T1B

Are any of the large throng of liberals that stink up this place ready to admit they made a terrible mistake in voting for Obama/Biden?

probably not.

I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

But then it's always been obvious that you're too fucking stupid to see beyond your own runny nose.

there's one.



anybody else?

Sirfindafold wrote:the large throng of liberals that stink up this place . . .

You must not read the same board I read.

two.

So, if one posts in this thread, one is automatically acknowledging one's assent to your position? Is that it?

Sirfindafold wrote:there's one.

you're? c'mon corky.


anybody else?

I didn't think the subject was typos, dickbreath.

But like I said you're too fucking stupid even to address the point that you so eloquently raised.

What? My point wasn't clear enough for you? goddam you're dumb.

anybody else?

Mikey wrote:I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

The mess you have dubbed the "pile of shit" can trace it roots back to the mid 1990's and Bill Clinton. Thanks.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Mikey wrote:I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

The mess you have dubbed the "pile of shit" can trace it roots back to the mid 1990's and Bill Clinton. Thanks.

The point remains that Obama has been in office for just over a month. You were expecting economic happy happy joy joy to break out in 30 days? You're as dumb as sirfindatake. Thanks.

Mikey wrote:The point remains that Obama has been in office for just over a month. You were expecting economic happy happy joy joy to break out in 30 days? You're as dumb as sirfindatake. Thanks.

Have I mentioned Obama? No! I just pointed out that the mess can be traced back to Clinton. Bush didn't do anything about it when he had the chance to when he had a Republican congress.

I'm not going to pass judgement on Obama after 1 month in office. However, I will say I am not a big fan of the stimulus package. Obvioulsy it remains to be seen how it will work out for the country.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Mikey wrote:I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

The mess you have dubbed the "pile of shit" can trace it roots back to the early 1980's and Ronald Reagan. Thanks.

FTFY

Sudden Sam wrote:I usually agree with about 99% of what Mr. Sowell writes. But as I read this column, I constantly thought, "This sounds like the Bush/Cheney crap."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021809.php3

President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, let slip a valuable clue when he said that a crisis should not go to waste, that a crisis is an opportunity to do things that you could not do otherwise.


Think about the utter cynicism of that. During a crisis, a panicked public will let you get away with things you couldn't get away with otherwise.


A corollary of that is that you had better act quickly while the crisis is at hand, without Congressional hearings or public debates about what you are doing


Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

Yeah, "Chimpy got away with it, now you have to let US do even more- It's OUR TURN!"

BSmack wrote:

MuchoBulls wrote:

Mikey wrote:I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

The mess you have dubbed the "pile of shit" can trace it roots back to the early 1980's and Ronald Reagan. Thanks.

FTFY

Really?

As much as I hate Raygun, I don't recall him ramrodding legislation through that forced lending institutions to make loans to unqualified applicants.

That debacle was Bubba's. And what an idiotic debacle it proved to be.

Yet another example of "two wrongs make a right" policy. Racism is hunky-dory, so long as the target of the racism is white men.

88 wrote:The Democratic Party rammed the "stimulus" bill through Congress and Obama signed it into law. The Democratic majorities in Congress demonstrated that the Democrats do not need assistance from the Republican Party, and they didn't get it. The Democrats are pissed that Republicans didn't support the bill because the Democrats wanted cover for the enormous spending that the bill contains. If it is such a great idea, the Democrats should be jumping for joy that they were the party that acted to stimulate the economy and bring the nation out of crisis, and that they did it without the help of the Republican Party. But I don't think the Democrats believe that the bill will do anything to help the economy. Time will tell.

Are you going to completely ignore the 700 Billion the Republicans gave the banks 4 months ago?
At least this isn't going to the CEO of Citi or Merrill in the form of a bonus.

Christ on a crutch people - We get it. A lot of white guys on the board hate the Dems and BO and Nogs in general -
The convenient memory loss of recent history doesn't make the point any better

Well 88, I think we can pretty much sum it up with:

KCScott is a raging dumbfuck.


Dude pretty much lays a nice little asskicking on himself, one of the manifestations being the "two wrongs make a right" defense (when was the last time that worked for anybody?), he then immediately accuses those who disagree with him of being racists (yet offering no substantial evidence to those accusations).


