PDA

View Full Version : Zang this Obama economy is bad!



Okla-homey
2/20/2009, 04:27 PM
just saying.;)

King Crimson
2/20/2009, 04:35 PM
he's ruined Uhh'Merica in just a month. amazing, comrade.

someday common sense will save us.

85Sooner
2/20/2009, 07:44 PM
wall street gave him an F for his first month. Just sayin.

tommieharris91
2/20/2009, 07:47 PM
It's not Obama... yet. If it's still like this at the end of 2009 I'm voting Republicans into Congress. If it stays like this into 2011 I'm voting him out of office.

Czar Soonerov
2/20/2009, 08:20 PM
It's Bill Clinton's fault. Didn't you people get the memo?

SoonerStormchaser
2/20/2009, 08:44 PM
Well...this neo-socialist bailout crap that we're all paying for is gonna work wonders...just you wait and see :rolleyes:

OUAlumni1990
2/20/2009, 08:45 PM
we gots yo money woo hoo!!

http://i44.tinypic.com/34sqele.jpg

SanJoaquinSooner
2/20/2009, 08:51 PM
where's gerald ford when you need him?

Jerk
2/20/2009, 09:54 PM
where's gerald ford when you need him?

Gerald Ford is dead!! :D
(http://www.break.com/index/dana_carvey_snl_gerald_ford_is_dead.html)

SicEmBaylor
2/20/2009, 10:02 PM
wall street gave him an F for his first month. Just sayin.

Wall Street needs to give itself an F. Just sayin.

oumartin
2/20/2009, 10:27 PM
I'm just happy cuz now Madonna & Johnny Depp can move back to an America they can be proud of.

Okla-homey
2/20/2009, 11:19 PM
1921, gubmint didn't do crap and market forces led to recovery.

1937, gubmint gets involved, Keynsian's rule, and it takes WWII to pull us out of the mess.

QED.

tommieharris91
2/20/2009, 11:48 PM
Why do people think Obama has caused all of these problems? He hasn't done anything except sign a bill on Wednesday. The economy should never be bad enough that the government has to step in on multiple occasions to prop up the economy and keep money flowing. The current president really didn't cause any of this. He's just trying to save it.

As for the Porkulus law itself... I don't think it will be close to enough, but I hope it works. And as such, I would like to find my own ways of exploiting it.

Curly Bill
2/20/2009, 11:50 PM
If Obama wants to solve the economy he just has to lay hands on it, he might as well, we all know he's the Messiah so that cat's out of the bag.

KC//CRIMSON
2/21/2009, 01:17 AM
Why do people think Obama has caused all of these problems?

Because they're idiots.

Flagstaffsooner
2/21/2009, 01:23 AM
If Obama wants to solve the economy he just has to lay hands on it, he might as well, we all know he's the Messiah so that cat's out of the bag.
No, we need tebow to do that!

JLEW1818
2/21/2009, 02:49 AM
OBAMA SUCKS, had to get it out before bed. Let's put money out we don't have, and then tax the middle class in two years for it. Half the people who are gonna bitch, voted for him. good night, oh and Obama sucks once again.

Okla-homey
2/21/2009, 07:51 AM
Why do people think Obama has caused all of these problems? He hasn't done anything except sign a bill on Wednesday. The economy should never be bad enough that the government has to step in on multiple occasions to prop up the economy and keep money flowing. The current president really didn't cause any of this. He's just trying to save it.

As for the Porkulus law itself... I don't think it will be close to enough, but I hope it works. And as such, I would like to find my own ways of exploiting it.

Hypothetical question for you.

If things don't turn around, you know, we hit double digit unemployment and the market stays in the doldrums; does the White House get a pass? Presumably because we collectively fell off the cliff before the current occupant was inaugurated?

And, for the record, I hope he's successful. It would be foolish, destructive, hateful and unpatriotic to feel otherwise. That said, as a history buff, I'm intrigued by this unusual phenomenon of having a chief executive preside over horrid economic conditions, yet remain unscathed in terms of his popularity among half the country. It reminds me of the FDR years in which about half the country hated the guy, but the other half canonized the man, all amidst horrid economic conditions.

XingTheRubicon
2/21/2009, 08:52 AM
maybe we can have trash barrel on fire side chats for 9 years

royalfan5
2/21/2009, 09:44 AM
On the upside, we are exporting very strong amounts of grain despite of the increased strength of the dollar. Now if people would just quit ****ting themselves long enough to notice and give me a rally so I can get my farmers sold out and sold far enough ahead to at least cover their expenses, It'd be great.

tommieharris91
2/21/2009, 11:53 AM
Hypothetical question for you.

If things don't turn around, you know, we hit double digit unemployment and the market stays in the doldrums; does the White House get a pass? Presumably because we collectively fell off the cliff before the current occupant was inaugurated?


My answer:


If it's still like this at the end of 2009 I'm voting Republicans into Congress. If it stays like this into 2011 I'm voting him out of office.

I think a lot of pain needs to be felt before we come out of this recession. Stimulus packages by Obama and Bush just put it off.

jkjsooner
2/21/2009, 03:00 PM
I can't believe anyone would try to blame this economy on Obama. I don't even know what to say.

The economy has been tanking for well over a year and the conditions that created the mess have been building for almost 10 years.

The democrats were wrong when they blamed the 2001 recession on Bush but, gosh, at least the crash happened after he took office.

Not only that, but the recent declines are because Wall Street doesn't feel that the stimulus is enough to stem the snowballing recession - which is exactly opposite of what you guys are saying.

oumartin
2/21/2009, 03:45 PM
Because they're idiots

people that like obama are idiots!

KC//CRIMSON
2/21/2009, 04:41 PM
people that like obama are idiots!

Oh yeah? You're an idiot!

85Sooner
2/21/2009, 05:49 PM
I can't believe anyone would try to blame this economy on Obama. I don't even know what to say.

The economy has been tanking for well over a year and the conditions that created the mess have been building for almost 30 years.

