Why is he talking?

Under what authority? How is it right to be subjugated by a government that picks the winners and losers. Don't you agree that it should be a "fair" society, that we are all supposed to be under the same laws and not have different application of the law pending an elected officials personal preference? GMs bond holders' contractual rights are dismissed, in preference not law, for the UAW's gain. You can stand and cheer as they rob one house but at some point the system is in motion to come to yours too. I won't be cheering at that time either.

As far as the market numbers go. If you take out the actual $85 billion a month the fed has been pumping into the market and the under reported inflationary effects I believe the numbers lack legitimacy. But how I do wish the economy was as strong as it could be without the continued shell games of our so called leaders. Originally Posted by SirReal

The defense department has been picking winners and loser for decades, yet people of your ilk never call them out. Do you realize the defense budget is just a welfare program for states Like south carolina and texas?

Since Bush left office the DJIA has doubled and set an all time high(even if you adjust for inflation like IBH) the DJIA topped 15,400 under Obama. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Actually, that's not correct. On September 18 the market closed at 15677, but it did not hold. Yesterday, it closed at 15374. After you factor in inflation, the magic number was 15680 -- and that was in March! No doubt that number has probably crept about 1% (±) higher in the intervening months.

"After adjusting for inflation, the Dow was higher in 2000 than it is today. It was also higher in 2007. It would need to rise another 10 percent [15680] or so to hit an all time high in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/05/173515767/the- dow-isnt-really-at-a-record-high-and-it-wouldnt-matter-if-it-were

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053013010&postcount=50

The defense department has been picking winners and loser for decades, yet people of your ilk never call them out. Do you realize the defense budget is just a welfare program for states Like south carolina and texas? Originally Posted by drluv1

Don't tell that to JD.

Another Reagan? Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years. Reagan also increased taxes. Bush and Dick Cheney put the USA in the steepest recession since the great depression. It's not Obama's fault that Wall Street crashed and lost all of their money tradeing unregulated securities. Let's see, when Bush left office, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Freedie Mack, Fannie Mae, Citigroup, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo and Auto makers GM and Chysler were all bankrupt, just to name a couple. All of these companies had to be bailed out. Obama got the USA out of the recession. Financial markets are stable, the housing market has rebounded. The tea party almost caused a default. Sen. Ted Cruze is a Moron. Originally Posted by flghtr65

YES, Those "fiscal conservatives"put us in the predicament we are in now and they are still peddling the same BS that has never worked. 2 thirds of the current budget deficit is interest on the national debt largely created by republican presidents in the last 30 years and the disatsterous economy Obama inherited. Can one of our " conservative" friends explain why New york has a much lower unemployment rate than nevada, georgia, or north carolina?

flighter is a true believer in a lot of things that aren't true. QE 1, 2, and 3 had more to do with the rise of the stock market than fiscal health. Can you say bubble? The economy dropped sharply because of the housing bubble and Fannie/Freddie. Who called for an audit of Fannie/Freddie in 2005? What it was George W. Bush and John McCain. They got stopped by a unified democratic front and we took it in the neck. Bush loaned money to GM as well. They paid that money back but Obama counted it against what he loaned them but they are still 25 billion dollars in the hole to the US taxpayer. Who signed TARP into law? Why it was George W. Bush and not Barack Obama. October 3rd, 2008. Check it out. Give credit to the right man if you want to give credit to TARP. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Fannie and freddie were not the main cause of the financial meltdown, investment houses creating financial instruments so complex that no one knew who owned and was owed them was a much bigger problem. If low taxes are the key to economic growth, why would bush even have to sign TARP? Can you explain the wisdom of barrowing trillions on 2 wars that were the ultimate in wasteful government spending? Explain the wisdom of an unfunded prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens ? Is socialized healthcare good enough for our seniors,but not for the rest of us? What threats to US security justify the doubling of the defense budget since 2000 to their current levels?

