meazza Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Don't feed the azzhat troll. That would mean ignoring 99% of PPP. We are the 1%.
fjl2nd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Say, do you have any idea what the catalyst was for the big crash in 2008? Do you have any idea what is keeping the economy from rebounding? How would you get the economy going again? What is your opinion of the following items done by the federal government? Cash For Clunkers - Wasn't great. It helped stimulate auto demand a little and I read a recent report that it was fairly bad for the environment. Funding companies like Solyndra- In general, the government using grants and other means to promote research that will be beneficial to our society is fine by me. Not all will pan out and this case was obviously not good. Propping up union pensions - Union pensions are a problem. I am supporter of unions but I just see them in a no-win situation as time goes on. Giving extra money to the states for teachers and first responders -This would be nice to see. Get that unemployment number down! Private sector has been adding more and more jobs while government continues to shed them in areas like these. Holding up the Keystone Pipeline -I'll admit that I have not done enough research on the thing to give a fair opinion. Seen some arguments I agreed with on both sides of the argument. Tax credit for "green" autos - We have ignored the environment for too long. This could be one way to go. Pretty clear we are really messing with our surroundings. Something has to be done. Responses are in bold. The catalyst was the bad loans being made by banks to anyone who wanted a house. The government allowed this to happen and failed at regulation. Compound that with the fact that these loans were getting packaged and repackaged and sold on to the next bank only created an even bigger ripple effect. Getting the economy to rebound to great standard is a tough task. We are in a very different place than we have even been when looking at the job market. It's tough to see where the jobs will come from and if they do come, will they pay a living wage? I am torn on listening to the Krugmans of the world because this isn't the same economy of the 1930s. I do agree that helping states rehire teachers and others would have a net positive effect on the economy, but it's not enough. I have a fairly bleak outlook for the future economy. I believe it will improve over the next couple years before tanking again due to remaining high debt levels by consumers, rapid technological growth, and an increasing wealth/income gap. This is coming from a very optimistic person as well... Keep talkin' like you are in a !@#$in' sit-com. You're not Frank. This is real life. You and you lib friends here like to pretend you are on "Friends" or something. Come on. GTFU. You've lost me Ox. I don't what any of this means.
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Responses are in bold. The catalyst was the bad loans being made by banks to anyone who wanted a house. The government allowed this to happen and failed at regulation. Compound that with the fact that these loans were getting packaged and repackaged and sold on to the next bank only created an even bigger ripple effect. Getting the economy to rebound to great standard is a tough task. We are in a very different place than we have even been when looking at the job market. It's tough to see where the jobs will come from and if they do come, will they pay a living wage? I am torn on listening to the Krugmans of the world because this isn't the same economy of the 1930s. I do agree that helping states rehire teachers and others would have a net positive effect on the economy, but it's not enough. I have a fairly bleak outlook for the future economy. I believe it will improve over the next couple years before tanking again due to remaining high debt levels by consumers, rapid technological growth, and an increasing wealth/income gap. This is coming from a very optimistic person as well... You've lost me Ox. I don't what any of this means. The Clunker program cost the U.S. taxpayer money, at best just moved up auto purchases that were already going to happen and hurt the environment. Not only a failed government program but one that hurt the country. The money that the feds gave the states for teachers, etc. was part of the stimulus fiasco and it hired teachers, etc. Now they have been layed off and we are pretending that public sector workers are being reduced. "Green autos" are not good for the environment as they are presently configured. If the feds want to do something maybe some local government grants for converting municipal fleets to natural gas, eh? If they want to reduce emissions from coal maybe we shouldn't be pushing electric cars fueled by coal plants? Do you really think it was fair for Obama to usurp federal bankruptcy law at the expense of bondholders and prop up union pensions? Suggestion---please do not reply in the quote box--makes it too hard to respond to your response.
Oxrock Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 You've lost me Ox. I don't what any of this means. I visualized David Schwimmer and heard his voice in my head whenever I read your post lately. They all lived in there own little bubble.
Dean Cain Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Don't feed the azzhat troll. I found a good read for you. In fact total commitments were 29 trillion. http://m.cnbc.com//id/45674390/The_Size_of_the_Bank_Bailout_29_Trillion
Dean Cain Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 PS even Jim Kramer acknowledges the bail out was at minimum 7 trillion. http://m.cnbc.com//id/100398172/Financial_Crisis_As_Cramer_Warned_Fed_Laughed Why are so many of my fellow conservatives lost in the weeds on this? If we had let the banks go bust, and not have listened to guys like Jim Kramer. As a true Free Market capitalist how can anyone call their self a fiscal conservative and be fine with the Fed printing $7 trillion?
Recommended Posts