The democrats were wrong when they blamed the 2001 recession on Bush but, gosh, at least the crash happened after he took office. AND HE RESPONDED AND WE PULLED OUT OF IT.

Not only that, but the recent declines are because Wall Street doesn't feel that the stimulus is enough to stem the snowballing recession - which is exactly opposite of what you guys are saying. WHICH IS WHY OBAMA IS STARTING TO GET BLAME FOR WHAT HE IS DOING WHICH MOST FEEL WILL ACTUALLY MAKE EVERYTHING WORSE.


Guess we will see.

Okla-homey
2/21/2009, 06:05 PM
See here's the thing.

At sea, even if the skipper is asleep in his cabin, if the guy at the helm runs into an iceberg, its on the skipper. Same dealio in an Army unit. If the bad guys attack and the unit is overrrun, bad on the commander. The pilot-in-command is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that happens on a given flight. In all those cases, it doesn't really matter if the guy who had command before the current commander boofed things up or not.

Lord knows W got pilloried for a lot of stuff he didn't see coming or had any real ability to influence.

Not so, apparently, for the time being, when it comes to this chief executive and commander-in-chief. Whcih strikes me as odd, because the current president really wanted the job. Just ask Hillary if you doubt it. It's not like it was foisted on him like some guy who misses a club meeting, and at that meeting, his fellow clubmembers elect him to organize the Christmas party.

SicEmBaylor
2/21/2009, 07:25 PM
See here's the thing.

At sea, even if the skipper is asleep in his cabin, if the guy at the helm runs into an iceberg, its on the skipper. Same dealio in an Army unit. If the bad guys attack and the unit is overrrun, bad on the commander. The pilot-in-command is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that happens on a given flight. In all those cases, it doesn't really matter if the guy who had command before the current commander boofed things up or not.

Lord knows W got pilloried for a lot of stuff he didn't see coming or had any real ability to influence.

Not so, apparently, for the time being, when it comes to this chief executive and commander-in-chief. Whcih strikes me as odd, because the current president really wanted the job. Just ask Hillary if you doubt it. It's not like it was foisted on him like some guy who misses a club meeting, and at that meeting, his fellow clubmembers elect him to organize the Christmas party.

I honestly don't recall you insisting at the time that Bush was at fault for the collapse since he was the guy in charge. I believe you once said he would get blamed for it since he was the guy in charge, but that's a bit different than saying he is responsible because he is in charge.

Bush certainly shares a great deal of blame for what happened, but obviously not all of the blame. A lot of these problems are rooted in the government's attempt to get low-income citizens into houses in a kind of quasi-Thatcherite policy of expanding property ownership (Bush's domestic agenda shares more commonality with Thatcher than Reagan). Bush certainly wasn't the first President to do this, but he did everything he could do to encourage it.

He also constantly encouraged Americans to go out and spend, spend, spend...spend money they didn't have that put them into a personal credit crisis and the results trickled up from there.

Bush should have been encouraging fiscal restraint, responsibility, and conservatism both by the government and the individual citizen, but at no time did Bush ever show any sort of responsible fiscal policy.

And then after 8 years of that you're going to blame a guy that has been in office for a month? By that logic, Bush was totally responsible for 9/11.

Jerk
2/21/2009, 07:57 PM
I don't blame Obama for the current mess. But by God, everytime he opens his mouth, the market tanks another 200 points. And Geitner's actions only inspire panic. They're not responsible but they're damned sure not helping anything. They are intent on trying this Keneysian stuff and we will get to see if it works or not. You'll never hear them say "let's cut the capital gains tax," only "spend, spend, spend!" We had tarp 1, tarp 2, stimulus 1, and now word of stimus 2 soon. The American invester isn't buying the notion that we can borrow ourselves into prosperity.

crawfish
2/21/2009, 07:57 PM
he's ruined Uhh'Merica in just a month. amazing, comrade.

someday common sense will save us.

I had democrats telling me that the Clinton economy suffered over his last few months because of anticipation over the change. Now the same people are telling me that the economy still sucks because of how Bush tanked it.

There is no common sense, there is only bias.

Curly Bill
2/21/2009, 08:15 PM
I thought the world was gonna turn all bright and sunny when Brack was elected...

...maybe this Messiah bizness is a bunch of crap!

tommieharris91
2/21/2009, 08:22 PM
The American invester isn't buying the notion that we can borrow ourselves into prosperity.
We borrowed ourselves into this mess.

Jerk
2/21/2009, 08:43 PM
We borrowed ourselves into this mess.

Exactly, and we are trying to stop a market correction.

Whether it was caused by such government things as the CRA, or "greedy Wall Street guys" is your choice.

Scott D
2/21/2009, 09:52 PM
wall street gave him an F for his first month. Just sayin.

like SicEm said, Wall Street not only deserves an F for their activities over the last 36 months, but they deserve to be last in line at the soup kitchens.

Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 12:27 AM
At sea, even if the skipper is asleep in his cabin, if the guy at the helm runs into an iceberg, its on the skipper. Same dealio in an Army unit. If the bad guys attack and the unit is overrrun, bad on the commander. The pilot-in-command is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that happens on a given flight. In all those cases, it doesn't really matter if the guy who had command before the current commander boofed things up or not.

I very much agree with you on this one. I've said so before -- repeatedly, despite being pilloried myself a bit for it.

The President is the HMFIC. The guy responsible. Not everything that happens is his fault, but that doesn't mean he's not responsible for dealing with it.


Not so, apparently, for the time being, when it comes to this chief executive and commander-in-chief.

It's been a month. It takes time for policies to be formulated, implemented and take effect.

I'll give him a pass, for now. The economy is like the Titanic, and I don't mean because it's sinking -- it's a big ol' ship with a tiny little rudder. Turning it isn't easy, nor is it something that's going to happen fast. It's only been a month.

But there will come a point where the effectiveness of his policies can be evaluated, and if they haven't made things better relative to if he hadn't implemented those policies, I'm not going to give him a pass just because the economy was bad to begin with.

SicEmBaylor
2/22/2009, 01:24 AM
like SicEm said, Wall Street not only deserves an F for their activities over the last 36 months, but they deserve to be last in line at the soup kitchens.