YES, Those "fiscal conservatives"put us in the predicament we are in now and they are still peddling the same BS that has never worked. 2 thirds of the current budget deficit is interest on the national debt largely created by republican presidents in the last 30 years and the disatsterous economy Obama inherited. Can one of our " conservative" friends explain why New york has a much lower unemployment rate than nevada, georgia, or north carolina? Originally Posted by drluv1

Why don't you want to talk about California, Illinois, New York, D.C. in relation to say North Dakota or Wyoming?

Fannie and freddie were not the main cause of the financial meltdown, investment houses creating financial instruments so complex that no one knew who owned and was owed them was a much bigger problem. Originally Posted by drluv1

Are you referring to those financial instruments Fannie and Freddie endorsed and guaranteed when they engaged in the sub-prime mortgage market?

Why don't you want to talk about California, Illinois, New York, D.C. in relation to say North Dakota or Wyoming?



Are you referring to those financial instruments Fannie and Freddie endorsed and guaranteed when they engaged in the sub-prime mortgage market? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Fact that NY with it's higher taxes has a lower unemployment rate than states with lower taxes at least suggests that tax rates don't have much of an association with economic well being. I guess you couldn't see that simple point. Why does Canada with it's higher taxes and single payer healthcare have virtually no deficit and roughly the same rate of unemployment as the US. Could it be they spend their tax money more wisely?
Again fannie and freddie were only a portion of those loans.

The Fact that NY with it's higher taxes has a lower unemployment rate than states with lower taxes at least suggests that tax rates don't have much of an association with economic well being. I guess you couldn't see that simple point. Why does Canada with it's higher taxes and single payer healthcare have virtually no deficit and roughly the same rate of unemployment as the US. Could it be they spend their tax money more wisely?
Again fannie and freddie were only a portion of those loans. Originally Posted by drluv1

thanks Doc ...


there you have it IB, after you have your ass sewn back on with facts, read that every four hours for two weeks, and make a follow up appointment at the end of the month

The Fact that NY with it's higher taxes has a lower unemployment rate than states with lower taxes at least suggests that tax rates don't have much of an association with economic well being. I guess you couldn't see that simple point. Why does Canada with it's higher taxes and single payer healthcare have virtually no deficit and roughly the same rate of unemployment as the US. Could it be they spend their tax money more wisely?
Again fannie and freddie were only a portion of those loans. Originally Posted by drluv1

Why is it that your little analysis doesn't hold up to scrutiny when compared with North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, etc.? And again, it's notable how you contnue to ignore states like Illinois and California. Are you arguing that California's tax rates are low? Fannie and Freddie were "portions" that helped inflate the bubble, and they were "portions" that put the U.S. taxpayers 100% on the hook for their failures.

thanks Doc ...


there you have it IB, after you have your ass sewn back on with facts, read that every four hours for two weeks, and make a follow up appointment at the end of the month Originally Posted by CJ7

The only thing that needs to be "sewn-up" is the hole in your ignorant head, CBJ7.

Why is it that your little analysis doesn't hold up to scrutiny when compared with North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, etc.? And again, it's notable how you contnue to ignore states like Illinois and California. Are you arguing that California's tax rates are low? Fannie and Freddie were "portions" that helped inflate the bubble, and they were "portions" that put the U.S. taxpayers 100% on the hook for their failures.

The only thing that needs to be "sewn-up" is the hole in your ignorant head, CBJ7. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well it's not really an analysis, that would take a whole book, I'm sure. The fact is their is very little corelation between tax rates and unemployment, but conservatives still feed us that crap. All the states you mentioned receive considerably more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes, seems to me the rest of the country is subsidizing their low unemployment.
fannie and freddie were involved in 40% of the loans, what about the other 60%? Tell me about the "honest" leaders at the major brokerage houses that committed fraud, Those were the main culprits.

WELCOME TO DAY THREE OF THE IBIDIOT OCTOBER MELTDOWN!

