Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
... As for any stimulus package, you are going to be able to point to
various projects as pork, but certainly, the final bill looks like it
will attempt to address housing, try to stimulate job growth and also
keep a lot of businesses afloat. Whether it will work, or be enough, or
in time, is a guess at best.

It's a given in our political system that all spending bills
come out of the House. The stimulus package was put together
by House Dems. Now it moves to the Senate where they will
translate it from the crayon to an actual typewritten package.
If Obama is half the leader I believe him to be the final
version will make sense.

I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...

You should have your eyes checked.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I fully admit to being a partisan Democrat. What's ridiculous
to me is the partisans who deny that they're partisan.

Seems like the partisan's here see no evil, hear no evil from their side of
the aisle. ...

I've already suggested that you get your eyes checked, apparently
you're going to need a hearing test too. But you're right in that
I don't see or hear any "evil" connected with Daschle. He made a
very understandable error, reported it to the IRS and paid up in
full. Like I said, no harm, no foul as far as I'm concerned. But
having said that, he did have to withdraw from consideration and
he did so with grace and class. And I'm still not seeing or hearing
any "evil".

I am a registered Democrat and did not vote for Bush or Kerry or
Gore. They are all so bad I voted Libertarian. ...

In other words you'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw spitballs
at the players on the field instead of doing your civic duty.

And what we have for a
stimulus bill is mostly pork. Extreme pork. A 900 page bill that no one
that is voting on it has read, or understands. That will not stimulate and
will cost my great grandchildren gobs of money for the sins of my generation
and childrens generation.

If we don't pass a stimulus bill in a damn big hurry your great
grandkids won't have to worry about paying down the gobs of money
because they won't have any money. Yeah, it's *that* bad.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:50:04 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

If we don't pass a stimulus bill in a damn big hurry your great
grandkids won't have to worry about paying down the gobs of money
because they won't have any money. Yeah, it's *that* bad.

Mmmmmmm. "Hurry?" The stimulus bill, as now presented, doesn't need
to be hurried because most of the money spent will be months and years
from now. What is the hurry if that is the case? What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for. The friend that is remodeling our
kitchen has very little work because there is hardly any money
available for loans. There is no banking relief in the present bill.
It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*. All the major car companies have a sales drop of more than 40%
because people aren't buying cars. New housing construction is down
for the same reason - no money. This entire thing started with
housing and bad investments by Fannie and Freddie. The relief should
start at the source, housing.

Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. *THAT* would
stimulate the economy. And, if you think the plan is going to
stimulate 3,000,000 jobs as Obama says, well, you do the math on how
much each job is going to cost *just to create it*. It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one. Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork. No society has ever spent its way to
prosperity, and spending $300,000 to creat one job sure as hell is not
going to work.

Dave



Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Feb 8, 12:18*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:


Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. **THAT* would
stimulate the economy. *

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

--riverman

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

riverman wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. *THAT* would
stimulate the economy.

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

He'll have to get back to you on that, Limbaugh isn't on
the air again until Monday. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for.

and, after we relieve some loans, who in their right mind is going to lend
to the average person, knowing full well they may have no job to pay for it
going forward?? And, when the business property loans go up in smoke, we
'relieve' them, too. And, so on, and so on......


There is no banking relief in the present bill.

good, because there isn't supposed to be. It's an economic stimulus bill.
Banking was supposedly addressed earlier, during the Bush debacle, er,
administration...

It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*.

yes, it will, to some extent. Obviously, they won't pass the bill next week
and have them hired by the following weekend, but many of the projects will
hire folks relatively quickly. Further, several of the proposed grants will
keep people working, and thus save their jobs and those of the businesses
that cater to/support them.


It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.



Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork.

you don't get it. Apparently, many on the right, bitching about this program
or that, don't get it. When you give money to a museum, the staff stays
employed, maybe some new folks get hired. When people attend that museum,
they also go to a local coffee shop, maybe shop in the nearby area, maybe go
out to dinner afterward. In all cases, enabling folks to keep jobs in those
small businesses. This is the theory behind this sort of package. I hope it
is enough to keep the nation from heading off the cliff, but NONE of us can
say for sure, at the moment. Still, I am stunned how some folks, with
seemingly some intelligence cannot see the percolation effect of federal
grants on the overall economy.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:39:45 -0800 (PST), riverman
wrote:

On Feb 8, 12:18*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:


Take the $900,000,000,000 and divide it by the number of jobs it
creats *now*, and you will probably be better off just giving that
money to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. **THAT* would
stimulate the economy. *

So you're in favor of welfare, then?