Of course I'm right!


...............wait.....I'm right???

Wow.


:D

Scott D
2/22/2009, 12:58 PM
I'd allow you to bask in your solitary moment of correctness, but I'm too busy applying to be a CEO so that I can drive some corporation to ruination while bilking them for an 8 to 9 figure golden parachute.

jkjsooner
2/22/2009, 07:54 PM
I had democrats telling me that the Clinton economy suffered over his last few months because of anticipation over the change. Now the same people are telling me that the economy still sucks because of how Bush tanked it.

There is no common sense, there is only bias.

Before drawing these types of conclusions, make sure it is the same people making both claims. You can always find two Democrats or two Republicans who draw assumptions that would be extremely biased if made by the same person.

We tend to put everyone in a Democrat or a Republican box and assume that they all speak for each other. It's just not true. (I make that assumption as well.)

soonervegas
2/22/2009, 09:55 PM
This post goes a long way towards explaining the 63 to 37 drubbing Obama took in oklahoma.

Bush's 8 years of embarassment - just a run of bad luck.

Obama's 1st 30 days of yet to be determined fiscal policy - failure.

Tailwind
2/22/2009, 10:08 PM
I don't know any of the answers, nor do I know who is totally to blame for this mess. All I know is that I am scared. I am doing what I can to protect myself from disaster, but I'm afraid it won't be enough.

soonerhubs
2/22/2009, 10:31 PM
This post goes a long way towards explaining the 63 to 37 drubbing Obama took in oklahoma.

Bush's 8 years of embarassment - just a run of bad luck.

Obama's 1st 30 days of yet to be determined fiscal policy - failure.

Is it somehow inconceivable to say this?
1) Bush failed us in that he was nothing near a fiscal conservative as he increased government spending at a ridiculous rate
and... at the same time say this:
2) Obama is more of the same irresponsible spending patterns with an extra slice of Taxes on top?

Why does it have to be, "Oh yeah? Well Bush sucked too!" Why can't you people get out of your mindless partisan mode and realize that fiscal responsibility transcends whether your party has an *** or an elephant as its mascot?
I call out both Presidents for being power hungry money mongering selfish narcissistic morons who are somehow elected with the false hope that they will do things to make our lives better. I could care less what color, party-line, ethnicity, or religion our President is as long as he actually wants what's best for the country and not what's best for the special interest groups he's been pandering to his entire political career. Bush pandered and so does the current Mr. President.

The ironic thing is that other subintellectuals such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and the entire Republican Majority back in 2005, get a pass when their moronic asses contributed to getting us into this mess as well. Of course back then it was that "Idiot" Bush that suggested tighter regulations on the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I suppose he was wrong in doing such a thing?

The bottom line to me is this (and I may be wrong here). I honestly think that the reason we got into this mess is 3 fold:
1) The majority of American's live outside their means.
2) The government enabled us idiots to do so, and continues this by throwing us more money.
and
3) The problem with Bush wasn't his Tax Cuts, it was his and past administrations' efforts to conduct the WHOLESALE elimination of regulatory functions that government had in place for a reason.

If you want to fix the sitch, bring some of the necessary regulations back, and please keep the taxes to a minimum. Again, I may be wrong, but my simple mind sees it this way.

In the mean time, I plan to Garden, store food, and prepare for what may be a huge disaster brought on by the collective greed of so many Americans who "had" to have the best of everything while a few of us settled for ghetto lodging while we tried to do things old school and save up for houses, cars, and other amenities. I think it's time we all ate a little humble pie and quit asking the gubment to wipe our back sides just because our insatiable hunger for stuff caused the squirts.

*Rant over* :D

yermom
2/22/2009, 10:50 PM
what tax increases?

soonerhubs
2/22/2009, 11:07 PM
what tax increases?

Maybe not yet, but i believe there will be many to come.

http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1047962.html

SicEmBaylor
2/22/2009, 11:12 PM
I think the only relevant financial advice at this point is to buy a wheelbarrow.

tommieharris91
2/22/2009, 11:41 PM
I think the only relevant financial advice at this point is to buy a wheelbarrow.

I'm more about the precious metals, mason jars, and firearms right now.

yermom
2/22/2009, 11:46 PM
i need to pick up some gold :)

sooneron
2/23/2009, 12:08 AM
Wow, I really don't miss this place.

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 12:13 AM
Wow, I really don't miss this place.

Does this place miss you? That's the more relevant question.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/23/2009, 12:30 AM
1921, gubmint didn't do crap and market forces led to recovery.

1937, gubmint gets involved, Keynsian's rule, and it takes WWII to pull us out of the mess.

QED.Gubmint did a lot of meddling in the FDR first term, 33-36, too, and the economy stayed in the suckage then, too.

yermom
2/23/2009, 12:34 AM
i don't really follow the 1921 statement there

recovery until the epic fail?

sooneron
2/23/2009, 12:35 AM
Does this place miss you? That's the more relevant question.

Well, let's see here, when I give a **** about leeches suckling off mommy's teet for going on nearly 10 years after hs graduation, you'll be the first to know.;)

Vaevictis
2/23/2009, 12:36 AM
Gubmint did a lot of meddling in the FDR first term, 33-36, too, and the economy stayed in the suckage then, too.

Note that FDR took office in March 1933.

If you pull it directly from the BEA (using 2000 chained dollars), you'll find that GDP grew at the following rates from 1933 to 1943:

1933: 10.27%
1934: 8.5%
1935: 12%
1936: 5%
1937: -3%
1938: 7.7%
1939: 8.4%
1940: 15.8%
1941: 17%
1942: 15.2%
1943: 7.8%

Yeah, turning in double digit growth 4 years, >=5% every year but one, and exactly one negative growth year in ten... horrible. Horrible I say.

It's so horrible that we should be so lucky.

sooneron
2/23/2009, 12:40 AM
Gubmint did a lot of meddling in the FDR first term, 33-36, too, and the economy stayed in the suckage then, too.

