Lowest approval numbers in polling history

[Okla-homey]

for a US president in his first year.

I wonder what he'll do for an encore.:rolleyes:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

P.S. Although there was no polling in 1861-62, I expect Lincoln's numbers were in the crapper. However, BHO doesn't appear to be cut of Lincolnesque cloth.

[Chuck Bao]

No question here. This president of the US of A has my full support and approval. I shudder to think how bad it would be under a Republican administration. Hell, let's just start another war for the sake of the economy, scratch that I meant defense contractors.

[KABOOKIE]

Well, we are escalating forces in Afganistan, quadrupling the debt..... No..... He's my hero. Can't be.

[Chuck Bao]

So you are disagreeing with the troop surge in Afganistan? A war this President of the United States inherited from the Bush administration and one that many people are saying cannot be won. Correct me if I am wrong but a surge is the only way to wipe out as much of the Taliban as possible and try to exit gracefully. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

[AggieTool]

for a US president in his first year.

I wonder what he'll do for an encore.:rolleyes:



Let us get attacked by terrorists and invade the wrong country for it?:D

[SicEmBaylor]

So you are disagreeing with the troop surge in Afganistan? A war this President of the United States inherited from the Bush administration and one that many people are saying cannot be won. Correct me if I am wrong but a surge is the only way to wipe out as much of the Taliban as possible and try to exit gracefully. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Pull out immediately of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other overseas deployment of US troops) regardless of the consequences.

The fact he inherited the problem from Bush is no excuse for perpetuating Bush's mistakes.

[KABOOKIE]

So you are disagreeing with the troop surge in Afganistan? A war this President of the United States inherited from the Bush administration and one that many people are saying cannot be won. Correct me if I am wrong but a surge is the only way to wipe out as much of the Taliban as possible and try to exit gracefully. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

I see. More war is OK if it's by your POTUS because of the mistakes of the previous president and the one before him and before him and before him.... Go tit.

[Sooner04]

I bet I would've liked to live in our country more when we, as the voting public, WANTED our President to do well and be successful.

[JohnnyMack]

Pull out immediately of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other overseas deployment of US troops) regardless of the consequences.

The fact he inherited the problem from Bush is no excuse for perpetuating Bush's mistakes.

Sometimes SicEm gives me a stiffy.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sometimes SicEm gives me a stiffy.

How you doin'?

[Chuck Bao]

Pull out immediately of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other overseas deployment of US troops) regardless of the consequences.

The fact he inherited the problem from Bush is no excuse for perpetuating Bush's mistakes.

That is not an option. The British were terrible at that and see how many former British colonies are now basket cases. The best option is building consensus with other countries and getting the UN to take over the dirty work of peacekeeping. Cambodia is a good example of UN Peacekeepers actually helping to restore stability.

President Obama is repairing some of the self-inflicted damage of the Bush administration and hopefully can gradually reduce troop numbers with UN peacekeepers in place after wiping out as many of the Taliban bastards as possible.

That wouldn't be akin to the Bush administration starting wars or it isn't as I see it.

[SicEmBaylor]

That is not an option. The British were terrible at that and see how many former British colonies are now basket cases.
So what? That's their problem not ours. Like I said in my long-winded post a couple of days ago, I believe in killing those responsible for attacks against the US but not in nation building. Who said it was our obligation to nation build? Let the UN worry about it. Get in -- kill them -- get out.


The best option is building consensus with other countries and getting the UN to take over the dirty work of peacekeeping. Cambodia is a good example of UN Peacekeepers actually helping to restore stability.

Splendid. Let's get out and the UN can do its usual great job at spreading democracy.


President Obama is repairing some of the self-inflicted damage of the Bush administration and hopefully can gradually reduce troop numbers with UN peacekeepers in place after wiping out as many of the Taliban bastards as possible.

That wouldn't be akin to the Bush administration starting wars or it isn't as I see it.

Neither Obama nor Bush are fundamentally different in their worldview. Both are interventionists and believe in globalization. Now, the degree is different and the ways those beliefs manifest themselves into real world policy are different but at the core they're exactly the same.

Real reform will come when we pull every US soldier out of their overseas deployment, remove ourselves from every international organization of which we are a member, and in general start minding our own f'ing business and let the world deal with its own problems.

Disengagement from the world. That's the way to go.

[SicEmBaylor]

Join today!
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Am1logo.jpg

[MR2-Sooner86]

So you are disagreeing with the troop surge in Afganistan?

I disagree with what he did, waited a long *** time to make the best political decision. Either you pull out or go balls to the walls. Then the fact he didn't mention victory, put in place these BS rules of engagement, and then announces when we'll withdraw so the Taliban can sit and wait until we do leave doesn't seem to be very productive.


A war this President of the United States inherited from the Bush administration and one that many people are saying cannot be won.

Like when Harry Reid said Iraq was lost and the surge would fail?


Correct me if I am wrong but a surge is the only way to wipe out as much of the Taliban as possible and try to exit gracefully. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Maybe, just maybe, you do what the military asks you. If they need more troops you send them. You don't send them a part of what they asked for. Also, you don't demoralize your own troops by issuing a court martial on Navy Seals. You also don't put into place rules of engagement like...not able to shoot when civilians are around. How would that have worked out if that rule were put into place during WW2?


Real reform will come when we pull every US soldier out of their overseas deployment, remove ourselves from every international organization of which we are a member, and in general start minding our own f'ing business and let the world deal with its own problems.

Disengagement from the world. That's the way to go.

I agree but that'll never happen. We try to stop a dictator, we get yelled out for being world police. We keep to ourselves like in the 30's and get yelled out for not being world police and stopping the dictator.

[SicEmBaylor]

We keep to ourselves like in the 30's and get yelled out for not being world police and stopping the dictator.

Let 'em yell. I couldn't care less.
**** them. What have they done for us?

[MR2-Sooner86]

What have they done for us?
I could **** them. Let 'em yell.

:eek:

[Chuck Bao]

I disagree with the two previous posters. I imagine that there are a lot of people that would agree with you go either balls to the wall or you pull out. That would be fair and good and probably supported by 99% of our brave men and women that are serving our country. Unfortunately, that isn't the type of war that we are fighting. We are not fighting the German war machine like in WWII. It is more like Vietnam, but worse, because there is a religious element thrown in. The sooner we get muslims in to keep the peace and I somehow think that Indonesians are pretty cheap, so to speak, in a UN sponsored mission that people realize that the us versus them is not worth dying for.

[SicEmBaylor]

the us versus them is not worth dying for.

It's not. The "them" aren't worth American lives and American money. In fact, to be perfectly honestly, nobody else in the world is worth an American life.

A million dead in Darfur doesn't bother me nearly as much as 1 dead American marine sent there to keep the peace. This is as true in Darfur as it is Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, S. Korea, etc.

There are few logical reasons why we should be peace keeping or nation building and a hell of a lot of good arguments on why we shouldn't.