--riverman

Uh, where did I say that? The above paragraph is pure facetiousness.

But it *would* be better than spending all that money on pork. A
family of 5 would get, what, ~$15,000. Would not that be better than
lawns in DC, historical improvements in SF, a "Mob" museum in LV, and
the pork continues and continues.

Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:47:28 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

He'll have to get back to you on that, Limbaugh isn't on
the air again until Monday. LOL !!

Ah, yes, utilizing the First Rule as listed in "Fortenberry's
Discussion and Debating Manifesto":

"Without an argument, resort to ad hominem attacks. Name calling,
parentage, color of skin, ethnic background, religious beliefs, amount
of education are ALL open to attack.

"Warning: If this First Rule is used too often, people will think you
are a one trick pony."

Davey

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote:
It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.

President Obama said exactly the same thing this week in response
to some silly posturing by John McCain on the Senate floor. The
Republicans are great at peddling ignorance and rousing the rabble
and you have to give them credit for their sheer audacity, but
the GOP has nothing to contribute to the discussion. After eight
years of the deregulation and tax cuts and profligate spending
that got us into this colossal disaster the GOP has absolutely no
credibility whatsoever.

When I hear both the wingnuts on the left and the wingnuts on the
right whining about the same stimulus package I figure it's probably
a good start in the right direction.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:12:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
What we *need* is
relief for loans so that people can buy stuff like cars, homes, and
whatever else folks need loans for.

and, after we relieve some loans, who in their right mind is going to lend
to the average person, knowing full well they may have no job to pay for it
going forward?? And, when the business property loans go up in smoke, we
'relieve' them, too. And, so on, and so on......

Horse caca. With money available for home mortgages, those NOW in the
red because of bad Freddy and Fannie (Thanks to Barney and Dodd), can
pay for their homes by refinancing them at a payment they can afford.
Also, those in the market for a new home will put carpenters,
electricians, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc back to work.


There is no banking relief in the present bill.

good, because there isn't supposed to be. It's an economic stimulus bill.
Banking was supposedly addressed earlier, during the Bush debacle, er,
administration...

Uh, when did the housing **** hit the fan? Can you tell me? It was
right after Barney, Dodd, Omama, et al came into power in the 06
elections. Check out the economy before 06. Hell, I have never been
richer than I was in the summer of 06, neither have my children or
their children. The stimulus package that the Dems forced through
Congress last year WAS a debacle. Remember, Congress make the laws,
passes the bills, and spends the money. Stop blaming everything on
Bush. You sound like a Clinton basher with a dress on.


It will solve very little because it doesn't put people back to work
*now*.

yes, it will, to some extent. Obviously, they won't pass the bill next week
and have them hired by the following weekend, but many of the projects will
hire folks relatively quickly. Further, several of the proposed grants will
keep people working, and thus save their jobs and those of the businesses
that cater to/support them.

None of this "spending spree" will amount to immediated jobs, not this
week, not next, perhaps not until a year from now. Everyone is so
much in a hurry to pass this bill NOW because it is so URGENT, yet
none of the money will go where it is needed.

It isn't a
stimulus package, Ken, it is a spending one.

How, exactly, does the economy receive a stimulus without money being
spent?? A stimulus bill IS a spending bill, it's that simple.

No! You stimulate an economy by cutting back on spending, and that
starts with tax cuts. Every time there are tax cuts, the economy
thrives. There are not enough tax cuts in this bill to amount to
anything. You can not spend your way into financial success. That is
just plain stupid. The people who produce the jobs (my daughter and
her husband, for example) need tax cuts, not more taxes. If they are
taxes further, they will simply lay off people to make up the
difference. Who is going to pay for all of this? The very people who
produce jobs.



Spend the money on
people, not lawns, San Francisco historical crap, a "Mob" museum in
Vegas, etc. Pork is pork.

you don't get it. Apparently, many on the right, bitching about this program
or that, don't get it. When you give money to a museum, the staff stays
employed, maybe some new folks get hired. When people attend that museum,
they also go to a local coffee shop, maybe shop in the nearby area, maybe go
out to dinner afterward. In all cases, enabling folks to keep jobs in those
small businesses. This is the theory behind this sort of package. I hope it
is enough to keep the nation from heading off the cliff, but NONE of us can
say for sure, at the moment. Still, I am stunned how some folks, with
seemingly some intelligence cannot see the percolation effect of federal
grants on the overall economy.