Just curious there, Einstein, if the banks were gated shut with no one allowed to access cash right now, how long would it be until the economy righted itself in the 21st century? Actually, don't answer that question with one of your weak replies that usually imply, "Hey, look over there!! Whew, I distracted him" crapola.

Vaevictis
2/23/2009, 12:53 AM
So yeah, looking at the data:

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

From 1933 to 1943, the economy grew at a 10% clip.

Anyone here want to turn down an investment opportunity that returns 10% for 10 years?


Anyone?

sooneron
2/23/2009, 12:59 AM
So yeah, looking at the data:

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

From 1933 to 1943, the economy grew at a 10% clip.

Anyone here want to turn down an investment opportunity that returns 10% for 10 years?


Anyone?
Well yeah, anyone that would rather bitch about Obama than reap anything that could come during his presidency - sadly, there are many here that are in that group.

85Sooner
2/23/2009, 08:13 AM
and GDP growth when the war started. What were the unemployment stats from 29-39. I know unemplyment went way down due to all the boys being sent off to war.



1941 126.7 1,211.1
1942 161.9 1,435.4
1943 198.6 1,670.9
1944 219.8 1,806.5
1945 223.1 1,786.3
1946 222.3 1,589.4

85Sooner
2/23/2009, 08:16 AM
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Seems to paint a different picture.

tommieharris91
2/23/2009, 11:13 AM
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Seems to paint a different picture.
I am shocked a conservative would use this as a source.

Vaevictis
2/23/2009, 11:16 AM
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Seems to paint a different picture.

He's using GNP which is similar to, but not the same as GDP. Some discrepancy is to be expected.

Regarding the unemployment issue, if you look at the BEA numbers, you'll find that the economy didn't get back to where it was in terms of GDP until 1936.

The problem you have there is that a lot of new workers come onto the work market in 7 years -- especially back when families were bigger. If you assume each dollar of GDP employed the same number of people in 1929 and 1936 (an overly simplistic assumption, but one good for illustration), then all those new people who entered the workforce plus all the people initially unemployed would remain unemployed.

GDP has to exceed the prior GDP to allow these new entrants to work.

I'm not at all trying to paint a rosy picture here. The Great Depression was nasty throughout the 30's. My point is that the economy was 31% smaller than it was in 1929 when FDR assumed office, so of course it took a long time to recover.

I don't care how amazing your policies are, a 31% contraction isn't something you just bounce back from. A contraction of that size requires almost 45% growth of the economy just to get back to where it was. Do you know how hard that is? How many ten year periods do you think that's happened in since the Great Depression?

You've got the numbers already. You can run them if you want, but the way I ran them (ln(Yn/Yn-1)) each ten year period starting 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1958 experienced 45% growth or more. That's it. We haven't even had anything higher than the low 30%'s since 1964.

Consider "normal" GDP growth at the end of the 20th century. From the time Reagan took office -- which many of us here like to call a "boom time" -- it never exceeded 7% and averaged 3% year over year. Under FDR, it topped off at almost 17% and averaged 9.5% year over year.

FDR's policies weren't exactly a failure, it's just that the disaster was that bad.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/23/2009, 11:47 AM
So yeah, looking at the data:

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

From 1933 to 1943, the economy grew at a 10% clip.

Anyone here want to turn down an investment opportunity that returns 10% for 10 years?


Anyone?I give up. Govt. make-work projects are how to govern. The Depression was the best economy evar. haha.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 12:15 PM
Note that FDR took office in March 1933.

If you pull it directly from the BEA (using 2000 chained dollars), you'll find that GDP grew at the following rates from 1933 to 1943:

1933: 10.27%
1934: 8.5%
1935: 12%
1936: 5%
1937: -3%
1938: 7.7%
1939: 8.4%
1940: 15.8%
1941: 17%
1942: 15.2%
1943: 7.8%

Yeah, turning in double digit growth 4 years, >=5% every year but one, and exactly one negative growth year in ten... horrible. Horrible I say.

It's so horrible that we should be so lucky.

What was the unemployment rate during those "New Deal" years before WW2????

C&CDean
2/23/2009, 12:17 PM
I personally don't give a **** one way or the other. I just find it humorous that the same sad sacks who ragged on GWB like a bunch of estrogen-overdosed bitches are now all lovey-dovey on Obama and all outraged that people are bitching about his performance.

You pea-brains have blamed everything from Sicem's impotence to global warming on GWB - warranted or not. Now, some other simpletons are doing the same thing to Oblama, and you're all aghast. Meh. Blow me.

olevetonahill
2/23/2009, 12:20 PM
What He said

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 12:22 PM
I give up. Govt. make-work projects are how to govern. The Depression was the best economy evar. haha.

It takes a special kind of mental disorder to spin the Great Depression as some kind of economic paradise we should try to replicate.

No wonder they seem to be so eager to see a economic depression once again. Its like they are just hoping for it to happen.

yermom
2/23/2009, 12:22 PM
What was the unemployment rate during those "New Deal" years before WW2????

FDR was cleaning up Hoover's mess. it's not like he was around for the crash

he's supposed to instantly fix the country after years of it being screwed up?

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 12:32 PM
FDR was cleaning up Hoover's mess. it's not like he was around for the crash

he's supposed to instantly fix the country after years of it being screwed up?

If FDR had done anything differently than Hoover, I might agree with you, but they were similar except FDR spent more, and put some floors down which prevented any meaningful recovery.

The New Deal was a bust, and all GDP increases were government illusions, which created no new wealth, just more government. Just go look at the unemployment figures of the time.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 12:35 PM
An interesting read BTW:


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The money quote in bold, from 2004 no less.

Thank GOD our government would never come up with any ill-conceived stimulus today!

Oh, wait...

olevetonahill
2/23/2009, 12:57 PM
Blaming Hoover fer the Crash and depression is Kinda Like Blaming GW fer 9/11. and Obama fer the economic mess we in Now .
Just dont wash fer me .

yermom
2/23/2009, 01:06 PM
i don't remember all that much about it. i just remember "Hoovervilles"

i'm sure the "roaring 20's" were to blame

things can't be great forever. irresponsible lending/spending can only work for so long

olevetonahill
2/23/2009, 01:10 PM
The Crash happened 8 months after he took office with very little warning .