[PDXsooner]

Pull out immediately of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other overseas deployment of US troops) regardless of the consequences.

The fact he inherited the problem from Bush is no excuse for perpetuating Bush's mistakes.

not reasonable. are you an isolationist?

[Chuck Bao]

Seriously, President Obama is doing his best to get our people out of this quagmire. I think he gets it and I like the strategy as I see it. The whole idea that we are going to be leaving in two years and just bide your time is bull**** if there are muslims willing to step up and say we do not allow bloodshed and senseless slaughter in a muslim country. That is not a difficult sell, people. A little diplomacy works. An attitude of we are the ****ing US of A and we can bomb your sorry *** back into the stone age obviously does not. This is not rocket science. A little bit of sensititivity for local sentiment does indeed help.

[PDXsooner]

It's not. The "them" aren't worth American lives and American money. In fact, to be perfectly honestly, nobody else in the world is worth an American life.

A million dead in Darfur doesn't bother me nearly as much as 1 dead American marine sent there to keep the peace. This is as true in Darfur as it is Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, S. Korea, etc.

There are few logical reasons why we should be peace keeping or nation building and a hell of a lot of good arguments on why we shouldn't.

disappointing to read that from you.

[Chuck Bao]

I disagree with what he did, waited a long *** time to make the best political decision. Either you pull out or go balls to the walls. Then the fact he didn't mention victory, put in place these BS rules of engagement, and then announces when we'll withdraw so the Taliban can sit and wait until we do leave doesn't seem to be very productive.

Like when Harry Reid said Iraq was lost and the surge would fail?

Maybe, just maybe, you do what the military asks you. If they need more troops you send them. You don't send them a part of what they asked for. Also, you don't demoralize your own troops by issuing a court martial on Navy Seals. You also don't put into place rules of engagement like...not able to shoot when civilians are around. How would that have worked out if that rule were put into place during WW2?

I agree but that'll never happen. We try to stop a dictator, we get yelled out for being world police. We keep to ourselves like in the 30's and get yelled out for not being world police and stopping the dictator.

Let me explain very clearly that I love and fully appreciate our brave men and women that serve our country and I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them to wage a war in a foreign land with a devoutly religious population that basically instructs them to repel the invaders and kill the infidels. Afganistan is not strategic, but the taliban did harbor known terrorists. I agree with Sic'em to some degree because we can't win this. Let the muslims decide if it is worth sacrificing their young men and women to attain peace. If they think not, why are we there? There is no technology and nothing beyond the poppy fields. Like that is something that muslims should be proud of.

[Veritas]

So let's get back to how Obama's polling numbers suck and how it's Bush's fault. I was interested to see the spin on that play out.

[JohnnyMack]

We should have dropped a tactical nuclear warhead on those **********s in Tora Bora in December of 2001 and been done with it.

[JohnnyMack]

So let's get back to how Obama's polling numbers suck and how it's Bush's fault. I was interested to see the spin on that play out.

Hows about you take your Turner Gil avatar down since he's about to coach one of yer enemies?

Thx.

[SicEmBaylor]

We should have dropped a tactical nuclear warhead on those **********s in Tora Bora in December of 2001 and been done with it.

Yep, **** man anything we did ourselves would have been better than what we did....letting the crack troops of the Northern Alliance go after him. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ouwasp]

Well, look at BHO's numbers this way... they are bound to get better when he appears on the cover of that golf magazine with Tiger next month, right?

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, look at BHO's numbers this way... they are bound to get better when he appears on the cover of that golf magazine with Tiger next month, right?

Those pictures are out of context and sexist.

[Chuck Bao]

So let's get back to how Obama's polling numbers suck and how it's Bush's fault. I was interested to see the spin on that play out.

Good grief. Where do I start? I think it has to be President Clinton and the decision to allow China to devalue its currency. Already economists were saying that China would discount the world. We didn't know what discount the world reall meant back then. The rest of Asia soon learned what that meant with the Asian economic crisis and it was really stupid that US hedge funds and US big bank currency traders were attacking central banks in Asia and forcing them to capitulate one by one and give up basically 90% of their country's wealth and that was all in the name of capitaliism. One-by-one they fell and the spiral continued until there was nothing left. America and Americans didn't realize what was going on the world at that time because there was this dot.com boom and then bust. The dot.com bust was horrific in wipping out huge wealth, but nothing like Asia. The saving grace for the US is that inflation was low because Asia had already devalued. Low interest rates and US people got some really stupid idea of keep mortaging their home to pay for their crazy spending habits.

Flash forward and Obama becomes president and he does some good stuff om restoring confidence in the financial markets and some good stuff in ensuring that people can actuallly be treated for medical maladies and he gets the lowest approval rating. What is wrong with you people?

[Boarder]

for a US president in his first year.

I wonder what he'll do for an encore.:rolleyes:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

P.S. Although there was no polling in 1861-62, I expect Lincoln's numbers were in the crapper. However, BHO doesn't appear to be cut of Lincolnesque cloth.
Where did you get the lowest number in history? I didn't see that. Reagan had a December average of 49% vs Obama's 50% so one would think that Reagan had a pretty low number, too. He looks similar to Reagan and Clinton in this list:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/w8ltrreqvksi0-auzfkyaw.gif

[Frozen Sooner]

He dropped to 47% on the 6th. Though I think Ford still had a lower rating in his first year.

[Boarder]

Well, if W. having the highest first year December rating is an indication, I'd say Mr. Obama is doing well.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Where did you get the lowest number in history? I didn't see that. Reagan had a December average of 49% vs Obama's 50% so one would think that Reagan had a pretty low number, too. He looks similar to Reagan and Clinton in this list:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/w8ltrreqvksi0-auzfkyaw.gif

His approval rating is 47%, lower than all of those.

Whoops Froze beat me to it.

[Boarder]

His approval rating is 47%, lower than all of those.

Whoops Froze beat me to it.
Those are December averages. Av-er-ages.

[Frozen Sooner]

His approval rating is 47%, lower than all of those.

Whoops Froze beat me to it.

It's actually at 50% right now. Which is funny, because for the longest time the OP was trying to convince us that more people disapproved of Obama than approved.

[SicEmBaylor]

not reasonable. are you an isolationist?

Yes.

[Chuck Bao]

Are you really considering this?

Seriously, the worst economic contraction since the great deprepssion and you really want to compare? Crap on a bungy stick, you really, really hate President Obama. Got it.

[Chuck Bao]

I am not calling anyone racist pigs. But, just listen to yourselves and your reasons. It just gets silly and more silly. Finally, we get a good president and you want to tear him down. I am not surprised.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Those are December averages. Av-er-ages.

It helps to read the entire thing huh? ;)

[JLEW1818]

Hussein is a great politician... actually maybe one of the best in my opinions.. I've only lived on this earth for 22 years, but he seems pretty good at manipulating people

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

We should have dropped a tactical nuclear warhead on those **********s in Tora Bora in December of 2001 and been done with it.

x10!!

