storm across our border. Mexico is hanging on by a thread. It's close to civil war.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia4 months ago

        I agree about Mexico

        That's why I wonder why so many companies like Ford are locating new plants there. Ford is going to spend $1 billion on expanding plants there

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          cleare4 months ago

          well...mexican labor is cheap and more jobs in mexico also means fewer illegal immigrants coming here for work.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            Centinel4 months ago

            And fewer jobs here.

            We are now seeing the repercussions of NAFTA and all those other UNFAIR trade agreements. It takes time for the effects to manifest themselves after causes have been implemented. Fewer and lower paying jobs across the country is what caused us to become less of a factor in the global economy. It will get worse. We haven't seen the last of it yet. China is just waiting to "FORCLOSE" on the USA!

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • lovermanComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

              • 0%

                Centinel4 months ago

                I realize it wasn't NAFTA's intention. However, when we take humankind's capacity to "exploitation", it should have been quite foreseeable. Many wise people did foresee this but our economically ignorant "lawyer" leaders were wearing "blinders" and refused to believe that the level of evil could be greater than their own capacity for evil.

                Reply
        • 0%

          Teech4 months ago

          Yup. Cheap labor, no benefits.

          Reply
  • 0%

    Jaydee404 months ago

    last month one source on the CBC page put US inflation on food alone at 5%.

    Reply
• 0%

  nostalgia4 months ago

  "As it seeks to regain its footing in the second half, the U.S. economy faces two significant obstacles, neither of which was evident in 2001. The first is entirely homegrown: the self-inflicted wounds of the promiscuous extension and abuse of credit in the housing and financial sectors."

  MSNBC has an interesting article about the subprime mess:

  How HUD's mortgage policy fed the crisis

  Agency labeled risky loans 'affordable' and finance firms bought them up

  In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

  Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers.

  Reply

  31 Replies

  • 0%

    nostalgia4 months ago

    HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

    Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending.

    Lower-income and minority home buyers -- those who were supposed to benefit from HUD's actions -- are falling into default at a rate at least three times that of other borrowers.

    Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes.

    Reply

    30 Replies

    • 0%

      nostalgia4 months ago

      In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25053787

      Gee is anyone surprised that the government mnaaged to create this crsis - all in the name of "helping"

      When are we ever going to learn????

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      walden34 months ago

      There is evidence every day that uninhibited greed, nothing new, creates havoc. Time and time again we see that unregulated markets allow a few to amass much and spread the risk to the many. Don't you think this cries for additional regulation?

      Reply

      27 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia4 months ago

        They problem with regulation and government policies - no one ever goes back and re-evaluates them

        As the article notes: HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          cleare4 months ago

          yes, yes and yes. we are suffering from 20 years of deregulation policies (including clinton). without ethics or regulation, greed wins everytime.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            earthlingerer4 months ago

            At the end or Reagan/Bush, the poop hit the propeller with Silverado and the Savings and Loan "scandals" (thanks, Neil Bush), and now at the end of the latest eight year party, we're holding the tab again, and the house got trashed again, with the rich kids laughing as they drive away from the wreck.

            Reply
      • 0%

        saintetienne4 months ago

        "There is evidence every day that uninhibited greed, nothing new, creates havoc."

        BULLsh*t.

        "Don't you think this cries for additional regulation?"

        NO!!!!!!!!!! WHY IS "ADDITIONAL REGULATION" THE SOLUTION TO EVERY PROBLEM?!? Get your HEAD out of your ASS, waldrip! Get government OUT of the economy, and allow the market to FUNCTION for once. Don't like that idea? Then go live in Socialist Europe.

        Reply

        23 Replies

        • 0%

          Beau78904 months ago

          Typical response from you...

          Here's the problem. The economy can grow, and yet the standard of living of MOST people in the country still falls. This means there will be fewer people to spend ourselves into prosperity, as the Bush administration recommends.

          In other words, without a more equality of wealth, the overall health of the U.S. economy will get worse. And businesses are doing NOTHING to promote the economic well-being of their employees (not to mention any other type of their well-being).