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 02:02 PM
Its the responses to the calamities that is the issue. And now Obama wants to raise taxes. What a dumbass!!!

Hoover and FDR did the same thing Obama is doing, and all it did was prolong the pain.

soonerscuba
2/23/2009, 02:20 PM
I thought Obama was Carter, this is getting confusing.

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 02:33 PM
Obama is the anti-christ. Keep up.

C&CDean
2/23/2009, 02:51 PM
Obama is the anti-christ. Keep up.

There's no such thing as christ. Keep up.

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 03:22 PM
There's no such thing as christ. Keep up.

Looks like I'm making progress with you. Good jorb.

Condescending Sooner
2/23/2009, 03:49 PM
FDR was cleaning up Hoover's mess. it's not like he was around for the crash

he's supposed to instantly fix the country after years of it being screwed up?


A total lack of knowledge towards a subject never stops you libs from commenting huh?

tommieharris91
2/23/2009, 04:01 PM
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Seems to paint a different picture.

I'm just gonna go ahead and post this again for people to read.

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 04:05 PM
I'm just gonna go ahead and post this again for people to read.

We're gonna need to invade Europe, aren't we?

tommieharris91
2/23/2009, 04:09 PM
We're gonna need to invade Europe, aren't we?

If you consider Russia Europe, then yes. ;)

yermom
2/23/2009, 04:26 PM
A total lack of knowledge towards a subject never stops you libs from commenting huh?

call me lib all you want, but FDR was supposed to instantly have the country rolling after the benchmark for economic collapse in modern history?

ok, so maybe it wasn't entirely Hoover's mess, oh well

it's just like blaming any of this on Obama doesn't really make any sense

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 04:28 PM
If you consider Russia Europe, then yes. ;)

I vote we don't do it in the winter.

Sincerely,

Napoleon

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 04:33 PM
I vote we don't do it in the winter.

Sincerely,

Napoleon and Hitler

Fixed.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/23/2009, 04:37 PM
It takes a special kind of mental disorder to spin the Great Depression as some kind of economic paradise we should try to replicate.

No wonder they seem to be so eager to see a economic depression once again. Its like they are just hoping for it to happen.It's EXACTLY that way. I remember pointing out Oabama was going to be the second coming of FDR, and the Frozen Mod answered that he thought, and hoped that I was right about that. Everything is going to be just swell.

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 04:42 PM
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 05:19 PM
it's just like blaming any of this on Obama doesn't really make any sense

The cause of this is not his fault, but the current free fall on wall street and the flight of capital in the last month IS his fault, and we will all suffer as a result of it. God HELP us.

Wall Street has ZERO confidence in our president at this point. Tax Cheat Timmuah has done nothing to instill any confidence in the capital markets.

Remember his so called "plan"? WTF was that? More like a plan to have a plan at some point. Pfft.

Where the hell is the plan to fix the actual problem here? We spent how long trying to figure out how to spend a cool trillion on ACORN, STDs and bee insurance, but what about fixing the God Damn Problem??

Obama is in over his head, BIG TIME. If he makes it 4 years at this point, I will be surprised.

No leadership whatsoever.

I guess this is what WE get when WE elect a left-wing radical who has absolutely ZERO experience at doing anything.

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 05:22 PM
The cause of this is not his fault, but the current free fall on wall street is his fault, and we will all suffer as a result of it.

Wall Street has ZERO confidence in our president at this point. Tax Cheat Timmuah has done nothing to instill any confidence in the capital markets.

Remember his so called "plan"? WTF was that? More like a plan to have a plan at some point. Pfft.

Where the hell is the plan to fix the actual problem here? We spend how long trying to figure out how to spend a cool trillion on ACORN and bee insurance, but what about fixing the God Damn Problem which is the banks????

Obama is in over his head, big time.

No leadership whatsoever.

I guess this is what WE get when WE elect a left-wing radical who has absolutely ZERO experience at doing anything.

I'm curious, and please try and refrain from acting like a partisan twit in your reply, as to what you think the reaction to the situation would have been had W remained in office or if McCain had been elected? Again, try and stay focused here.

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 05:25 PM
I weep for the Republic.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 05:28 PM
I'm curious, and please try and refrain from acting like a partisan twit in your reply, as to what you think the reaction to the situation would have been had W remained in office or if McCain had been elected? Again, try and stay focused here.
We saw what Bush did. Pump capital into the banks, and try to buy the bad assets.

I believe the kept us from falling off a cliff for a little while, but it was just a bandaid. At least Bush tried to instill some confidence back in the markets.

but Obama? What the hell has he done except get the most insane pork bill passed and throw money at GM??? THATS NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM!!!!

All that says is that Unless your in the UAW or ACORN, you are SCREWED!

S&P 500 is at 1997 levels right now, I expect it to get worse, cause we are not seeing any leadership from this man at all.

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2009, 05:29 PM
Man, I wish I could afford to buy a cabin in the mountains and just wait this whole thing out while clutching my guns and Bible. Maybe Daddy Barack will buy one for me.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 05:32 PM
I weep for the Republic.
Better be weeping.

10+ years of gains, GONE.

Thats jobs, retirements, payrolls, everything.

All we hear from Oblahma is how much of a Crisis this is. Good job Barry, you got your God damn wish!

Never waste a crisis he says. You betcha!

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 05:36 PM
Better be weeping.

10+ years of gains, GONE.

Thats jobs, retirements, payrolls, everything.

All we hear from Oblahma is how much of a Crisis this is. Good job Barry, you got your God damn wish!

Never waste a crisis he says. You betcha!

You really can't be this stupid, can you?

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 05:39 PM
You really can't be this stupid, can you?
Yeah, not that stupid at all.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/uploads/aig-lies.png

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 05:41 PM
Better be weeping.

10+ years of gains, GONE.

Thats jobs, retirements, payrolls, everything.