[Okla-homey]

Finally, we get a good president and you want to tear him down. I am not surprised.

When was the last time you were in the United States? There are a huge number of Americans who are jobless, and most of those have no hope of getting a job. All this green stuff and healthcare reform BS is not doing anything to give those unemployed folks hope. To quote a former administration, "it's the economy stupid."

The good news is, unless BHO's numbers improve, the 2010 mid-terms will result in a sea change in Congress that will make the White House incapable of further damaging this economy.

[SicEmBaylor]

Christ-o-mighty, you know we're f'ed as a nation when we have to depend on the g-damned President of the g-damned Failure..err Federal government to ensure the peons have jobs.

It really shouldn't be the government's job to find anyone a job; however, since they are largely responsible for the economic downturn it becomes their responsibility to find a solution. So it becomes an endless cycle of craptacular economic and social policy that at best is a temporary band-aid solution to the problem and at worst it exacerbates the situation.

I can't for the life of me understand why any sane free-thinking individual expects anything positive to come from D.C. It's a cesspool of bottom dwelling pond scum...of both the red and blue variety.

[Harry Beanbag]

Christ-o-mighty, you know we're f'ed as a nation when we have to depend on the g-damned President of the g-damned Failure..err Federal government to ensure the peons have jobs.

It really shouldn't be the government's job to find anyone a job; however, since they are largely responsible for the economic downturn it becomes their responsibility to find a solution. So it becomes an endless cycle of craptacular economic and social policy that at best is a temporary band-aid solution to the problem and at worst it exacerbates the situation.

I can't for the life of me understand why any sane free-thinking individual expects anything positive to come from D.C. It's a cesspool of bottom dwelling pond scum...of both the red and blue variety.


This. The government is the problem, that's the first and most important law of politics.

[olevetonahill]

Hers MY nickles worth
Get US the **** OUT of the UN . Get US the **** out of other Countries .
Dont sit around fer 3 months Scratchin yer asz tryin to guess whats the Most political way to settle this shat .
If ya gonna WANT to Be the HNIC , BE the HNIC .
Dont let the ****in Hanoi Janes of this counter Dictate to YOU

Either Give our troops what they NEED to win or Bring em Home .

[Okla-homey]

Christ-o-mighty, you know we're f'ed as a nation when we have to depend on the g-damned President of the g-damned Failure..err Federal government to ensure the peons have jobs.

It really shouldn't be the government's job to find anyone a job; however, since they are largely responsible for the economic downturn it becomes their responsibility to find a solution. So it becomes an endless cycle of craptacular economic and social policy that at best is a temporary band-aid solution to the problem and at worst it exacerbates the situation.

I can't for the life of me understand why any sane free-thinking individual expects anything positive to come from D.C. It's a cesspool of bottom dwelling pond scum...of both the red and blue variety.

I quite agree its not the gubmint's responsibility to find jobs for people. It's the government's job to create an environment in which the private sector thrives, thus enabling it to employ people. Ronaldus Maximus (peace be upon him) taught and proved that in the Eighties.

The sad facts are though, if people are out of work, they blame the gubmint. And that's going to be an enormous cross the BHO administration and the Donks will bear going forward.

I found this interesting as well. According to pundit Leonard Pitts appearing in the editorial section of the Tulsa World this a.m., BHO's approval numbers, parsed by race, are; 39% among whites; 91% among blacks, and; 70% among hispanics. Wowza!

Link below is from Seattle Times as, for some reason, the World website didn't carry Pitts' editorial depsite the fact it published it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2010408790_pitts03.html

[Condescending Sooner]

I am not calling anyone racist pigs. But, just listen to yourselves and your reasons. It just gets silly and more silly. Finally, we get a good president and you want to tear him down. I am not surprised.


Your love for Obama has been apparent for some time now. You keep throwing out the race card and hoping it sticks. You might think he is a good president, but the majority of people who actually live in this country do not.

Given your lifestyle, you would think you would be tolerant of other peoples' opinions instead of name calling when they don't agree with you.

[NormanPride]

We need a freaking reset button.

[OklahomaTuba]

The good news is, unless BHO's numbers improve, the 2010 mid-terms will result in a sea change in Congress that will make the White House incapable of further damaging this economy.At this point, they probably won't improve.

It would probably take 2 years of substantial economic growth to get back to where we were before teleprompter Jesus was elected.

And the debt he has generated just in 11 months is beyond anything ever seen in human history, much less in American history.

I think your right, 2010 will be a sea change. At this rate it looks possible for the GOP to take back both houses. Maybe some of the damage the liberals have done to this country can be fixed then.

[JohnnyMack]

At this point, they probably won't improve.

It would probably take 2 years of substantial economic growth to get back to where we were before teleprompter Jesus was elected.

And the debt he has generated just in 11 months is beyond anything ever seen in human history, much less in American history.

I think your right, 2010 will be a sea change. At this rate it looks possible for the GOP to take back both houses. Maybe some of the damage the liberals have done to this country can be fixed then.

Remember folks, neocons don't damage the country. It's all the dirty libs fault.

[Veritas]

Let's not get personal on Chuck. That's out of bounds.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I only care about one thing from my President: economic and fiscal policy. Don't care about "moral" issues. If you want to get a m2f sex change but before you get the wang2vag operation accidently knock up a licensed and legal hooker while high as a kite on your prescription pot and she goes and grinds that baby into hamburger, I don't give a **** politically. I have massive personal convictions about some of that, but I don't wish to see my personal convictions transformed into written law (side note: that's a core attribute of being a *real* conservative).

Obama sucks because his fiscal and economic policies and decisions are ****ing retarded, not because he's black. Jebus, Chuck, just because someone ardently believes the President is actively participating in economically ***-****ing this country doesn't mean they're racist.

[C&CDean]

I am not calling anyone racist pigs. But, just listen to yourselves and your reasons. It just gets silly and more silly. Finally, we get a good president and you want to tear him down. I am not surprised.

Chuck, the minute you play the race card (again), your whole argument goes straight down the crapper. It's the only thing you've got, and you're wearing it out.

You live in Thailand. Your whole perspective of his presidency is based on the ****ing asian stock markets and how much foreigners love him. Guess what? Most Americans a) don't give a **** about the asian markets, and b) really don't give a **** that foreigners hate us. We've been hated forever. We pull Europe out of the ****storm how many times? - and we're still the ugly Americans over there. Yeah, I know, we deserve it. Meh.

Anyhow, for Americans, who live in America, your boy blows giant chunks as the potus. Giant. Fetid. Putrid. Massive. Disgusting. Chunks.

[bonkuba]

Chuck, the minute you play the race card (again), your whole argument goes straight down the crapper. It's the only thing you've got, and you're wearing it out.

