StreetScooby 5 #26 March 4, 2009 Quote ...and the actions/proposed actions should be properly analysed and debated Unfortunately, no one seems able to agree as to what is being measured much less what the data mean. The actual debates themselves are purely along partisan lines. The Democrats do not think they're re-pushing policies that have already been shown to be failures in the judgement of many (conservative?) economists. I find it very disturbing. You can't control something if you can't measure it. At this point in history, we should be able to effectively measure, and agree to what those data mean, our social and economic systems. It doesn't appear that we can.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #27 March 4, 2009 Obama gets high marks in new poll WASHINGTON (AFP) March 4 The large snapshot of more than 2,500 voters by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute reveals deep pessimism among US voters about the state of the economy and prospects for a recovery. ..... Overall, voters approve of Obama's handling of the economy 57 to 33 percent, and significantly give him much higher marks on the issue -- 56 to 26 percent -- than Republicans.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 March 4, 2009 QuoteI'm not picking on anyone. President Obama is the one in charge. It's his responsibility. If you'd like to round up the politicians who pushed botched policy, the banks who over-extended, the thousands who lived outside their means, etc. then go ahead. You're not going to find one person or one group of people responsible for the entire mess. So, Americans as a whole have made some piss poor decisions in at least the last 4 years. Greed has lead to a complete collapse of confidence and the financial system. Yet the guy with less than 100 days in office is to blame? That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't agree with all the actions he is taking, but to lay such massive blame before results are even measurable is insane. The current drop in the DOW is due to the numbers released pertaining to the 4th Quarter of 2008. The man wasn't even president yet. I know that many on here want Obama to fail, but you are screaming before you are even allowing him to fail, which certainly devalues your message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #29 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not picking on anyone. President Obama is the one in charge. It's his responsibility. If you'd like to round up the politicians who pushed botched policy, the banks who over-extended, the thousands who lived outside their means, etc. then go ahead. You're not going to find one person or one group of people responsible for the entire mess. So, Americans as a whole have made some piss poor decisions in at least the last 4 years. Greed has lead to a complete collapse of confidence and the financial system. Yet the guy with less than 100 days in office is to blame? That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't agree with all the actions he is taking, but to lay such massive blame before results are even measurable is insane. The current drop in the DOW is due to the numbers released pertaining to the 4th Quarter of 2008. The man wasn't even president yet. I know that many on here want Obama to fail, but you are screaming before you are even allowing him to fail, which certainly devalues your message. Obama's approval rating this morning was 62% (Gallup) vs 26% disapprove. The whiners on here are still sore that "The Deregulator" lost in November.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 March 4, 2009 You're right and, as an engineer, that's what frustrates me about economics .... I need to be able Define, Measure Analyse, Improve and Control a process and it really should be possible but no one (?) does (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #31 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not picking on anyone. President Obama is the one in charge. It's his responsibility. If you'd like to round up the politicians who pushed botched policy, the banks who over-extended, the thousands who lived outside their means, etc. then go ahead. You're not going to find one person or one group of people responsible for the entire mess. So, Americans as a whole have made some piss poor decisions in at least the last 4 years. Greed has lead to a complete collapse of confidence and the financial system. Yet the guy with less than 100 days in office is to blame? That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't agree with all the actions he is taking, but to lay such massive blame before results are even measurable is insane. The current drop in the DOW is due to the numbers released pertaining to the 4th Quarter of 2008. The man wasn't even president yet. I know that many on here want Obama to fail, but you are screaming before you are even allowing him to fail, which certainly devalues your message. Obama's approval rating this morning was 62% (Gallup) vs 26% disapprove. The whiners on here are still sore that "The Deregulator" lost in November. Quote no, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 March 4, 2009 Quoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #33 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. Those who are more interested in Obama failing than in the USA succeeding would not agree. I certainly don't like bankers and Wall Street Whizzes making $millions being bailed out after tanking the world's economies, but I see no realistic alternative.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #34 March 4, 2009 Quote no, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Maybe by spending the money on things like education, high speed rail, and alternative energy technology/infrastructure as opposed to throwing off-budget appropriated cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. Admittedly however, spending without cutting will be problematic. I think that this is a step in the right direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #35 March 4, 2009 Why dont you pull Obamas balls out of your mouth for once and speak for yourself...fucking douche Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #36 March 4, 2009 QuoteWhy dont you pull Obamas balls out of your mouth for once and speak for yourself...fucking douche Bye......3......2.....1..