Find a Tea Party near you!

[TitsMcGee]

Seriously people are allowed to voice their opinions, and if you actually read the tea parties were protesting both parties because they both fucked up. Calling people retards for voicing their opinions is just assinine.

Edited April 19, 2009 by torn asunder

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Seriously people are allowed to voice their opinions, and if you actually read the tea parties were protesting both parties because they both fucked up. Calling people retards for voicing their opinions is just assinine.

no..I'm calling people retarded because there was more then 8 good years of declining economy that they could have expressed their opinions on...but lets all blame it on the guy thats been in office for under 6 months...THATS retarded.

The majority of the protestors hold signs and wear gear that is targeting Obama. It's not his fault...he's only been President since January.

YOu wanna hold a Tea Party...go to Texas...stand outside the lawn for the Bush Family...hold your Tea Party there....because it was the Republicans and Bush that dipped up this low....not Obama.

Edited April 19, 2009 by torn asunder
removed rules-violating quote

[prick]

no..I'm calling people retarded because there was more then 8 good years of declining economy that they could have expressed their opinions on...but lets all blame it on the guy thats been in office for under 6 months...THATS retarded.

I do not believe anyone on this board is retarded and I respect all opinions but I agree that we have had a huge problem way before Obama became president. I dont like that man even though I usually vote Democrat and I dont care what color he is either. I just know the Bush years started this downward spiral.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

I do not believe anyone on this board is retarded and I respect all opinions but I agree that we have had a huge problem way before Obama became president. I dont like that man even though I usually vote Democrat and I dont care what color he is either. I just know the Bush years started this downward spiral.

then what kind of proper opinion or view is it to attack a man who has yet a chance to innitiate any true change. No one is even giving him a chance? They are targeting him for the bad descisions of his predecessors, and the majority of the gear and signs aren't broad enough to target one party or the other, or even all of goverment...no, the majority of the gear target a man who hasn't even got a shot. We let Bush mess up the country for 8 years....we at least need to give Obama 1 year.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

He has enacted some true change.

He defended and expand the Warrantless Wiretaps.

He closed Gitmo but has defended the Bagram detention facility.

He doubled the national debt. (you know, that huge number that you blame Bush for creating)

He showed open fealty to Saudi Arabia. (Bush with all his faults never bowed to King, none of our President ever have)

He spent more money in one Bill than every President spent in the whole history of the country combined.

[torn asunder]

resurrected!

again, apologies!

[asphyxian_doll]

ZOMBIE THREAD! AHH! RUN!

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

He has enacted some true change.

He defended and expand the Warrantless Wiretaps.

He closed Gitmo but has defended the Bagram detention facility.

He doubled the national debt. (you know, that huge number that you blame Bush for creating)

He showed open fealty to Saudi Arabia. (Bush with all his faults never bowed to King, none of our President ever have)

He spent more money in one Bill than every President spent in the whole history of the country combined.

Gitmo was much more of a problem

I don't blame Bush for CREATING the debt...but I do blame him for doing little to nothing to stiffle it, if anything, he put it on the fast track.

I have no idea WHY he bowed to the Saudi King, but I highly doubt it was to show that America was any kind of fiefdom to them.

and that last one....thats just Impossible....and your talking out of your ass, or quoting a fact that is being told out the ass of another person.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Gitmo was much more of a problem

I don't blame Bush for CREATING the debt...but I do blame him for doing little to nothing to stiffle it, if anything, he put it on the fast track.

I have no idea WHY he bowed to the Saudi King, but I highly doubt it was to show that America was any kind of fiefdom to them.

and that last one....thats just Impossible....and your talking out of your ass, or quoting a fact that is being told out the ass of another person.

The Bagram detention facility has three times the detanees and Gitmo. they are treated in teh exact same way. Gitmo has more press coverage.

It doesn't really matter what his intent was. Bowing to king is taken as a sign of fealty in countrys that still have Kings. He should have known that information. He also should have known that it's part of our codified law, established in the Constitution that we do not recognize Royalty or Nobal birth rights. Thier King is no better than our President or Canada's Prime Minister. The appropriate greeting should have been a hand shake. If he did not know this info, his staff should have and briefed him. Someone failed hard core.

"Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs."

Wall Street Journal

[torn asunder]

"Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs."

out of curiosity gaf, any idea how much money was spent during the great depression, when adjusted to today's inflation rates? i realize that his spending might be literally more than all the others, but remember, way back when, bread wasn't $2/loaf, it was a nickle.

i'm just curious about the scaled, adjusted amounts and how much different they really are...