You live in Thailand. Your whole perspective of his presidency is based on the ****ing asian stock markets and how much foreigners love him. Guess what? Most Americans a) don't give a **** about the asian markets, and b) really don't give a **** that foreigners hate us. We've been hated forever. We pull Europe out of the ****storm how many times? - and we're still the ugly Americans over there. Yeah, I know, we deserve it. Meh.

Anyhow, for Americans, who live in America, your boy blows giant chunks as the potus. Giant. Fetid. Putrid. Massive. Disgusting. Chunks.

Best post evar!!!

[Collier11]

That is not an option. The British were terrible at that and see how many former British colonies are now basket cases. The best option is building consensus with other countries and getting the UN to take over the dirty work of peacekeeping. Cambodia is a good example of UN Peacekeepers actually helping to restore stability.

President Obama is repairing some of the self-inflicted damage of the Bush administration and hopefully can gradually reduce troop numbers with UN peacekeepers in place after wiping out as many of the Taliban bastards as possible.

That wouldn't be akin to the Bush administration starting wars or it isn't as I see it.

and putting us even deeper into debt

[Collier11]

The second that being an elected official became more about their career and who their constituents are and less about the people they are supposed to work for and represent, the country started falling apart, it doesnt matter if they are Republican or Democrat

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck, the minute you play the race card (again), your whole argument goes straight down the crapper. It's the only thing you've got, and you're wearing it out.

You live in Thailand. Your whole perspective of his presidency is based on the ****ing asian stock markets and how much foreigners love him. Guess what? Most Americans a) don't give a **** about the asian markets, and b) really don't give a **** that foreigners hate us. We've been hated forever. We pull Europe out of the ****storm how many times? - and we're still the ugly Americans over there. Yeah, I know, we deserve it. Meh.

Anyhow, for Americans, who live in America, your boy blows giant chunks as the potus. Giant. Fetid. Putrid. Massive. Disgusting. Chunks.

Alright, I will keep my opinions to myself since I don't live in the country and can't possibly understand what state-side Americans are going through and how many of you feel.

I probably do read more about the US economy than 99% of Americans and maybe 90% of posters on this board since I am an economist and it is my job. But, obviously that doesn’t make my opinions valid.

I did think that it would be interesting for Americans to learn what is happening in Asia since Asia is stealing American jobs, racking up huge trade surpluses and using the proceeds to buy up US government debt. This, in my opinion, is one of the roots to the current US economic problems and a danger if Asia stops financing US debt. I guess I was wrong.

Despite what I said above, I am surprised at the sheer hatred expressed in many posts. But, I get that many Americans are angry. You should be. But, the problems were there long before this administration took office and the global financial crisis came to a head just as President Obama was sworn in office. I apologize to anyone who felt insulted by my last post. I deserved to be shot down.

If you will allow me to say one last thing before I hang up the phone, the jobs lost are not going to be replaced and the economic recovery is going to take more than two years. Corporate America has sold us out and the top guys still get their performance bonuses. The divergence of Wall Street and Main Street should be pretty obvious with the US stock markets trading near 14-month highs. Spin that anyway you want.

I know that I should not click on threads attacking the US President and I would sleep better at night without Giant. Fetid. Putrid. Massive. Disgusting. Chunks. God bless America.

[C&CDean]

Uh, OK?

Chuck, people are angry. They're angry at the last POTUS, and they're really angry at this new POTUS for not only carrying on with the drunken sailor spending, but taking it to whole new levels of stupid.

I think the reason some people come across as seriously hating this prez is because we've had to listen to/watch so many of you drool all over his scrote like he's the second coming of Jesus H. Allah. The guy is a ****ing charlatan. He is so far out of his league doing this whole president gig that it's beyond sad. The guy is a buffoon, and when people watch other people fawn all over a buffoon it gets grating after a while.

I'm just glad some folks in America are starting to wake up from the butt secks honeymoon and are starting to smell the damn coffee.

So go ahead and insult our intelligence with the stuff you know about ($$) but don't do it with the "you hate him cause he's black" schtick. Hell man, he's just as white as he is black. Doesn't matter either way though. He's leading this country into the worst financial mess we've ever seen, and some of you are cheering him on. And you want us to get real?

[picasso]

Remember folks, neocons don't damage the country. It's all the neomarxists fault.

current fixed.

[picasso]

Uh, OK?

Chuck, people are angry. They're angry at the last POTUS, and they're really angry at this new POTUS for not only carrying on with the drunken sailor spending, but taking it to whole new levels of stupid.

I think the reason some people come across as seriously hating this prez is because we've had to listen to/watch so many of you drool all over his scrote like he's the second coming of Jesus H. Allah. The guy is a ****ing charlatan. He is so far out of his league doing this whole president gig that it's beyond sad. The guy is a buffoon, and when people watch other people fawn all over a buffoon it gets grating after a while.

I'm just glad some folks in America are starting to wake up from the butt secks honeymoon and are starting to smell the damn coffee.

So go ahead and insult our intelligence with the stuff you know about ($$) but don't do it with the "you hate him cause he's black" schtick. Hell man, he's just as white as he is black. Doesn't matter either way though. He's leading this country into the worst financial mess we've ever seen, and some of you are cheering him on. And you want us to get real?

Don't forget about the congress. People hated them more than Bushie although you'd never hear about it from the tellie people.

[soonerscuba]

Uh, OK?

Chuck, people are angry. They're angry at the last POTUS, and they're really angry at this new POTUS for not only carrying on with the drunken sailor spending, but taking it to whole new levels of stupid.

I think the reason some people come across as seriously hating this prez is because we've had to listen to/watch so many of you drool all over his scrote like he's the second coming of Jesus H. Allah. The guy is a ****ing charlatan. He is so far out of his league doing this whole president gig that it's beyond sad. The guy is a buffoon, and when people watch other people fawn all over a buffoon it gets grating after a while.

I'm just glad some folks in America are starting to wake up from the butt secks honeymoon and are starting to smell the damn coffee.

So go ahead and insult our intelligence with the stuff you know about ($$) but don't do it with the "you hate him cause he's black" schtick. Hell man, he's just as white as he is black. Doesn't matter either way though. He's leading this country into the worst financial mess we've ever seen, and some of you are cheering him on. And you want us to get real?Has your life drastically changed since Obama took office? I do remember this being a favorite argument of yours back when W was taking heat.

[Okla-homey]

Despite what I said above, I am surprised at the sheer hatred expressed in many posts. But, I get that many Americans are angry. You should be. But, the problems were there long before this administration took office and the global financial crisis came to a head just as President Obama was sworn in office.

But he ran as the Hope-n-Change guy who was going to fix everything and give us all a pony. I remember. "Big Rock Candy Mountain" and all that tripe.

The simple fact is, a year in, it's all his mess now, our canoe is up Feces Creek and he clearly has no earthly concept how to get us back down river. Instead, he's still paddling upstream for all he's worth. The only thing the guy is good at is giving good speech. Empty suit.