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #37 March 4, 2009 QuoteWhy dont you pull Obamas balls out of your mouth for once and speak for yourself...fucking douche Ahh, intelligent response from the right.....Was Rush unavailable to provide guidance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #38 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. QuoteDid you read the stimulus package? There are strings tied to almost every dollar that go against alot of Americas views, there is money going to stupid left agendas, not for the betterment of the US but for promoting the lefts agenda. The stimulus bill does not promote the beterment of the country, it promotes the liberal agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites regulator 0 #39 March 4, 2009 Allright first of all I understand it will take him a while to rebound the economy to a relatively 'normal' state. And I personally dont dislike him however some of his policies I dont agree with the problem I have it fucking doucebag with his 'law degree' (seriously dude who gives a flying fuck about your law degree...go impress some 14 year old girls with that shit) My problem is that whenever anyone says anything from the right side he jumps their shit and alludes that everything thing any republican does is SIMPLY WRONG. Get over yourself fuckface and get a fucking life. This whole forum is for people who want to express their political beleifs ...whether they be RIGHT OR LEFT. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,452 #40 March 4, 2009 Interesting how you're not jumping down the face of some of the shriller of the right-wing posters. What sounds shrill and disagreeable sometimes reflects the audience, and not just the delivery. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #41 March 4, 2009 QuoteDid you read the stimulus package? There are strings tied to almost every dollar that go against alot of Americas views, there is money going to stupid left agendas, not for the betterment of the US but for promoting the lefts agenda. The stimulus bill does not promote the beterment of the country, it promotes the liberal agenda. And with a Republican President and a Republican House the bill would have been filled with right wing earmarks. Basically you are just upset that you lost the election. Maybe if Bush had done a better job the Republicans wouldn't have lost the election? Maybe if McCain had selected somebody with substance as opposed to a beauty queen, you wouldn't have lost the election? Kind of silly to take your anger out on Obama when what you are really angry at is the result of the failure of your own party. (though in this case they technically aren't earmarks, but that is a bit of a semantics argument) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #42 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #43 March 4, 2009 The real question is not the amount of spending, but the tie between spending and results. We can all agree that spending $100 and getting $10,000 back would be better than spending $50 and getting $1,000 back. (taking timelines out of the equasion for now) The problem is that nobody has the answer to that, or at least that people will never agree on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #44 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote He has an agenda. +1 Name a politician that doesn't.... Does he have to be alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #45 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Where were you when Bush was starting a $trillion war in Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Capt.Slog 0 #46 March 4, 2009 700,000 more jobs lost in February. Bush's recession is sure a doozy. Oh sorry, Republicans don't like us to use the "R" word. uk.reuters.com/article/companyNewsMolt/idUKN0453853020090304 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #47 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Where were you when Bush was starting a $trillion war in Iraq? Quote I agree with the war for many reasons but that was over 6 years not 6 weeks. Obama is on a pace to spend 10 trillion in his term. Obama has already spent 1.5 trillion and now wants to bail out mortgages and do health care for an adition 1.5 trillion. That come to 3 trillion possibly spent in his first 6 months on top of the pork fill Budget. multiply that out over 4 years could be very bad for us. We need responsibility and accountabilty on both side and right now the only gruop that is trying to stem the tide is the rep's. Wether it is because they don't like Obama's policies or they are actually tying to be responsible I don't care, just as long as they are tying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #48 March 4, 2009 QuoteThe real question is not the amount of spending, but the tie between spending and results. We can all agree that spending $100 and getting $10,000 back would be better than spending $50 and getting $1,000 back. (taking timelines out of the equasion for now) The problem is that nobody has the answer to that, or at least that people will never agree on it. QuoteAnd if they can't answer that then they need to slow down and find the answer first. Fiscal responsibility comes first and right now they are not being resposible. The asshats didn't even read the bill before voting on it. How can you have any responsibility if you don't even know what you voted for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #49 March 4, 2009 Quote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! edit: "Scott free" in this case is also known as completely legal and just based on contracts signed years ago to attract what the board of various companies thought were the best candidates. I'll restate my sports analogy: do you pay the best prospects the worst salary? elway, deon sanders, emmit smith? most of the time it works out, although sometimes is doesn't, i.e. Ricky Williams. Ricky williams still made millions, but he could have madea sh*tload more if he lived up to his potential. the same is true for CEOs and top execs...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #50 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! Your definition of "earn" does not correspond with reality.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