          Profits can grow and grow and grow as we sell goods to China and outsource jobs to India and Mexico, and our workers' ability to afford basic needs will continue to decline. It's already been happening for decades.

          Reply

          22 Replies

          • 0%

            nostalgia4 months ago

            So how do you suggest getting businesses and jobs to stay in the US?

            Reply

            15 Replies

            • 0%

              Beau78904 months ago

              To be honest, I'm not sure what the best way to get business and jobs to stay in the country is.

              But I'm certain that the best way is NOT to give business incentives to leave the country and outsource jobs.

              Reply

              14 Replies

              • 0%

                saintetienne4 months ago

                To be honest, I'm not sure you understand the first THING about basic economics.

                Did you go to school?

                Reply

                13 Replies

                • 0%

                  Beau78904 months ago

                  I was being polite and answering nostalgia's question.

                  Why MUST you always be such a jackass?

                  Do you EVER have anything substantive to say, other than it's a dog eat dog world, and tough to anyone who starves and dies?

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    walden34 months ago

                    Beau- don't take It personally. Just look at It as a little puppy that jumps up and sometimes gets so excited that It wets Itself. It's not you. It's just a little excitable puppy dog. Instead of getting insulted just pet It on the head and say, "Good puppy Stinkytaint."

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct4 months ago

                  SAINTETIENNE:

                  "I'm not sure you understand the first THING about economics."

                  Let's see if you do.

                  http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...

                  "The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."

                  http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...

                  "Note that the DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Bill Clinton left office--a 221% increase."

                  http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...

                  "Now, here are the monthly Dow Jones closing averages since George W. Bush has been President. Relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 12800--a meager 20% increase."

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    What's ironic is that although Republicans are perceived as good for business, the economy actually performs worse when Republicans are in power. For example, today

                    1) the purchasing power of the American dollar is at record lows, inflation is a real threat

                    2) the banks are being crushed by the sub-prime crisis

                    3) energy and food prices are skyrocketing

                    4) the stock market is declining

                    5) the budget surplus has been squandered

                    6) the national deficit is at record highs, and

                    7) the unemployment rating is deceivingly high.

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct4 months ago

                  CLINTON'S RECORD ON JOBS

                  http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1...

                  "In 1992, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5%. 22.1 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration. The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for 7 years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months."

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    BUSH'S RECORD ON JOBS

                    http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

                    "The effects of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households Ã;¢;; those least in need of additional resources Ã;¢;; at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/06/09/the...

                    "Wall Street suffered its worst losses in more than two months on Friday after crude oil prices spiked over $138, an increase of nearly $11, and the unemployment rate rose more than expected. All 30 of the stocks that make up the Dow Jones industrial average took a hit as the index dropped nearly 400 points.

                    Shares opened lower after the government reported that the unemployment rate in May increased the most in one month in 22 years.

                    The market decline accelerated as crude oil rose steadily, closing $10.75 higher in its biggest one-day climb ever.

                    Food prices have risen 6.1% in the past three months."

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct4 months ago

                  INCOME UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

                  http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

                  http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/income.html

                  There was an INCREASE in Real Median Household Income under the Bill Clinton Administration from $43000 to $49500 (a 15.1% INCREASE); and a DECREASE in real median household income under George W Bush Administration from $49500 to $48201 (a 2.6% DECREASE).

                  Also, the poverty rating under Clinton fell from 40 million to 31 million; and rose under Bush from 31 million to 36.5 million.

                  INCOME UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

                  http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech...

                  "The share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution rose from 42% to 50% during the Bush administration, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth declined from 7% to 5%.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct4 months ago

                  DEMOCRATS & FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

                  "Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

                  http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...

                  "The significance of prospective surpluses of nearly $5 trillion over the next 15 years is hard to appreciate. The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. The largest component is the transfer of bonds to Social Security and Medicare. These transfers would go about half way to closing the projected long-term deficit in Social Security."

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

                    "On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending."

                    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...

                    "House Democrats, seeking to show they will be better stewards of taxpayers' money than their Republican predecessors, approved new budget rules Friday that require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for by other spending cuts or tax increases. The so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules were passed with broad support as part of a package that also requires lawmakers to disclose which "earmarks," or spending items, they have added to bills."