That tends to infuriate folks. All we can do is live for the day one-party rule ends in 2010 and we get our country back.

[Chuck Bao]

Uh, OK?

Chuck, people are angry. They're angry at the last POTUS, and they're really angry at this new POTUS for not only carrying on with the drunken sailor spending, but taking it to whole new levels of stupid.

I think the reason some people come across as seriously hating this prez is because we've had to listen to/watch so many of you drool all over his scrote like he's the second coming of Jesus H. Allah. The guy is a ****ing charlatan. He is so far out of his league doing this whole president gig that it's beyond sad. The guy is a buffoon, and when people watch other people fawn all over a buffoon it gets grating after a while.

I'm just glad some folks in America are starting to wake up from the butt secks honeymoon and are starting to smell the damn coffee.

So go ahead and insult our intelligence with the stuff you know about ($$) but don't do it with the "you hate him cause he's black" schtick. Hell man, he's just as white as he is black. Doesn't matter either way though. He's leading this country into the worst financial mess we've ever seen, and some of you are cheering him on. And you want us to get real?

Good grief. I never in my wildest dreams thought about posting to insult people. If I came across that way or arrogant in any way, I again apologize. But, do you not recognize the fact that many posts here attacking the US president is way over the top and even more insulting the intelligence of SF readers. Most of it is misleading and clearly wrong. If you want to respond by tagging me with playing the racist card on every post, that would be sad. I probably deserve it and I have apologized.

It would be one thing to think that the blow out of government deficit spending is entirely due to spending on social programs. It is entirely a different thing, in this case, without stimulus and bank bailout measures that we would see a global economic collapse that would make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park. It would have gotten really ugly, really quick, trust me on this one. It is weird that nobody here is stating the obvious of what the alternative would have been. Instead, it is the socialist evil guy in the White House that epitomizes all that is wrong in the world.

Most of what I am saying I have said before. I really do not think I will change anyone’s opinions. It gets really, really confused that Americans are so proud and think about their prestige and yet show a complete disdain on what other people think.

It is a bit galling for me to think that life as we know it could end with the next terrorist plot. Meanwhile, Americans are dying because of inadequate health care. It is just so weird that our budget is mainly to protect American interests overseas and not so much on giving our own people health care and medicine prices given to developing countries. Call me arrogant all you want.

[Veritas]

It is entirely a different thing, in this case, without stimulus and bank bailout measures that we would see a global economic collapse that would make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park. It would have gotten really ugly, really quick, trust me on this one.
Yeah...global economic collapse was not really a given, Chuck. The alternative outcome one projects depends on the economic school of thought to which they subscribe.

You're presenting this, your opinion, as a generally accepted fact...but it's not.

[Collier11]

most didnt want the bailout Chuck

[SicEmBaylor]

most didnt want the bailout Chuck

I sure as hell didn't.

In fact, IF (and that's a big IF), there had been some sort of major global economic collapse then I'm not totally sure that wouldn't have been a bad thing in the long run.

A good blood letting might have had a lot of positives. It'd at least allow institutions with utterly rotten foundations to naturally collapse rather than be artificially propped up for God knows how long.

[Chuck Bao]

Yeah...global economic collapse was not really a given, Chuck. The alternative outcome one projects depends on the economic school of thought to which they subscribe.

You're presenting this, your opinion, as a generally accepted fact...but it's not.

Oh, we got a very good glimpse of it and it was not pretty. We came just inches close to a global economic meltdown earlier this year. I posted about this earlier that Thai banks were warning exporters through a daily black list to not trust letters of credit issued by US banks. Exports from Korean, Japan, China, Southeast Asia was down more than 50% because of the lack of confidence in trade financing. The whole international trade came so close to utter collapse.

You can so "so what?", but our world is so much more reliant on international trade than during the Great Depression. The repercussions would have been enormous and much more far reaching.

[Chuck Bao]

most didnt want the bailout Chuck

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no way that any of them would be in business without an implied goverment support.

[Okla-homey]

Tomorrow, we'll get to hear the shortest Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in history.

I hear he declined to have lunch with the King of Norway as is traditional for Nobel recipients. No president in my memory has been so adept at p1ssing off our allies and apologizing to our enemies.

[Chuck Bao]

Tomorrow, we'll get to hear the shortest Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in history.

I hear he declined to have lunch with the King of Norway as is traditional for Nobel recipients. No president in my memory has been so adept at p1ssing off our allies and apologizing to our enemies.

You must have an incredibly short memory. I do too, but that's okay. Some of us are handicaped that way.

[Collier11]

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no way that any of them would be in business without an implied goverment support.

Actually I do Chuck, dont be so petty...several polls were conducted prior to the bailout being approved and the majority of Americans didnt want one. Just because I dont work in the financial sector doesnt mean I dont know the pulse of those whom I live amongst

[Chuck Bao]

Actually I do Chuck, dont be so petty...several polls were conducted prior to the bailout being approved and the majority of Americans didnt want one. Just because I dont work in the financial sector doesnt mean I dont know the pulse of those whom I live amongst

Of course the majority of Americans didn't want a bailout. I didn't want it. But, the confidence needed to be restored to the system. How much of a red flag do you want - I said that Thai banks were warning their customers to avoid US and European banks. That is beyond anything that I ever imagined.

Do I think it could have been handled better? Definitely. I was arguing on this board at that time and still now that the banks should have been nationalized. But, I can also hear the chorus of boos from this crowd about the Obama administration convertng to the country to a socialist dictatorship. Now, "too big to fail" is being seriously debated as it should.

[Collier11]

Of course the majority of Americans didn't want a bailout. I didn't want it. But, the confidence needed to be restored to the system. How much of a red flag do you want - I said that Thai banks were warning their customers to avoid US and European banks. That is beyond anything that I ever imagined.

Do I think it could have been handled better? Definitely. I was arguing on this board at that time and still now that the banks should have been nationalized. But, I can also hear the chorus of boos from this crowd about the Obama administration convertng to the country to a socialist dictatorship. Now, "too big to fail" is being seriously debated as it should.

Ok well what you just said in this post is completely different than the last post where you told me I dont know what im talking about

[Collier11]

Terrific investments made with our money


Taxpayers lose $61B on AIG, auto bailouts

Ap Business Writer – Wed Dec 9, 6:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades.

The government is losing more than $30 billion on lifelines extended to insurance giant American International Group Inc., according to Treasury data released Wednesday in an audit by the Government Accountability Office. It also is losing more than $30 billion on rescues of struggling automakers Chrysler and General Motors.

Treasury says the losses are offset in part by profits earned from bank bailouts. It says the bank bailouts will net taxpayers $19.5 billion.