Internet idiocy in its purest form. When your point falls on its face, accuse others of racism (regardless whther race has even been brought up in the discussion). Look for a nice IKYABWAI blast next.

88 wrote: You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The $700B bailout was not a GIFT to the banks. The money was LOANED to the banks. The banks must pay that money back, with interest.

Wrong.

TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets. "Troubled assets" are defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress." [1]

In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase nonliquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The targeted assets can be collateralized debt obligations, which were sold in a booming market until 2007 when they were hit by widespread foreclosures on the underlying loans. TARP is intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses.

TARP does not allow banks to recoup losses already incurred on troubled assets, but officials hope that once trading of these assets resumes, their prices will stabilize and ultimately increase in value, resulting in gains to both participating banks and the Treasury itself. The concept of future gains from troubled assets comes from opinion in the financial industry that these assets are oversold, as only a small percentage of all mortgages are in default, while the relative fall in prices represents losses from a much higher default rate.

The Act requires financial institutions selling assets to TARP to issue equity warrants (a type of security that entitles its holder to purchase shares in the company issuing the security for a specific price), or equity or senior debt securities (for non-publicly listed companies) to the Treasury. In the case of warrants, the Treasury will only receive warrants for non-voting shares, or will agree not to vote the stock. This measure is designed to protect taxpayers by giving the Treasury the possibility of profiting through its new ownership stakes in these institutions. Ideally, if the financial institutions benefit from government assistance and recover their former strength, the government will also be able to profit from their recovery.[2]

Another important goal of TARP is to encourage banks to resume lending again at levels seen before the crisis, both to each other and to consumers and businesses. If TARP can stabilize bank capital ratios, it should theoretically allow them to increase lending instead of hoarding cash to cushion against future, unforeseen losses from troubled assets. Increased lending equates to 'loosening' of credit, which the government hopes will restore order to the financial markets and improve investor confidence in financial institutions and the markets. As banks gain increased lending confidence, the interbank lending interest rates (the rates at which the banks lend to each other on a short term basis) should decrease, further facilitating lending.[2]

The TARP will operate as a “revolving purchase facility.” The Treasury will have a set spending limit, $250 billion at the start of the program, with which it will purchase the assets and then either sell them or hold the assets and collect the 'coupons'. The money received from sales and coupons will go back into the pool, facilitating the purchase of more assets. The initial $250 billion can be increased to $350 billion upon the President’s certification to Congress that such an increase is necessary.[3] The remaining $350 billion may be released to the Treasury upon a written report to Congress from the Treasury with details of its plan for the money. Congress then has 15 days to vote to disapprove the increase before the money will be automatically released.[2]. The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009.

Not a loan -

What Obama and Congress have done with the "stimulus" bill, in contrast, is to GIVE away billions of dollars that will never be repaid. That money is not in the form of a loan. It is money that is being stolen from the labor of future generations to be given to certain members of our society. Big difference, which you do not seem to grasp.

First off, i'm also opposed to certain aspects of the Stimulus Plan - not all.

Some of the subsidies will jump start certain technologies and again put the country in an export leadership position including alternative energy and Biomed.

The construction, school and enviornment projects will create jobs, on which taxes will be paid - although this offers a negative ROI for the government, it's a long term fix for many of the infrastructure issues that have been delayed or ignored.

Bigger picture - it will put tax burden on future generations in the form of interest paid on the T-Bills we're auctioning off to finance it.
In comparison the war in Iraq cost dwarfed this bill by more than a 3-1 ratio.

KC Scott wrote:In comparison the war in Iraq cost dwarfed this bill by more than a 3-1 ratio.

Dinsdale wrote:KCScott is a raging dumbfuck.

Dinsdale is prone to understatement

So Scott -- when you go through the checkstand at Walmat, are you "giving a gift" to the cashier?


BTW-as a neutral observer here, I'll clue you in on the dynamic...


you're not doing very well here.

Cuda wrote:

KC Scott wrote:In comparison the war in Iraq cost dwarfed this bill by more than a 3-1 ratio.

Dinsdale wrote:KCScott is a raging dumbfuck.