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

out of curiosity gaf, any idea how much money was spent during the great depression, when adjusted to today's inflation rates? i realize that his spending might be literally more than all the others, but remember, way back when, bread wasn't $2/loaf, it was a nickle.

i'm just curious about the scaled, adjusted amounts and how much different they really are...

honestly...thats gonna be a bitch to do...considering that you have to know the value of the dollar back then, count in the devaluation of it before the end of the Depression, the price of everything average at the time, and then make the calculations.

pretty sure, if done by today's inflation rates, it would be MUCH higher then what Obama is spending...but if America hadn't made changes to it's economics back then, we would have been worse off for wear.

John D Rockefeller - "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again."

Like ttgoreh said before....it's part of a cycle....it's a bitch, then it gets better...then we see little ups n downs...then it's a bitch again.

just be lucky we're not expieriancing "Black Tuesday" all over again.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

about $500 billion. It took all over 30 seconds to look it up.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

about $500 billion. It took all over 30 seconds to look it up.

there is no way that is accurate.

[ttogreh]

$500 billion adjusted for inflation?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

During the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration spent about $250 billion (in today's dollars) on public-works projects, building about 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges. The entire cost of all the New Deal programs (in today's dollars) was about $500 billion. The secretary of the Treasury now wants to spend perhaps twice that amount, simply to prevent a financial collapse.

That same number is what is used by every article I can find on the internet. No matter the source.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

That same number is what is used by every article I can find on the internet. No matter the source.

Umm....that doesn't count the several times that Roosevelt choose NOT to spend money...and then Senate and Congress veto'd him and spent it anyway....so add at least $200 billion in today's dollars.

Also...compensate for the fact that the dollar was worth more back then then it is now, before the drop but after they started spending it, and it's still higher then $500+ billion.

and Truman's spending rate back during his term was still WAY above what Obama's projected spending rate is to be.

so I call shenanigans on those numbers your presenting.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Umm....that doesn't count the several times that Roosevelt choose NOT to spend money...and then Senate and Congress veto'd him and spent it anyway....so add at least $200 billion in today's dollars.

Also...compensate for the fact that the dollar was worth more back then then it is now, before the drop but after they started spending it, and it's still higher then $500+ billion.

and Truman's spending rate back during his term was still WAY above what Obama's projected spending rate is to be.

so I call shenanigans on those numbers your presenting.

All spending was taken into account. Inflation and worth of the Dollar was taken into account.

When did Congress get the power to Veto?

You can call shenanigans all you want... it wont change history.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Rev.Reverence]

IORE (yes I pronounced that ey-or) Quit it...find some facts..don't just argue off the top of your head. At least read the bloody article.

On Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for a revival of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC). Organized in the early months of the New Deal, the HOLC avoided widespread foreclosures by purchasing troubled mortgages from banks and then reissuing them with more favorable terms. It proved a tremendous success -- for homeowners, taxpayers and banks.

A new HOLC should be created immediately, and with the power to keep people in their homes.

From the link Gaf put up^^

SO...question Gaf...I understand what this HOLC they are trying to say is a good idea (kinda' mostly)....it seems that that is just a band-aid...& that like in another 100 years (give or take) this "bubble" will happen again...wouldn't it be better if the government just goes ahead & takes over lending cash for homes?

I don't get why the government does not go into business so that we don't have to pay so much...can you address my loosely formed question(s)? I always thought this was a good idea...

Edited April 27, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

IORE (yes I pronounced that ey-or) Quit it...find some facts..don't just argue off the top of your head. At least read the bloody article.

From the link Gaf put up^^

SO...question Gaf...I understand what this HOLC they are trying to say is a good idea (kinda' mostly)....it seems that that is just a band-aid...& that like in another 100 years (give or take) this "bubble" will happen again...wouldn't it be better if the government just goes ahead & takes over lending cash for homes?

I don't get why the government does not go into business so that we don't have to pay so much...can you address my loosely formed question(s)? I always thought this was a good idea...

Well, the "bubble" that caused this mess is not a normal thing. This "buuble" was created when the government got rid of most of the regulations that gave over site to lending AND then forced the banks to give out loans to people who did not have the means to pay them back.

Deregulation alone would not have caused this mess... coupled with bad loan after bad loan after bad loan... the banks had to do SOMETHING with all those loans. So, they bundled them.. and sold them... rebundled and resold them... which caused a new market for trading these bad loans...

The government also forced appraisors to over value the properties. So even larger loans were given out.. and the value of the land was over inflated.

And yes, it will nopw happen again. Those in congrol of Congress right now are seeing to it. They are not only doing nothing to change these laws that forced this type of lending, they want to pass moer laws to force even more bad loans.

To answer your last question... Name one Govement run social program that actually works right. Just one.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BTW... we will NEVER get out of this economic crisis if we don't raise our GDP. Read up, that fancy economic system that some people say got us out of the Great Depression... that also relied on GDP growth, and the current plan to save us has been forcasted, by everyone but Obama and his team, to cause the GDP to shrink.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

There are multiple reasons why we're in a bad economy....and not all of it is governmental.