Over all, the bailouts are projected to cost taxpayers $41.5 billion.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has extended the $700 billion financial bailout program until October, setting up a struggle between Democrats who favor using some of the leftover money to help generate jobs and Republicans who say it should be used to shrink soaring budget deficits.

The administration insists the bailout fund is still needed to prevent further turmoil in the banking system. In announcing the decision Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said extending the program also will help homeowners struggling to avoid losing homes to foreclosures and small businesses having trouble getting loans.

The administration is now projecting the losses to the government from the bailout program will be around $141 billion — $200 billion less than it estimated two months ago.

President Barack Obama said the freed-up money can help reduce the record-high federal budget deficit and "invest in job creation on Main Street rather than Wall Street."

Obama spoke to reporters after a meeting with congressional leaders aimed at providing momentum for a new jobs program he outlined Tuesday. That effort seeks to combat the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate by providing tax breaks to encourage companies to hire new workers, increase bank lending to small businesses and provide a fresh round of infrastructure spending.

The administration has not provided details on the size of the new spending package. But Democratic leaders suggested it could cost between $75 billion and $150 billion.

Democrats initially hoped to pass Obama's proposals this month. But the proposals likely will slip until early January, given opposition from Republicans and the to-do list already facing Congress as it struggles to finish business before Christmas.

Both the administration and Democratic leaders have indicated they want to divert some of the unspent bailout funds to a jobs program. Their goal is to refashion a hugely unpopular program viewed by voters as a taxpayer-funded bailout for big Wall Street firms that then reaped millions of dollars in lavish bonuses.

Republicans vowed to keep trying to close down the rescue program by the end of this month. They said any leftover funds should be devoted exclusively to curbing the country's soaring budget deficits.

"The Obama administration just can't seem to let go of the $700 billion in 'walking around money' taxpayers were forced to put on the line to bailout Wall Street last year," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Republicans also criticized Treasury for using the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a slush fund to support programs that Congress never intended — including bailouts of automakers and failing insurance giant American International Group Inc.

"American taxpayers have had enough of open-ended bailouts that have left them stuck with trillions of dollars in new debt," House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. "TARP should be shut down by the end of the year. It's time to get the government out of the bailout business."

Geithner contended that the bailout program helped avert a worse financial outcome. Financial conditions have improved, and the economy has finally pulled out of a deep tailspin and is starting to grow again.

Repayments from banks who received TARP support will soon total $116 billion, including $45 billion from Bank of America Corp.

The government expects up to $175 billion in repayments from rescued companies by the end of next year, he said.

The TARP was passed during the height of the financial crisis in October 2008 and was scheduled to expire at the end of this year. In his notification to Congress, Geithner said it will be extended until Oct. 3, 2010, "to respond to an immediate and substantial threat to the economy stemming from financial instability."

Geithner said the administration planned only limited use of the TARP over the next year. He expects $550 billion of the $700 billion will be spent. There was $364 billion committed in the 2009 budget year that ended on Sept. 30. Of that, Geithner estimated the government would not recover $42 billion.

The new commitments would be limited to three areas: support to avert mortgage foreclosures, boosting capital for small and community banks that are principal lenders to small businesses, and a potential increase to a joint program with the Federal Reserve designed to bolster consumer and small business lending.

Geithner said of the $141 billion in expected losses, about $25 billion should be incurred in the current budget year. "The vast majority of these potential costs" would come from efforts to prevent mortgage foreclosures.

In a report Wednesday, a TARP watchdog panel said the fund helped ease last fall's financial panic but was less successful in meeting other goals Congress set. These include reducing foreclosures and unfreezing credit for consumers and businesses.

"Congress set goals for the TARP that went well beyond short-term financial stability, and by that measure problems remain," said panel chair Elizabeth Warren.

The report found the program's effects have been uneven. A $75 billion initiative to stem the wave of foreclosures has "failed," and Treasury's actions had granted big banks an "implicit guarantee" that the government would bail them out, Warren said.

The government still is guaranteeing billions of dollars in bank assets, which along with debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., amount to ongoing subsidies that may mask the condition of the financial markets, the report said.

Treasury responded that the TARP has "by every measure ... succeeded in achieving its primary goal of economic stabilization."

But the TARP panel, established by Congress to provide independent oversight, noted that bank failures continue and access to credit remains tight. It said the program's progress toward goals necessary for financial stability and economic growth "is less clear."

[Chuck Bao]

Ok well what you just said in this post is completely different than the last post where you told me I dont know what im talking about

Seriously dude, that wasn't inconsistent. Do you want a recession? Do you want bank failures? I took your first post to mean that there was a choice. There was no choice.

[Collier11]

We already had all of that, and there was a choice, the majority of Americans wanted to ride it out as opposed to throwing billions of dollars at these greedy corporations who had already blown insane amounts of money

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Hey dooshes, if ya really wanna help the economy go and buy a Margarittaville. Until then STFU.

[Collier11]

Heh, classic

[Chuck Bao]

We already had all of that, and there was a choice, the majority of Americans wanted to ride it out as opposed to throwing billions of dollars at these greedy corporations who had already blown insane amounts of money

I have to humbly disagree. The banking business is a confidence game. There had to be a check written through either guarantees or nationalization. The entire global financial system would have collapsed otherwise. Banks have enough exposure to each other that would completely wipe out their capital adequacy ratios of about 10-12%, not to even mention global panic and bank runs. All banks everywhere failing at the same time is just too horrible to even contemplate.

[Sooner Eclipse]

Seriously dude, that wasn't inconsistent. Do you want a recession? Do you want bank failures? I took your first post to mean that there was a choice. There was no choice.

YES that is what we want. The economy would fail and bounce back far faster than it will now that we've once again mortgaged our stupidity and left the bill for our kids. Most of the more practical people left in this country are not up to their eyeballs in debt. We've seen this coming for years. I owe no one anything except a reasonable mortgage and ive watched lots of people, companies and our govt rack up massive amounts of debt wondering how these entities can do this but knowing that a financially conservative mgmt style is right approach. Now its time for the fools to pay the piper. Yet once again they won't pay their bill. They pass it on to me and the other poor smucks who actually pay taxes. IVE HAD ENOUGH. Both GWB and BHO want us to bail them out. ****em, Let them FAIL!!!! I don't give a **** if he's black! He's doubling down on the stupidity. Nyet, he's quadrupled the stupidity. Now he sits here and wants to push health care costs and this absolute carbon tax SCAM onto us instead of focusing on jobs? GTFO NOW!!! The socialist has got to GO. I wouldn't **** on his head if his hair was on fire and it ain't cause he's black!!!

[Collier11]

Basically the govt is telling us with these bailouts, yet again, that we dont know what is the right thing to do with our money...well I certainly know I couldve not lost $61 billion, thats for sure

[SicEmBaylor]

I still refuse to believe a global collapse would be a bad thing. I mean of course it'd be bad, but I see a lot of long-term positives.

I'm a big fan of tearing/burning **** down and rebuilding than I am of fixing an existing structure.