regulator 0 #39 March 4, 2009 Allright first of all I understand it will take him a while to rebound the economy to a relatively 'normal' state. And I personally dont dislike him however some of his policies I dont agree with the problem I have it fucking doucebag with his 'law degree' (seriously dude who gives a flying fuck about your law degree...go impress some 14 year old girls with that shit) My problem is that whenever anyone says anything from the right side he jumps their shit and alludes that everything thing any republican does is SIMPLY WRONG. Get over yourself fuckface and get a fucking life. This whole forum is for people who want to express their political beleifs ...whether they be RIGHT OR LEFT. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #40 March 4, 2009 Interesting how you're not jumping down the face of some of the shriller of the right-wing posters. What sounds shrill and disagreeable sometimes reflects the audience, and not just the delivery. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 March 4, 2009 QuoteDid you read the stimulus package? There are strings tied to almost every dollar that go against alot of Americas views, there is money going to stupid left agendas, not for the betterment of the US but for promoting the lefts agenda. The stimulus bill does not promote the beterment of the country, it promotes the liberal agenda. And with a Republican President and a Republican House the bill would have been filled with right wing earmarks. Basically you are just upset that you lost the election. Maybe if Bush had done a better job the Republicans wouldn't have lost the election? Maybe if McCain had selected somebody with substance as opposed to a beauty queen, you wouldn't have lost the election? Kind of silly to take your anger out on Obama when what you are really angry at is the result of the failure of your own party. (though in this case they technically aren't earmarks, but that is a bit of a semantics argument) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #42 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #43 March 4, 2009 The real question is not the amount of spending, but the tie between spending and results. We can all agree that spending $100 and getting $10,000 back would be better than spending $50 and getting $1,000 back. (taking timelines out of the equasion for now) The problem is that nobody has the answer to that, or at least that people will never agree on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #44 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote He has an agenda. +1 Name a politician that doesn't.... Does he have to be alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #45 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Where were you when Bush was starting a $trillion war in Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #46 March 4, 2009 700,000 more jobs lost in February. Bush's recession is sure a doozy. Oh sorry, Republicans don't like us to use the "R" word. uk.reuters.com/article/companyNewsMolt/idUKN0453853020090304 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #47 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteno, what alot of people are "whining" about is that Obama said during his campaign that irresponsible spending in the Bush administration caused this mess. How is Obama's administation doing that time 2 going to fix it? Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Where were you when Bush was starting a $trillion war in Iraq? Quote I agree with the war for many reasons but that was over 6 years not 6 weeks. Obama is on a pace to spend 10 trillion in his term. Obama has already spent 1.5 trillion and now wants to bail out mortgages and do health care for an adition 1.5 trillion. That come to 3 trillion possibly spent in his first 6 months on top of the pork fill Budget. multiply that out over 4 years could be very bad for us. We need responsibility and accountabilty on both side and right now the only gruop that is trying to stem the tide is the rep's. Wether it is because they don't like Obama's policies or they are actually tying to be responsible I don't care, just as long as they are tying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #48 March 4, 2009 QuoteThe real question is not the amount of spending, but the tie between spending and results. We can all agree that spending $100 and getting $10,000 back would be better than spending $50 and getting $1,000 back. (taking timelines out of the equasion for now) The problem is that nobody has the answer to that, or at least that people will never agree on it. QuoteAnd if they can't answer that then they need to slow down and find the answer first. Fiscal responsibility comes first and right now they are not being resposible. The asshats didn't even read the bill before voting on it. How can you have any responsibility if you don't even know what you voted for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #49 March 4, 2009 Quote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! edit: "Scott free" in this case is also known as completely legal and just based on contracts signed years ago to attract what the board of various companies thought were the best candidates. I'll restate my sports analogy: do you pay the best prospects the worst salary? elway, deon sanders, emmit smith? most of the time it works out, although sometimes is doesn't, i.e. Ricky Williams. Ricky williams still made millions, but he could have madea sh*tload more if he lived up to his potential. the same is true for CEOs and top execs...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #50 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! Your definition of "earn" does not correspond with reality.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BDashe 0 #49 March 4, 2009 Quote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! edit: "Scott free" in this case is also known as completely legal and just based on contracts signed years ago to attract what the board of various companies thought were the best candidates. I'll restate my sports analogy: do you pay the best prospects the worst salary? elway, deon sanders, emmit smith? most of the time it works out, although sometimes is doesn't, i.e. Ricky Williams. Ricky williams still made millions, but he could have madea sh*tload more if he lived up to his potential. the same is true for CEOs and top execs...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #50 March 4, 2009 QuoteQuote they are getting of scott free at the moment, often with nice big bonuses and pensions. Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! Your definition of "earn" does not correspond with reality.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