All we hear from Oblahma is how much of a Crisis this is. Good job Barry, you got your God damn wish!

Never waste a crisis he says. You betcha!

Those 10 years of gains were virtually gone before he took office, and would be gone regardless of who was in office now.

Let me get this straight though, you're screaming about how big a crisis this is and how Obama is doing nothing to alleviate the crisis because he's pointing out that it's a crisis? Got it.

I certainly don't think the 1 trillion dollar bailout bill (which contrary to what you've implied does not all go to ACORN and the UAW) is going to fix the problem, but at the same time I have enough perspective to know this isn't Obama's fault....yet.

Tuba, you're so partisan you really have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. And could you please stop calling him Barry? Can we have enough respect for the office to at least refer to him as, "The President." At least call him Obama....

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 05:50 PM
Let me get this straight though, you're screaming about how big a crisis this is and how Obama is doing nothing to alleviate the crisis because he's pointing out that it's a crisis? Got it.

You really have no clue what is going on, do you??

The capital markets need guidance from the government. THEY GOT NOTHING!!

Tim Geitner is a friggin joke.

Just look at the market, its telling you all you need to know right now. This is not fundamentals folks, this is ZERO CONFIDENCE in anyone in goverment trying to do the right thing. THAT is why I am screaming.

NO LEADERSHIP AT ALL.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 06:01 PM
Some more moments of great leadership 7 confidence...

AIG, which we all own 80% of now, didn't warn that it needed 60 BILLION by monday or they are gonna go byebye. "Oops, we dun forgots!"

Gee, that wasn't intentional, was it? THAT IS FRAUD! $60 BILLION worth of tax payer funded fraud.

Can't wait to see what kind of games GM and CITI get to play with us now.

soonerscuba
2/23/2009, 06:07 PM
Classic, I don't think he realizes the irony of the current stem of nationalization and what he sounds like pinning it on Obama, especially in regards to AIG.

Perhaps if he read "My Pet Goat" you'd be more comfortable?

KC//CRIMSON
2/23/2009, 06:11 PM
This is fun, watching Tuba's head explode before our very eyes.

Keep it up and you could land a role in Scanners IV.

JohnnyMack
2/23/2009, 06:12 PM
Some more moments of great leadership 7 confidence...

AIG, which we all own 80% of now, didn't warn that it needed 60 BILLION by monday or they are gonna go byebye. "Oops, we dun forgots!"

Gee, that wasn't intentional, was it? THAT IS FRAUD! $60 BILLION worth of tax payer funded fraud.

Can't wait to see what kind of games GM and CITI get to play with us now.

You're blaming AIG on Obama?

Cool.

OklahomaTuba
2/23/2009, 06:17 PM
Classic, I don't think he realizes the irony of the current stem of nationalization and what he sounds like pinning it on Obama, especially in regards to AIG.

Perhaps if he read "My Pet Goat" you'd be more comfortable?

Not sure how you got me pinning AIG on Obama, but I think the current situation shows that nationalization IS NOT the way to go if this shiat happens.

But that would require a plan and leadership, and neither exist at this point.

soonerscuba
2/23/2009, 06:34 PM
But that would require a plan and leadership, and neither exist at this point.There is a plan, and it's less than a month into his presidency, you have no confidence simply because he is pursuing a Democratic agenda, just be honest and admit that. You can't reasonably objectify a presidency 30 days in, and let's be honest even if the market turns around and we see growth, you won't give him an equal amount of credit. I'm sure it will be the Reagan tax cuts or the surge, or a Republican supported Congressional package, or some other nonsense. Hell, you've been trying to convince us that a WWII winning, Depression guiding, 4 term, coined president extended our suffering and anguish, it's little more than contrarian partisan views coming from a contrarian partisan person.

Okla-homey
2/23/2009, 08:43 PM
Okay, I'll say this. I honestly think the happy little band of extremely smart guys are doing their best. The scary part is the Market has dropped to the levels it was mid-way thru the second Clinton administration. Remember that one? Its the one in which things didn't go too well.

Anyhoo, you know why the market tumbled off a cliff? Because the Street doesn't like the "n" word. No, not that "n" word. "Nationalization." It conjurs images of shares of stock becoming instantly grossly devalued or even worthless. Images of what happened to American investment in Cuba in the 50's. Libya in the 70's. Nicaragua in the 80's. etc.

Hopefully this happy band of change agents will come to realize this and STFU with the nationalization talk. Or not. I'm just glad I cashed out last October.

Oh, and I did get a giggle out of a NBC Nightly News story in which it was reported some investigative reporter dude at NBC has determined that not a single member of the White House autombile industry recovery overwatchery team drives an American car. Not one. Hee.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/23/2009, 08:43 PM
Those 10 years of gains were virtually gone before he took office, and would be gone regardless of who was in office now.

Let me get this straight though, you're screaming about how big a crisis this is and how Obama is doing nothing to alleviate the crisis because he's pointing out that it's a crisis? Got it.

I certainly don't think the 1 trillion dollar bailout bill (which contrary to what you've implied does not all go to ACORN and the UAW) is going to fix the problem, but at the same time I have enough perspective to know this isn't Obama's fault....yet.

Tuba, you're so partisan you really have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. And could you please stop calling him Barry? Can we have enough respect for the office to at least refer to him as, "The President." At least call him Obama....Why are you pretending that Obama might do something positive for the country? Do you figure Tuba is lower than you in the pecking order of conservatives to make fun of by our fellow leftist Sooners, so it's OK to join them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have acknowledged Obama's miserable track record in the past, and now you're acting like it doesn't predict future behaviour.

Okla-homey
2/23/2009, 08:58 PM
Why are you pretending that Obama might do something positive for the country? Do you figure Tuba is lower than you in the pecking order of conservatives to make fun of by our fellow leftist Sooners, so it's OK to join them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have acknowledged Obama's miserable track record in the past, and now you're acting like it doesn't predict future behaviour.