[Chuck Bao]

YES that is what we want. The economy would fail and bounce back far faster than it will now that we've once again mortgaged our stupidity and left the bill for our kids. Most of the more practical people left in this country are not up to their eyeballs in debt. We've seen this coming for years. I owe no one anything except a reasonable mortgage and ive watched lots of people, companies and our govt rack up massive amounts of debt wondering how these entities can do this but knowing that a financially conservative mgmt style is right approach. Now its time for the fools to pay the piper. Yet once again they won't pay their bill. They pass it on to me and the other poor smucks who actually pay taxes. IVE HAD ENOUGH. Both GWB and BHO want us to bail them out. ****em, Let them FAIL!!!! I don't give a **** if he's black! He's doubling down on the stupidity. Nyet, he's quadrupled the stupidity. Now he sits here and wants to push health care costs and this absolute carbon tax SCAM onto us instead of focusing on jobs? GTFO NOW!!! The socialist has got to GO. I wouldn't **** on his head if his hair was on fire and it ain't cause he's black!!!

It is an interesting point. (I know you guys hate my Thai examples but I will carry on with it for as long as its seems applicable) I had dinner with the head of the asset reform group from the Bank of Thailand bailout back in '98. Basically, the BOT bought out the bad assets from the banks and it was this guy's job to get them up and running again. His comment is that it would be so much better to have a war and complete distruction than have rows and rows and rows of empty condo units. After a war, you can build something and create jobs. After economic destruction and everything already there you just have rows and rows and rows of empty condo units that are not going to sell. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that is what the US is going through now - economic destruction without a war.

[Jboozer]

We need a freaking reset button.

Or an easy button

[Collier11]

the problem is, the economic destruction is still going on because the govt didnt put enough restrictions on the bailout money and it is still being swindled by the corp money grabber, I too think we wouldve been better off just letting the companies fend for themselves

[Sooner Eclipse]

It is an interesting point. (I know you guys hate my Thai examples but I will carry on with it for as long as its seems applicable) I had dinner with the head of the asset reform group from the Bank of Thailand bailout back in '98. Basically, the BOT bought out the bad assets from the banks and it was this guy's job to get them up and running again. His comment is that it would be so much better to have a war and complete distruction than have rows and rows and rows of empty condo units. After a war, you can build something and create jobs. After economic destruction and everything already there you just have rows and rows and rows of empty condo units that are not going to sell. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that is what the US is going through now - economic destruction without a war.

Yes, either way the result would have been the same - destruction. But the way we are currently handling this is to spend the resources that we could have used to rebuild to pay interest on more debt. And were left with nothing more than the govt owning a lot more of each of the collective asses of those of us that continue to pay taxes. Its slavery, just not based on the color of your skin.

[Jboozer]

The bailout didn't work out the way the OHB admin or many of the economists supporting it thought it would. They all thought that an injection of liquidity would spell the crisis, and fix things. The SEC didn't do its job, and tarp money got handed out like candy from a piñata. The real culprit was mentioned much earlier in this thread. People all wanted the american dream now, without working for it. So they took advantage of loans with money they didn't have and no one stopped them. Then it all crashed, and instead of teaching them a lesson, we said... OOhhh I'm sorry you screwed up with a little bit of money.... Here is a ****ton of money... try again!

[Collier11]

Does anyone really think we couldnt replace GM or Ford or AIG or whoever? Just cus a company has been around forever doesnt mean they cant be replaced

[Chuck Bao]

Yes, either way the result would have been the same - destruction. But the way we are currently handling this is to spend the resources that we could have used to rebuild to pay interest on more debt. And were left with nothing more than the govt owning a lot more of each of the collective asses of those of us that continue to pay taxes. Its slavery, just not based on the color of your skin.

I do accept that. I also wonder who is going to buy all those condo units. So, you are discounting the possible positive effect of the stimulus measures. That is a valid view. As an Asian economist I would like to see the US consumer-driven engine continue and the world's largest economy continue. But, you are probably right. The **** had to hit the fan eventuallly. In my view, it is just a pity that we had the good guys in the White House and a chance for real healthcare reform. Pity that for Americans without health care coverage. What card would you send them? Die in Peace because you aren't worth it?

[Collier11]

Maybe the next step is to pass a law stating that a future president can have NO previous ties to big biz and can not have made more than say...$200k in any year before running for prez

[Chuck Bao]

Does anyone really think we couldnt replace GM or Ford or AIG or whoever? Just cus a company has been around forever doesnt mean they cant be replaced

I vote let them die It would be really fun to see them resurrected in a different form.

[Okla-homey]

In my view, it is just a pity that we had the good guys in the White House and a chance for real healthcare reform. Pity that for Americans without health care coverage. What card would you send them? Die in Peace because you aren't worth it?

Please Chuck, two points: 1) Why do you insist on claiming people are dying because they lack healthcare coverage in the US. You know, the country in which I live and you don't. Please, enlighten me, I'd sure like to know. You kinda remind me of people I've met overseas who ask me how many cows I have because I live in Oklahoma, or how often I hear gunfire each day. Heck, even the biggest Donks in Congress are no longer claiming people are "dying because they lack healthcare" (because that's demonstrably untrue) and instead are focusing on their claim the status quo is more expensive than their cobbled together plan to take over 1/6th of our economy.

2) The mob in the WH are not the "good guys." They are extreme lefties who didn't get the memo that socialism is a bad idea and are so focused on achieving their agenda that they are ignoring far more important problems that blessedly, will spell their political demise, hopefully for a generation and before it's too late.

[C&CDean]

Has your life drastically changed since Obama took office? I do remember this being a favorite argument of yours back when W was taking heat.

It has. This will be the first year in 35 years of working for the same company that I don't get a raise because of the economy. The very first one. Ever.

[A Sooner in Texas]

It has. This will be the first year in 35 years of working for the same company that I don't get a raise because of the economy. The very first one. Ever.

I haven't had a raise since late 2008. Our company finally thinks they may be able to reinstate raises in early 2010 because we are seeing some upticks in revenue.

[SoonerBorn68]

When Obama took office the oil field in Oklahoma collapsed. I lost my job & couldn't find another one after months of trying. Is that drastic enough?

[KC//CRIMSON]

It has. This will be the first year in 35 years of working for the same company that I don't get a raise because of the economy. The very first one. Ever.

That probably has more to do with the fact that the internet is killing the Post Office than it has to do with a guy with less than a year's service in the White House you don't approve of.

I got the biggest raise I've ever gotten, this year.

[Veritas]

On the whole "how has your life been affected" question: my business has exploded this year. We've seen a 600% increase in revenue that will at least double next year. We've hired two engineers, a graphic artist, and keep an accountant and an attorney pretty busy.