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    REPUBLICANS AND FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

                    "Alan Greenspan levels unusually harsh criticism at the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the conservative principle of fiscal restraint. Greenspan praises Clinton's tough anti-deficit policies as 'an act of political courage.' But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. 'My biggest frustration remained the Bush's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending.'

                    Greenspan accuses the Republicans of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. Dealing with a budget surplus, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to 'save Social Security first.' Greenspan writes, 'I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton's. The truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.'"

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

                    "Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34% since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28%. The administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs."

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct4 months ago

                    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1999/0202fede...

                    "The big question is how to use these surpluses. Clinton called on the nation to save most of the budget surpluses that loom in our nation's economic future. At the same time, his Republican critics have been calling for sizeable tax cuts, which would underwrite increased personal consumption, and some of his Democratic supporters have been calling for increased government spending on long-neglected domestic priorities."

                    In effect, Bush's tax cuts represented the sentiment of the Republican party on how best to spend Clinton's budget surpluses. Republicans wanted to spend the money and cut taxes. Clinton wanted to save for SS, health care, and debt reduction.

                    Reply
          • 0%

            saintetienne4 months ago

            "businesses are doing NOTHING to promote the economic well-being of their employees (not to mention any other type of their well-being)."

            It's not their job to look after the "economic well-being" of their employees. That responsibility falls squarely on the individual. The job of business is to MAKE MONEY. It's WHY THEY ARE IN BUSINESS.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              foksipayne4 months ago

              "It's not their job to look after the "economic well-being" of their employees"

              but they should have the sense to "look after" their country.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Beau78904 months ago

              It is in the interest of business NOT to starve all of its customers. Employees are customers.

              What will you do when there's no one left to buy your crap?

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                saneman4 months ago

                Steal like they normally do.

                Reply
              • 0%

                dissent4 months ago

                market research to figure what people want. usually popularity, the envy of others and sex appeal. then throw bucks into advertising and brand development that appeal to people's deep-seated sense of personal inadequacy and how said crap will make life perfect. easy. it's all about the image not the product, and the intangible qualities the image can be believed to project (branding) that are not inherent within the product itself

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Beau78904 months ago

                  That's what they do now. There won't be anyone left to buy their product, except themselves. No growth.

                  Reply
• 0%

  jimdoze4 months ago

  I never expected a quick recovery.

  The economy WILL be made worse if the majority of the populace can be made to believe, by November, that the way to recovery is through greater taxation.

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • 0%

    nostalgia4 months ago

    Don't worry!

    Obama has the answer:

    Jun. 10, 2008 at a speech in NC

    Obama proposed another stimulus package to help revive the economy, a new effort to help people threatened with home foreclosure and tax relief for the middle class.

    http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/66...

    Never mind that many Americans have not even received the first stimulus checks yet

    He's ready to send a second one

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      saintetienne4 months ago

      "He's ready to send a second one"

      He's ready to make balloon animals at kids' parties and tap dance at a senior home if it'll get him votes.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        foksipayne4 months ago

        gotta admit, that one's funny, and quite possibly true.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Beau78904 months ago

      nostalgia, I don't see anything in the link you posted about Obama proposing sending stimulus checks, and particularly not to every American whether he needs it or not.

      Obama wants to help those in need. I know many out here have a problem with that, but it sure as hell is a better idea than buying votes outright, which is what the $300 "tax rebate" in 2001 that Bush promised while running for president, or the $600 one now that he proposed in order to get the Democrats--the fiscally responsible ones--to vote against so Republicans could say the Democrats voted against giving us money.

      Reply

      13 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia4 months ago

        I read several articles on his speech in NC

        The one I posted is not as specific

        The one I linked simply stated: Obama proposed another stimulus package to help revive the economy, a new effort to help people threatened with home foreclosure and tax relief for the middle class.

        This one by Newsday goes into more specifics:

        Barack Obama spoke directly to pocketbook issues in this capital city yesterday, hitting Republican John McCain hard as he outlined an economic plan that would include a second stimulus check, tax breaks for seniors and the middle class, and debt relief for students.

        http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/print...

