http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.

Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.



--
The modern GOP is little more than an army of moral absolutists led by a
gang of moral nihilists.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't have
the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's Obama's
economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt incurred since
January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you still use that tired
mantra. For shame!

Look to current European elections for hints about 2010 and 2012 elections
in this country.

On Jun 9, 9:54*am, "lupowell" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...

Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.

What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't have
the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.

Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's Obama's
economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt incurred since
January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you still use that tired
mantra. For shame!

Look to current European elections for hints about 2010 and 2012 elections
in this country.

Using tired mantra, what else do you expect from WAFA. The man doesn't
have an honest bone in his head.

"lupowell" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's Obama's
economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt incurred since
January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you still use that tired
mantra. For shame!


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades. By
itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on an
economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the lenders
because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest problem
is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we simply don't
have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before, and
not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will be, near
term and in the future.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"lupowell" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's
Obama's economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt
incurred since January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you
still use that tired mantra. For shame!


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades.
By itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on
an economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the
lenders because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest
problem is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we
simply don't have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before,
and not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will
be, near term and in the future.

Eisboch


What would have been your ideas to rescue what was left of the economy?

I listened to the speakers at the GOP fundraiser last night. I didn't
hear one idea from the leaders of the GOP that would do anything but
line the pockets of the same corporate, banking, and insurance pricks
who sold us down the river. Not a damned serious idea to put Americans
back to work at family supporting jobs.

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:34:55 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"lupowell" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's
Obama's economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt
incurred since January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you
still use that tired mantra. For shame!


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades.
By itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on
an economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the
lenders because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest
problem is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we
simply don't have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before,
and not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will
be, near term and in the future.

Eisboch


What would have been your ideas to rescue what was left of the economy?

I listened to the speakers at the GOP fundraiser last night. I didn't
hear one idea from the leaders of the GOP that would do anything but
line the pockets of the same corporate, banking, and insurance pricks
who sold us down the river. Not a damned serious idea to put Americans
back to work at family supporting jobs.

Evidently, we should have let the spiral continue. We were losing
jobs at a faster apce than at any other time in history, including the
depression.

I suppose letting the "free market" take it's course would have
resolved a number of things, including the potential to shove us into
a long term depression.

The party of no hasn't any ideas, other than to say no.

"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades.
By itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on an
economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the
lenders because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest
problem is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we simply
don't have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before,
and not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will
be, near term and in the future.

Eisboch


What would have been your ideas to rescue what was left of the economy?

I listened to the speakers at the GOP fundraiser last night. I didn't hear
one idea from the leaders of the GOP that would do anything but line the
pockets of the same corporate, banking, and insurance pricks who sold us
down the river. Not a damned serious idea to put Americans back to work at
family supporting jobs.

I watched a recent PBS interview with Vernon Jordan. He's an avid Obama
supporter, but also an avid believer in free enterprise and capitalism. He
believes our economic system is the best in the world but is subject to
"flat tires" now and then. It doesn't mean you throw away the car.

So far only about 5 percent of the stimulus money Obama has signed has hit
the streets. Yet, there are growing indications that the economy is slowly
but surely beginning to self correct in a typical cycle exhibited many times
before, but without putting the country into assured and permanent
bankruptcy. Recessions are hard to go through, but like a hurricane
clearing overgrown forests, they can benefit overall.
Yes, I know and feel for the unemployed, but opportunities arise out of
necessity. This isn't the first time or the last. I am fearful that this
time there was an over reaction, and much of it is political, not economic
based.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"lupowell" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's
Obama's economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt
incurred since January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you
still use that tired mantra. For shame!


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades.
By itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on
an economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the
lenders because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest
problem is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we
simply don't have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before,
and not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will
be, near term and in the future.

Eisboch

They are printing the money, not borrowing all of it. Watch for some
unprecedented inflation.

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:58:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"lupowell" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaaBdVMkjPnU

Kind of gives you the flavor of things to come.



What we have today is the afterbirth of eight years of Republican
mismanagement and looking the other way. Not surprising that the
corporationists are a bit worried...because it is possible they won't
have the entire golden calf to consume by themselves.


Keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing stays the same. It's Obama's
economy, Obama's war, and Obama's deficits now. More debt incurred since
January 20, 2009 than in eight years of Bush, and you still use that tired
mantra. For shame!


Forgetting about blame for a second, the biggest problem I think we face
with Obama's domestic and economic policies is this:

The US has had a national debt that has been growing for many decades. By
itself, debt isn't necessarily bad. It can fuel growth and spur on an
economy. The debt we have had in the past has been low risk to the lenders
because of our economic growth and strength.

But the debt Obama is putting in place in the first 6 months of his
presidency is astronomical, both in amount and in time. The biggest problem
is that it is based on capital, current or future, that we simply don't
have, nor will we.

That is unique in the history of this country. Never happened before, and
not a single economic expert can predict what the ramification will be, near
term and in the future.

Nothing new at all, beyond every day brings a "new" unique history.
Every day brings change - whether you believe in it or not.
Then you have a choice to make.
Be negative - glass half-empty
Be positive - glass half-full.
Go with it - glass overflowing.
Wait - something wrong there.
Be negative - some SOB emptied my glass
Be neutral - where's my glass?
Be positive - another round for the house.
Damn - still not right.
So let's just have another round.
Scarborough and the other nattering nabobs of negativity are always
crying about the debt being the end of the world.
I'm waiting. Better that way than an asteroid.
These guys never come out with their solutions, though.
Why?
Because they are ideologues, not practical men.
Here's how you get the country out of debt:
1. Stop sending SS checks.
2. Stop providing Medicare to old folks.
3. Raise all taxes.
1 and 2 will do it alone.
So will 3.
What's more likely?
Now why don't they just come out and say that?
Are they dishonest, or just gutless?
They are politicians, which means they are both.
The article in the thread title is simply babble and
the typical fear-mongering that is in vogue.
Everybody's got to make a living, even the lame-ass that wrote
that article.

--Vic