Why is my company doing well while so many others are struggling?
1) We have zero debt.
2) We operate on cash. If I can't pay cash for a capital asset, I don't buy it. If I don't have enough cash on hand to lose money on a salary for at least six months, I don't hire.

This approach is demonstrably different than that of these massive corporations that needed bailout money, and I've arrived at the conclusion that there are two factors that will ALWAYS forecast failure:
1) Greed
2) Credit abuse

Be it on the corporate side or the personal side, the endgame is always the same.

So how does this apply to BHO? Well, in order to continue to operate with cash, we have to hold on to as much of it as possible. UHC and forecasted increased taxes make it really hard to hold on to cash. Revenue growth is not guaranteed to be linear, but we're taxed like it is.

So basically, the effects of the BHO administration are, at this point, mainly anticipatory; I've got to figure out how to insulate my profits so that I can continue to expand, hire employees, and make capital investments.

You know, activities that contribute positively to the health of the economy.

[JohnnyMack]

On the whole "how has your life been affected" question: my business has exploded this year. We've seen a 600% increase in revenue that will at least double next year. We've hired two engineers, a graphic artist, and keep an accountant and an attorney pretty busy.

Why is my company doing well while so many others are struggling?
1) We have zero debt.
2) We operate on cash. If I can't pay cash for a capital asset, I don't buy it. If I don't have enough cash on hand to lose money on a salary for at least six months, I don't hire.

This approach is demonstrably different than that of these massive corporations that needed bailout money, and I've arrived at the conclusion that there are two factors that will ALWAYS forecast failure:
1) Greed
2) Credit abuse

Be it on the corporate side or the personal side, the endgame is always the same.

So how does this apply to BHO? Well, in order to continue to operate with cash, we have to hold on to as much of it as possible. UHC and forecasted increased taxes make it really hard to hold on to cash. Revenue growth is not guaranteed to be linear, but we're taxed like it is.

So basically, the effects of the BHO administration are, at this point, mainly anticipatory; I've got to figure out how to insulate my profits so that I can continue to expand, hire employees, and make capital investments.

You know, activities that contribute positively to the health of the economy.

I thought you were the assistant night manager at a Blockbuster? No?

[Collier11]

so uh, can you swing a few bucks my way ;)

[JohnnyMack]

It is my opinion that something had to be done to stabilize the banking community. Now I'm not anywhere near as smart as most of you, but it seems to me that if hadn't protected the banking system we would have devolved into some scary ***, Kevin Costner delivering the mail on a donkey **** real quick. Some would say "Down with the Fed!" and tell me I should read Ron Paul's book and that's all well and good, but unless you plan on stockpiling enough guns, ammo and :dean:MASON JARS!/:dean: fer yer cash I'll tell you that our banking system needs protections built in it for the common man.

The bailouts for AIG and the car companies? **** those guys. They shoulda been left to rot.

[AggieTool]

On the whole "how has your life been affected" question: my business has exploded this year. We've seen a 600% increase in revenue that will at least double next year. We've hired two engineers, a graphic artist, and keep an accountant and an attorney pretty busy.

Why is my company doing well while so many others are struggling?
1) We have zero debt.
2) We operate on cash. If I can't pay cash for a capital asset, I don't buy it. If I don't have enough cash on hand to lose money on a salary for at least six months, I don't hire.

This approach is demonstrably different than that of these massive corporations that needed bailout money, and I've arrived at the conclusion that there are two factors that will ALWAYS forecast failure:
1) Greed
2) Credit abuse

Be it on the corporate side or the personal side, the endgame is always the same.

So how does this apply to BHO? Well, in order to continue to operate with cash, we have to hold on to as much of it as possible. UHC and forecasted increased taxes make it really hard to hold on to cash. Revenue growth is not guaranteed to be linear, but we're taxed like it is.

So basically, the effects of the BHO administration are, at this point, mainly anticipatory; I've got to figure out how to insulate my profits so that I can continue to expand, hire employees, and make capital investments.

You know, activities that contribute positively to the health of the economy.

SO basically, things are run like a family would run their household budget.

That' what I'd wish the gov would do.

[Condescending Sooner]

That probably has more to do with the fact that the internet is killing the Post Office than it has to do with a guy with less than a year's service in the White House you don't approve of.

I got the biggest raise I've ever gotten, this year.

You must work for the gubmit or a company that received bailout funds.

[KC//CRIMSON]

You must work for the gubmit or a company that received bailout funds.

Dean works for the gubmit, keep up!

[StoopTroup]

I don't much care for how our new Prez is performing.

I do think he got elected because the Republicans fired themselves.

Next election I intend to help fire the Dems if they don't help our Prez straighten **** out a little bit.

I never thought Obama would be able to do much of what he promised so I have very little anger towards how he's doing his job.

I do hope a third Party really fights next time to get itself on the ballot in all 50 States. Then we might be able to encourage some Hope and Change from both the Dems and the Pubs.

[TAFBSooner]

I do hope a third Party really fights next time to get itself on the ballot in all 50 States. Then we might be able to encourage some Hope and Change from both the Dems and the Pubs.

I'd like to watch both the Tea Party (Reform Party? Sarah Palin Party?:rolleyes: ) and the Green Party get enough votes the next two cycles to stir the pot. At the very least it will take a while for the corporations to buy up all of the two Junior Parties.

[Chuck Bao]

Please Chuck, two points: 1) Why do you insist on claiming people are dying because they lack healthcare coverage in the US. You know, the country in which I live and you don't. Please, enlighten me, I'd sure like to know. You kinda remind me of people I've met overseas who ask me how many cows I have because I live in Oklahoma, or how often I hear gunfire each day. Heck, even the biggest Donks in Congress are no longer claiming people are "dying because they lack healthcare" (because that's demonstrably untrue) and instead are focusing on their claim the status quo is more expensive than their cobbled together plan to take over 1/6th of our economy.

2) The mob in the WH are not the "good guys." They are extreme lefties who didn't get the memo that socialism is a bad idea and are so focused on achieving their agenda that they are ignoring far more important problems that blessedly, will spell their political demise, hopefully for a generation and before it's too late.

You are probably way, way smarter than I am. I have a good paying job, but honestly it doesn't cover much. I pay about 20% of my income on the miracle drugs and they are really miracle drugs. My life expectacy would be like reduced to zero without them. Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions here but i really think that more and more Americans will face the same thing. What percentage of US children do not have health care coverage? Was it 40%??!!!????

My experience is in Thailand and there is probably nothing that would validate my concerns to you. I did see one of my best friends die of AIDS complications and needlessly. A bit of me died inside that day. Not sure how others would feel about it and I seriously hope nobody else will.

No, I do not have statistics on people being allowed to die. But just figure: drugs and some of them are incredible and life saving and the cost is just getting prohibitively expensive and American companies offering health insurance getting out-priced in the market. The logical conclusion is that a significant portion of our population will be affected by the cost of it all . Some may get it. Some may not and that would be unfortunate in my opinion.