Dinsdale is prone to understatement

http://zfacts.com/p/364.html



Scott... just stay down, bud... live to fight another day.

I'll take recognized and reliable sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washi ... 9cost.html

KC Scott wrote:I'll take recognized and reliable sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washi ... 9cost.html

In comparison the war in Iraq cost dwarfed this bill by more than a 3-1 ratio.

I don't think that verbs in the past tense mean what you think they mean.


And your "recognized and reliable source" is an adamant anti war guy who has speculated a cost of $4 tril?




Oh, I get it!

BWA!

You got me, man. Nice job trolling...

Because if you got a computer to power up all by yourself, you can't possibly be this fucking stupid.

KC Scott wrote:I'll take recognized and reliable sources

NYTimes wrote:In a new book, called “The Three Trillion War,” Mr. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, and a co-author, Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard, say the total economic impact may be a staggering $4 trillion or more.

Classic. Apparently, even the author himself questions his reliability.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Mikey wrote:I would expect it to take more than a month to clean up the putrid eight year pile of shit that your heroes left behind.

The mess you have dubbed the "pile of shit" can trace it roots back to the mid 1990's and Bill Clinton. Thanks.

More like mid 60s with the great society, or you could even go with early 30s and the new deal.

Just curious, mikey. How exactly do you describe "pile of shit". Is it the war? Runaway spending? Or is it the evil tax cuts to the rich which resulted in much higher tax receipts? Too bad they weren't high enough to keep pace with the shrub's outspending even the dems.

I have a question about war expenses.

Are these above and beyond the normal defense dept expenses?

The actual number of folks in the military is not that much higher than it would be during peacetime. The active duty folks, were they still at fort cambell or where ever, would still be getting paid. They'd still be training. The difference is, they are now getting combat pay and they probably do go through a bit more materiel, seeing as there are folks out there trying to blow their shit up.

The biggest difference, imo is in activated reserve payroll. I would like to see real figures from real people within DoD who actually know wtf they are talking about rather than some hippy with an axe to grind.

Dinsdale wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I'll take recognized and reliable sources

NYTimes wrote:In a new book, called “The Three Trillion War,” Mr. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, and a co-author, Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard, say the total economic impact may be a staggering $4 trillion or more.

Classic. Apparently, even the author himself questions his reliability.

Whaddaya mean, dude?? 4 minus 3 = 1... that's close enough for me!

Sin,
KCTard

Well, that was rather harsh!

Van wrote:Well, that was rather harsh!

Actually kinda mild coming from sunshine.

The point I was making was that a fair chunk of the dollars being spent are gonna be spent regardless. Not saying that it's a majority of the expenditures as dipshit seems to be implying I said. I would guess that whoever came up with the 4 trillion dollar figure is including every nickle spent on the military.

Van wrote:Well, that was rather harsh!

That's what happens when you annoy mv on a bad day, and God love him, he seems to have bad days, every week day.

Maybe he's taking out his socal road rage on poor smackaholic.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:Well, that was rather harsh!

That's what happens when you annoy mv on a bad day, and God love him, he seems to have bad days, every week day.

Maybe he's taking out his socal road rage on poor smackaholic.

I can take moaning and bitching and almost as bad name calling in live and in living color from the OL. Pretty sure I can handle it from a bitter annonymous internet tard on a bb.

Sudden Sam wrote:Methinks Mr. Obama may have gotten into a job that is waaaaaaaay outta his pay range.

And that would be different from the last eight years, how, exactly?

Hopefully he will grow into the job.

Now, that would be different from the last eight years.

Adolescent sophistry.

That's what it's intended to be but not just him. I'm embittered by the lot of them at this point.

WAR Term Limits in Congress

Tom In VA wrote:WAR Term Limits in Congress

Why do you hate the Constitution, Tom?

I think that's the only way we can protect it from these charlatans who put their own personal agendas ahead of it.

MuchoBulls wrote:[. Bush didn't do anything about it when he had the chance to when he had a Republican congress.

.

Bush's handlers didn't do anything about it. They were too busy building his legacy. snort, chuckle.

Bush did precisely what he was supposed to do. So will Obama.

Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller IV