Haven't you figured the kid out? He likes to buck conventional wisdom. It's his M.O. You know, like the loser at the comic book store who insists Aquaman could kick Superman's butt in a stand-up fight on dry land.;)

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2009, 09:11 PM
Why are you pretending that Obama might do something positive for the country? Do you figure Tuba is lower than you in the pecking order of conservatives to make fun of by our fellow leftist Sooners, so it's OK to join them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have acknowledged Obama's miserable track record in the past, and now you're acting like it doesn't predict future behaviour.

What I believe is that there exists a reasonable and unreasonable amount of criticism. Obama certainly deserves to be criticized for the size of his bailout bill, but shifting all of the blame to him for the continual decline of the market barely a month after taking office is not reasonable. The childish play on his name is not reasonable. And those conservatives who didn't criticize Bush for his lack of conservatism and his truly massive and astonishing amount of spending are hypocrites for being the most vocal opponents of Obama's spending now.

Having said all of that, if Obama is serious about balancing the budget and cutting the deficit then he may very well drastically improve the economy...then again he might not. In either case, he should be reasonably judged based on the merits of his actions and not the typical partisan bull**** that you get from some around here.

Finally, you better believe I consider myself higher on the conservative pecking order. I don't even recognize many of the self-proclaimed conservatives around here to be legitimate conservatives. There are a lot of neo-conservatives and right-wing nationalists who are every bit as dangerous (if not more so) than the liberals they're constantly railing against.

I'm not interest in repeating partisan Republican clap trap and talking points. They have plenty of people to do that for them.

bluedogok
2/23/2009, 09:25 PM
I don't blame Obama for the current mess. But by God, everytime he opens his mouth, the market tanks another 200 points. And Geitner's actions only inspire panic. They're not responsible but they're damned sure not helping anything. They are intent on trying this Keneysian stuff and we will get to see if it works or not. You'll never hear them say "let's cut the capital gains tax," only "spend, spend, spend!" We had tarp 1, tarp 2, stimulus 1, and now word of stimus 2 soon. The American invester isn't buying the notion that we can borrow ourselves into prosperity.
Since we are going to go down the Keynesian path come hell or high water, I see no need in trying to "fix" things, because that is a pipe dream not rooted in the reality of the way things are. It will take a complete cleaning out of the executive and legislative branches of gov't to really "fix" the problem...and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

So, with the reality that they are going to mortgage the future and go down following the scriptures of Keynes, they need to threaten the banks with nationalization or taking away the TARP money they are not loaning out while waiting for interest rates to go up so they can make more money on the taxpayers dollars. Right now the banks are just exacerbating the problem by keeping the credit markets so tight, so they are in effect creating their own slide down the hole by not doing what banks are supposed to do, loan money since that is what keeps the economy moving. As long as they hoard their money, they are just making the problem worse.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/24/2009, 11:26 AM
Since we are going to go down the Keynesian path come hell or high water, I see no need in trying to "fix" things, because that is a pipe dream not rooted in the reality of the way things are. It will take a complete cleaning out of the executive and legislative branches of gov't to really "fix" the problem...and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

So, with the reality that they are going to mortgage the future and go down following the scriptures of Keynes, they need to threaten the banks with nationalization or taking away the TARP money they are not loaning out while waiting for interest rates to go up so they can make more money on the taxpayers dollars. Right now the banks are just exacerbating the problem by keeping the credit markets so tight, so they are in effect creating their own slide down the hole by not doing what banks are supposed to do, loan money since that is what keeps the economy moving. As long as they hoard their money, they are just making the problem worse.Speck!.....brace yourselves!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/24/2009, 11:40 AM
...The childish play on his name is not reasonable. And those conservatives who didn't criticize Bush for his lack of conservatism and his truly massive and astonishing amount of spending are hypocrites for being the most vocal opponents of Obama's spending now.

Finally, you better believe I consider myself higher on the conservative pecking order. I don't even recognize many of the self-proclaimed conservatives around here to be legitimate conservatives. There are a lot of neo-conservatives and right-wing nationalists who are every bit as dangerous (if not more so) than the liberals they're constantly railing against.

You know that Obama used to call himself Barry, don't you?
Are you saying that Tuba, or just who was it, that didn't criticize Bush for his massive social spending?
Please, your definitions of neo-conservatives and right-wing nationalists, as they differ from true conservatives. Thanks.

Condescending Sooner
2/24/2009, 12:14 PM
If you think Obama's campaign rhetoric about raising corporate taxes and punishing big business had no effect on the market, you know nothing about business.

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2009, 12:28 PM
Damn...


Almost 1200 points in 10 days. That's impressive, from 8300. 14%, give or take, below all support, into the "free air" with the next reasonable expected level of decline down around 3500, give or take a few hundred, from the start of the bull run in 1994.

Why do I peg it there? Because the 61.8% retrace level from that bottom to top of the DOW has been decisively lost. The SPX has similarly lost that support level, targeting 440, give or take a bit, again, from 1994. The Nasdaq targets 350, more or less, and the Russell doesn't have a defined support level, going back on my charts only to 1997. Extrapolating, it likely bottoms around 200 or so.

Maybe.

I have to give Obama, Geithner and Ben credit - if they're trying to crash the market they're doing a damn good job. In fact, I'd say their effort to play Thelma and Louise with the American economy and stock market is going swimmingly.

Except for the kiss, of course. In that regard, I think we've been violated. Certainly your 401k (now a 201k, and soon to be a 51k at this rate) looks that way.

President Obama is directly and personally responsible for no small part of this. Playing "disaster capitalism" with his "pass my (Pelosi's) bill now even though you haven't read it or the economy will go straight to Hell and burn for eternity", which was the essence of his "sales job", had an extraordinarily destructive impact on market confidence - especially when we finally got a look inside and found a weak jobs program and a whole lot of spending that wasn't going to stimulate much except the gullet of the pigs at the federal trough.

The half-statements coming out of the administration on bank nationalization are no better. “We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system”, as Geithner said, isn't an answer to the question, and in fact is nothing different than "A strong dollar is in the nation's interest" (as we watched the dollar tank by 25% over less than two years!)