        They played part of his speech on the news this AM. That is when I went to look for any articles.

        Doesn't this meet your definition of "buying votes outright"?

        Reply

        12 Replies

        • 0%

          walden34 months ago

          Borrow more money from China to give to Americans. Interesting plan. Think it's sustainable?

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Centinel4 months ago

            Only until the Chinese demand repayment in the form of our lands and property. What other collateral could possibly be used for a 10 trillion dollar debt? Our economy certainly is incapable of repaying that debt. 10 trillion is twice the money supply! We are effectively BANKRUPT!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              walden34 months ago

              Damn right. My guess is they sell the dollar and then sometime later attack Taiwan. We promised to defend Taiwan and we won't be able to afford aviation fuel. Hopefully it will never happen and the Chinese will be anesthetized with color TVs, their own cars and video games.

              Reply
        • 0%

          Beau78904 months ago

          That's odd. Other than the lead to the Newsday article that says Obama proposed a second stimulus check, I don't see any quote from him or even any other mention of one.

          There's also no mention of one in the video about Obama's stimulus plan (which I had a hard time playing), which gives a bulleted list of programs--none of them a second stimulus check.

          Weird. What's even stranger is that when I Googled " 'Obama "second stimulus check'," I couldn't find any mention except for the same unsubstantiated assertion on a Fox News article and several other blogs and news services that link to the Newsday one you posted.

          I wish I could find that speech.

          I'd be against a second stimulus check, and it WOULD (if true) meet my definition of "buying votes outright." But I liked everything else he proposed. Were you against the first stimulus check?

          Reply

          8 Replies

          • 0%

            Beau78904 months ago

            In any case, here's a quote from the Newsday article.

            "Under a 'pay as you go system,' Obama said he would use the revenue generated from slashing corporate tax breaks, eliminating tax loopholes, and taxing big-oil profits to pay for the plan, which includes a $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund."

            "Pay as you go." I see nothing irresponsible about that kind of spending.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              nostalgia4 months ago

              Try "Obama stimulus check"

              When presidential candidates promise "pay as you go" keep in mind that all of those "promises" have to go through Congress

              For all of their talk, Congress is never very willing to close loopholes, slash corporate tax breaks etc. After all, many of their political contributions are coming from those same companies

              Given the economic climate and outsourcing, we are going to have to be very careful about increasing taxes on any businesses right now

              As more companies move offshore, the government loses tax revenues AND people are laid off so you also lose personal income tax

              As far as the $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund, that opens an entirely different can of worms

              Reply

              5 Replies

              • 0%

                Beau78904 months ago

                Yeah, I saw a little more about it this morning.

                Okay, "pay as you go" has to get through Congress. It's still a good idea. Continuing to borrow and releasing business from responsibility hasn't been helping the dollar's value or the situation of the working class.

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • 0%

                  nostalgia4 months ago

                  Haven't we had enough trouble with things that sound like good ideas

                  Go back and read about what happened after Congress passed and Carter signed the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act

                  Take a look at the taxes imposed on businesses in other countries. The US is now the highest. Even the EU realized that to attract business they had to lower business taxes. And guess what - US companies are relocating to the EU and other places in the world where taxes are lower

                  Can we afford to have even more companies relocate overseas?

                  How high does unemployment have to go before we realize we are behind what other countries are doing to entice businesses to leave the US

                  In a global economy we need to look at everything with fresh perspectives. We can't afford business as usual any longer and things that just sound good

                  We need to take a look for ourselves to decide if something that sounds good might actually make the situation worse

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    Beau78904 months ago

                    We need to come up with new ideas. We are currently doing business as usual, and most of Obama's suggestions are new. (And again--those ideas are pay as you go.

                    I haven't heard any plan from anyone else that changes our strategy.

                    The path we're on is leading to trouble. The dollar is tanking, and we're in massive debt. The middle class is shrinking rapidly, and inequity of wealth distribution is at its highest levels since the Gilded Age.

                    Deregulation is not working, and we're doing very little to stimulate investment in new and better technologies.

                    We've lost our manufacturing base and we're losing our service base.

                    What does our economy do any more other than outsource jobs and coordinate investment markets that are easily manipulated?