Well it's not really an analysis, that would take a whole book, I'm sure. The fact is their is very little corelation between tax rates and unemployment, but conservatives still feed us that crap. All the states you mentioned receive considerably more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes, seems to me the rest of the country is subsidizing their low unemployment.
fannie and freddie were involved in 40% of the loans, what about the other 60%? Tell me about the "honest" leaders at the major brokerage houses that committed fraud, Those were the main culprits. Originally Posted by drluv1

Again, your argument doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Lib-retards maintain that increasing "taxes" -- for "health reasons" -- on fast foods, soft drinks, and products used by smokers and drinkers reduces the use of those products. So why doesn't that rationale apply when the government taxes a business for the employees it hires?

Just a "mere" 40%!?! Don't forget, politicians like Dodd, Franks and Summers benefitted as well.

Obomi .... Why is he talking right now? He has made our country worse. Do we even have a country any longer? United States of America? When? Where? How? And why the hell not? He is worse than Carter. When will we have another Reagan? We need ... WE deserve better than this. IMOHO....J Originally Posted by Janine

A couple points to original post.

O was elected as president twice, he therefore has the "bully pulpit" to speak from, teleprompter is optional. He again defeated the congressional republicans so that is why he is crowing now. I personally can't listen to his hypocritical and deceptive rhetoric.

He has not been alone in making our country worse. I don't believe his policies have been helpful to what was the middle class. The continued push to grow the dependency class is stripping the need and desire for a large segment of the population to have to work. Some calculations have shown EBT and other gov benefits are paying more to people than if they were to work. This fact also leads into the, so called, unemployment numbers. The unemployment rate only calculates the people actively looking for work, not able body people not in the workforce by choice.

The country is still here but changing dramatically under demographic and social changes. I question how long the producers will be able or willing to keep producing enough for the dependent class to keep taking. At some point the current equation will fail.

We the people do deserve better and the sooner more people recognize that our republic was not established to support and coddle people from the cradle to the grave the better. We are supposed to be guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness. That's not a guarantee. Home of the free, not the freeloaders.

Where are the national leaders? I think they have chosen to stay in the private sector because the political system is as corrupt and divisive as ever and the masses are so ignorant to what is supposed to be our core values (thank you NEA) that it's going to be a long hard road to make real changes that work for the working class in this country.

Not a lot of positive mojo in these thoughts but keep the faith and do what's right for you and the ones close to you.

WELCOME TO DAY THREE OF THE IBIDIOT OCTOBER MELTDOWN! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

apparently he has plenty of company

Again, your argument doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Lib-retards maintain that increasing "taxes" -- for "health reasons" -- on fast foods, soft drinks, and products used by smokers and drinkers reduces the use of those products. So why doesn't that rationale apply when the government taxes a business for the employees it hires?

Just a "mere" 40%!?! Don't forget, politicians like Dodd, Franks and Summers benefitted as well.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LIBTARDS? really, what are you 8 years old? And what are you talking about? I don't think liberals are the only ones putting taxes on tabacco and fast foods(you forgot alcohol), Michael Bloomberg is an independant. One a business hires a worker it expects that the value a worker produces exceeds the cost of employing that worker, if taxes on the business are increased that marginally increases the cost of employing that worker.Explain how that's related to trying to drive down consumption by taxing harmful products.
Your characterization of my response about fannie and freddie was inaccurate. Your use of the term "mere" insinuates that I didn't consider that it to be significant contributor to the collapse. However, it was less than half which leads one to believe that there were a good number of others who abused the system as well. Also, that 40% figure doesn't consider the other party in the business which is the investment houses. 100% of them were crooked. My characterization is much more accurate than the one you posted earlier in this thread.
Now, It's obvious you can't answer any of the questions I have asked you in earlier posts and instead you sputter gibberish and call people names to try to hide your lack of knowledge. It's neandrethal thinkers like you who are ruining this country and making me ashamed to be an American.