That ditty and the failure to step to the microphone and make a strong, concise, and no-wiggle-room statement that we will NOT nationalize banks has led to a loss in the banking index (BKX) of thirty percent over two weeks time. Tim Geithner is directly and personally responsible for that loss of value.

This is what i mean by a total lack of leadership. Not saying Paulson or Bush or any of the other folks did the right thing, but at least they did something and didn't talk down the economy to further their political goals.

But thinking back now, i'm guessing this is the pay-to-play that Chicago politics is all about.

Don't think what people say is important? Just ask IndyMac, Morgan Stanley, et al.

yermom
2/24/2009, 12:45 PM
maybe i'm an idealist, but sunshine pumping for a temporary respite in crashing doesn't interest me much

the market seems like it's been overinflated for some time

JohnnyMack
2/24/2009, 12:46 PM
I think I'll go to Bueno for lunch. That sounds good.

yermom
2/24/2009, 12:56 PM
i'm thinking Thai

jkjsooner
2/24/2009, 01:11 PM
Yeah, not that stupid at all.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/uploads/aig-lies.png

So, let me get this straight, Tuba, you want us to nationalize the banks?

Or perhaps if we did nationalize the banks you would be screaming of a pinko takeover....

olevetonahill
2/24/2009, 01:12 PM
I think I'll go to Bueno for lunch. That sounds good.

Do they serve Artichokes ?

SoonerProphet
2/24/2009, 01:21 PM
I know I have said it before, but... It is funny as hell to see these so called "conservatives", what they are trying to conserve I do not know, sqawk about the evils of executive power. In the last eight years they have sat and watched as we have given pallets of cash to Allah Ahkbars from Gaza to Kabul, expanded the garrison/police state by creating a whole new bureaucratic agency, expanded the federal mandates for education, medicare drug benefits, blah, blah, blah.

And now we are supposed to think that these Republicans have found thier voice for fiscal restraint. I ain't buying it.

jkjsooner
2/24/2009, 01:23 PM
And, Tuba, did you think Paulson instilled confidence with his mid-TARP switcharoo? Who was it exactly who first push the idea of taxpayers owning shares in the banks? Here's a hint, he wasn't a Democrat.

The fact is, we've been in a economic crisis for a year and a half (going back to July of 2007) and we've been in an all out crash for 4 or 5 months. Blaming this on Obama is just stupid.

How's Bush's deregulation doing for you? Kinda wish we would have regulated the exotic financial instruments when we had a chance?

bluedogok
2/24/2009, 02:04 PM
I know I have said it before, but... It is funny as hell to see these so called "conservatives", what they are trying to conserve I do not know, sqawk about the evils of executive power. In the last eight years they have sat and watched as we have given pallets of cash to Allah Ahkbars from Gaza to Kabul, expanded the garrison/police state by creating a whole new bureaucratic agency, expanded the federal mandates for education, medicare drug benefits, blah, blah, blah.

And now we are supposed to think that these Republicans have found thier voice for fiscal restraint. I ain't buying it.
Yep, in an elected gov't be careful what powers you grant yourself because you may very well be granting those same powers to your "enemy" upon the next election.

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2009, 02:50 PM
So, let me get this straight, Tuba, you want us to nationalize the banks?

Or perhaps if we did nationalize the banks you would be screaming of a pinko takeover....
No, I don't, but do we have a choice at this point? No idea and neither does anyone else. Do we really want to see what happens if we triple the national debt over night? What happens to our treasuries then, hmm???

My problem is, they have dicked around and not given the market any confidence they had any plan to do anything.

Now look what happens when Big Ben comes out for a little sunshine pumping, BOOM, market took off. This is all fear folks, fear and uncertainty.

Now, back that up with a plan, or a real stimulus plan, and we can get the markets stabilized and get outta this mess ASAP.

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2009, 02:58 PM
The fact is, we've been in a economic crisis for a year and a half (going back to July of 2007) and we've been in an all out crash for 4 or 5 months. Blaming this on Obama is just stupid.

How's Bush's deregulation doing for you? Kinda wish we would have regulated the exotic financial instruments when we had a chance?

Of course, if you read another post, I have not blamed Obama for the crash, only the response of the last month, which has zapped any confidence that they know what they are doing.

As for Bush's deregulation, regulation really helped out Iceland, UK, France, Germany, China, Blackrock, PNB, etc didn't it?

Oh, wait, you mean they had the same problems with even MORE regulation than we have? Damn, so much for that dumbass argument.

Curly Bill
2/24/2009, 03:12 PM
Instead of reminding us Bush was an idiot, which most people are well aware, why don't you libs point out what a great job Obama is doing? I get the feeling though all you guys have is ragging on Bush, which I'm sure is still good fun for you guys, and no skin off my teeth at all, because Obama to this point has not done anything to inspire confidence. But hey, it's only been two months, I'm sure he'll get his act together.

JohnnyMack
2/24/2009, 03:21 PM
we have given pallets of cash to Allah Ahkbars from Gaza to Kabul

Yeah that's certainly the dirty little secret the neocon empire builders don't like to talk about.

:les:They're spreading democracy!

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2009, 04:32 PM
Looks like Gaza is getting a nice $1 Billion bailout. Is this part of the stimulus as well?? Or is Obama just surrendering to them early??

I guess that's what they mean by "shovel ready".

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/24/2009, 04:55 PM
Looks like Gaza is getting a nice $1 Billion bailout. Is this part of the stimulus as well?? Or is Obama just surrendering to them early??

I guess that's what they mean by "shovel ready".Good new signature, Tuba. No, they don't EVAR learn. IMO they don't really want societal economic prosperity, as long as their actions keep them in power.

SoonerProphet
2/24/2009, 06:47 PM
Looks like Gaza is getting a nice $1 Billion bailout. Is this part of the stimulus as well?? Or is Obama just surrendering to them early??

I guess that's what they mean by "shovel ready".


While I am an advocate of cutting aid to all nations, especially considering what we are currently dealing with at home, but you do realize that the GOP has sent millions in aid to the Palestinians too. As recently as 2007 mind you.