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  nostalgia4 months ago

                  Beau

                  Take a look at what he is saying about health insurance

                  One of the ways he plans to pay for it is change to paperless billing in Medicare and other already existing govt health programs

                  Sounds good again doesn't it?

                  Someone in his campaign is not up to speed or ignoring reality

                  This was already mandated and started

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    Beau78904 months ago

                    If the money won't be there then it won't happen. He wants it to be pay as you go.

                    Reply
          • 0%

            nostalgia4 months ago

            Beau

            Yes I was against the first stimulus check

            In fact we received ours last week and sent the money off to a military charity

            The only reason I knew about the second stimulus check was a segment on MSNBC - they showed part of his speech in NC where he mentioned it

            Reply
  • 0%

    Teech4 months ago

    ".....that the way to recovery is through greater taxation."

    How about, more intelligent, or more equal taxation?

    As Warren Buffet has stated, he could double, triple, or quadruple his taxes and STILL be a billionaire many times over. Man, that guy must be nuts!

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      jimdoze4 months ago

      Warren Buffett? You mean the famous investor who placed his fortune in the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to avoid paying estate taxes? He must believe, in his heart, that assets handled privately are better and more efficiently employed than assets turned over to the government. He could have let nature take its course and let the executor of his estate eventually write a huge check to the Feds. He could still sell or hypothecate his assets and write the check himself. Why doesn't he?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Teech4 months ago

        ...Because he's obviously smarter than the average dog - and waaaayyyy smarter than I !

        Reply
• 0%

  simonsez4 months ago

  Sky is falling ...

  Reply

  15 Replies

  • 0%

    walden34 months ago

    No really everything is fine. Oil isn't trading at a record, the market didn't take 400 points last Friday, unemployment isn't at record levels, the dollar didn't lost 40% of its value in the last ten years, homes aren't being lost at record levels, Lehman didn't declare a loss of $3 Billion, my 401k isn't flat.

    All is good. The future is bright.

    Reply
  • 0%

    bigurn4 months ago

    Walden,

    Some perspective, please. Gas prices are high, but not on an inflation-adjusted basis to 1979 or 1973. The market lost 400 points due to an unexpected rise in jobless claims; it will recover. The jobless claims are *not* due to layoffs; there weren't 600,000 layoffs last month. They are apparently due to the influx of new entrants to the job market - graduated high school seniors. They now count in the unemployment percentage as adults. Many of the minimum wage companies reduced head count because of the hike in the minimum wage. These 600M people will eventually be absorbed.

    The dollar is a worry, and I don't see a plan to solidify it. The home foreclosure is largely due to individuals taking on more house than they could reasonably afford, and the lending industries and government enabling their greed.

    When I was a kid in 1979, unemployment was 14%, inflation was 17%, and a house loan could be secured at a "good" rate of 11%. Thank Jimmy Carter.

    Reply

    13 Replies

    • 0%

      earthlingerer4 months ago

      That's MORE than 40%, and since Bush took office.

      Reply
    • 0%

      walden34 months ago

      The economy's fundamentals are much worse now then they were in 79. Manufacturing is dead. We are paying $400 B a year in interest on the debt. Oil is one step from $150 then $200 then $300 a barrel.

      So you too think everything is grand?

      Our way of life is unsustainable. Wake up.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        bigurn4 months ago

        Walden,

        I never said it was grand. My point is this: it's been a *lot* worse, and we've recovered. The U.S. economy is vastly different from '79, when mfg accounted for over 30% of jobs. It's about 17% now, largely due to huge improvements in production efficiency. There has been some job relocation, which includes outsourcing but also includes "insourcing" in such areas as fundamental research.

        The high price of oil is largely due to four things (in no particular order):

        1) monetary policy - we gotta get this corrected. Simply printing more money is truly unsustainable.

        2) taxation - 17% of the price is taxation

        3) demand - we need to curb our thirst for oil, but going cold turkey will do more harm than good.

        4) supply - drill for more U.S. oil, allow the building of new refineries, invest in alternative enery on a local level and invest in nuclear power on a national scale.

        Teech, my perspective is history - 1929, 1979, 2001.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%