Unions are a good reason. Yeah, I said it. The Unions are a decent chunk of the mess we are in. For decades, they have complained, whined, and striked themselves into better and better positions of power within the companies, bleeding the companies for every red cent they can get, while their jobs get easier and easier. $20-$30 an hour to press a button all day?? Seriously?? And if we don't pay you that....your gonna go on strike and then EVERYONE suffers because you don't want to get paid REALISTICALLY for the work you do.....awesome....thanks.

The CAW FINALLY had the bright idea of "hey....if we're gonna keep this shyt afloat, we need to bleed a little too". We watched for MONTHS as the CAW was fighting with every car company about having to take ANY kind of cut in anything, while the car makers were trying to stave off cutting off every limb to save the body.

If the Unions were abolished (stop getting all fumey....just listen first, ok?), there are several things that could happen. Lets take your $20-30 an hour and break it down to $15....thats a fair, proper wage, and if your smart, you can get by on that just fine. We're not getting rid of the major benefits, but we're gonna cut off the useless crap. There is a cap to your 401k. IF you want a decent retirement, learn to invest properly and save, because we're done paying out a ton for people that don't work for us anymore. We appreciate the amount of work you put in, and you'll still get a check, but it's not going to be this large ass check your getting every month. Next time, learn when it is ok to splurge.

The money saved could go into SAVING and EXPANDING current plants and buildings (wait...MORE jobs???...what???) and possibily the OPENING of more plants, either new ones or refurbashing ones that are closed (more jobs...AGAIN??).

Now, we take some of the money and divert it into a program that will provide Goverment Job Training and Placement Facilities. You are ok with machines, but you can't run a centerless grinder? We'll teach you, giving you 6-8 weeks of the basic knowledge needed to do whatever it is you need to learn for the job. This means that you learn more skills, and are a better asset to the companies out there that are looking for specific trades. If you can't learn the skills, then you can't get the job, but you can have the skills without learning it at the job.....but not with the GJT&PF's!!!

and before you start crying on how I am talking about screwing over the blue collar working man, or how the companies will get all rough and tumble again......I want you to think of where we are now, where the blue collar working man is ALREADY getting screwed, he is IN the Union (or not), he gets paid even if he ISN'T WORKING (ever wonder why cars are so damn expensive??), and he is FORCED to go on strike (or can't get back to work because another Union is on strike).

looks to me like everyone wins: Companies don't have to bleed money from gaping wounds, but instead can save what they have, and possibly go BACK to expanding; Blue collar working people have a shot at MORE jobs, because the job markets RISES to fill the positions at the expanding companies; Those without the skills for specific tasks or positions are given the oppertunity to LEARN those skills at a training facility, instead of going "well, fuck...I'll never get to do that....guess no job for me today."; and the Economy climbs UP the mountian because prices will drop (no mandatory union fees will lower prices on almost everything) and more people will have jobs.

gosh....I think I just boosted the Economy by getting rid of one of the parts that are bleeding it now....GO, ME!!!

unfortunately....I highly doubt that we will ever have a goverment with the balls enough to do this.

[Rev.Reverence]

Well, the "bubble" that caused this mess is not a normal thing. This "buuble" was created when the government got rid of most of the regulations that gave over site to lending AND then forced the banks to give out loans to people who did not have the means to pay them back.

Deregulation alone would not have caused this mess... coupled with bad loan after bad loan after bad loan... the banks had to do SOMETHING with all those loans. So, they bundled them.. and sold them... rebundled and resold them... which caused a new market for trading these bad loans...

The government also forced appraisors to over value the properties. So even larger loans were given out.. and the value of the land was over inflated.

And yes, it will nopw happen again. Those in congrol of Congress right now are seeing to it. They are not only doing nothing to change these laws that forced this type of lending, they want to pass moer laws to force even more bad loans.

To answer your last question... Name one Govement run social program that actually works right. Just one.

C'mon.....there HAS to be 1 or 2...right? Law of probability dictate...PARKS & REC?...they're doin' alright, right?

...NASA? They haven't fucked up lately...I think...

Seriously though...I totally dig what you are saying. Most every department is either NOT SET UP RIGHT, or has some corrupt fuck in it fuckin' it up.

BTW... we will NEVER get out of this economic crisis if we don't raise our GDP. Read up, that fancy economic system that some people say got us out of the Great Depression... that also relied on GDP growth, and the current plan to save us has been forcasted, by everyone but Obama and his team, to cause the GDP to shrink.

I get to use my caveman point for the day.....what the flag-nog is a GDP?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the U.S.

[Rev.Reverence]

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the U.S.

OOOOOOOH!

...& did moving a whole bunch of jobs to...say India...lower that number?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

the GDP grew by $3.5 Trillion un Clinton and $4.1 Trillion under Bush. That amounts to a 53.8% growth for Clinton and 41% under Bush.

Projections show a 2-3% shrinkage under Obama.