Ah, but I DO get it. "Maybe" being the operative word. MAYBE it
don't/won't. A new museum in Las Vegas is NOT going to produce any
jobs in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. New lawns in the Capitol are
not going to produce new jobs in Illinoise or Florida. Sprucing up
the historical section of San Francisco will not produce new jobs in
New York or New Jersey. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't Pelosi and Reid
from San Francisco and Nevada, and don't all these folks work in DC.
Well, I'll be! The little sobs! These and other pork loins are not
going to help with our curreent financial situation. They WILL,
however, put money into the coffers of Democrat supporters. All of
those jobs you list already exist, Tom. We need to put assemblers,
carpenters, plumbers, heavy equipment oprs back to work. We need to
put white, pink and blue collar workers back to work. This stimulus
package will fail to do that in its current form.

But, making MONEY available to small business entrepreneurs, to other
businesses that have laid off people, to allow the working class to
keep more of the money they earn so that they can *spend* it, or save
it will help us recover. You can not spend you way into prosperity.
On the contrary, it takes *prosperity* for governments to spend.

Ain't gonna happen with this Democrat Spending Spree.

The original problem started with the Houseing Crunch caused by stupid
loans made available by Freddie and Fannie. Loans that people could
not pay back. I wish the hell I could get a loan to buy a Bugatti
Veyron (only a mill and a half), drive it for a few months and then
have Freddie or Fannie pick up the payments. Sounds good to me. Hell,
I would gladly spend $10,000 to drive that little sucker for a few
months. And then the taxpayers could pick up the bill.

Solve the problem from where it started, Tom.

Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
With money available for home mortgages, those NOW in the
red because of bad Freddy and Fannie (Thanks to Barney and Dodd), can
pay for their homes by refinancing them at a payment they can afford.

What!!? You said, in another thread that Fannie and Freddie(at the behest of
Dodd and Frank) had folks buying $400,000 homes with small incomes. You can
re-write the interest all you want, but those folks will NEVER be able to
pay off those loans, unless the rate is zero, and the principal is cut.
Start cutting principal amounts and see how eager banks are to loan money.

Also, those in the market for a new home will put carpenters,
electricians, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc back to work.


sure, loads of folks will be eager to invest in a new home when they aren't
certain they will even have a job in a year or two.

Uh, when did the housing **** hit the fan? Can you tell me? It was
right after Barney, Dodd, Omama, et al came into power in the 06
elections. Check out the economy before 06. Hell, I have never been
richer than I was in the summer of 06, neither have my children or
their children.

this paragraph is just plain ignorant. You weren't richer, in any way other
than ON PAPER. And, you can thank a host of 'leaders', from either party,
for allowing a grotesque bubble or collection of economic bubbles to build.
It was an illusion, David, don't you freaking get it?


None of this "spending spree" will amount to immediated jobs, not this
week, not next, perhaps not until a year from now. Everyone is so
much in a hurry to pass this bill NOW because it is so URGENT, yet
none of the money will go where it is needed.

the urgency lies in the need for immediate, positive action to arrest a
free-fall in public confidence in the economy, which is feeding a massive
dropoff in spending, leading to more layoffs, more business failures, and
then even lower confidence. The idea of our leaders doing absolutely
nothing(as you seem to advocate) will push this nation over a cliff.
No! You stimulate an economy by cutting back on spending, and that
starts with tax cuts.

standard Reaganomics......which has, by now, proven to be an absolute
failure. All it does is create speculative bubbles, push the poor to even
poorer levels and benefit a handful of the citizenry. Another round or two
of that bull****, and you can count on a wholesale revolution.

The people who produce the jobs (my daughter and
her husband, for example) need tax cuts, not more taxes.

their taxes are NOT GOING UP! Can't you read the bill, or do you simply wish
to base your opinion on BS from the far right?



Ah, but I DO get it. "Maybe" being the operative word. MAYBE it
don't/won't. A new museum in Las Vegas is NOT going to produce any
jobs in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.

trust me, PA and Massachusetts will get their fair share of the pie.


But, making MONEY available to small business entrepreneurs, to other
businesses that have laid off people, to allow the working class to
keep more of the money they earn so that they can *spend* it, or save
it will help us recover.

what kind of imbecile business owner is going to hire people back when no
one is buying any products or services?? Giving a tax break, when income is
zero, to a business is just a smokescreen that accomplishes nothing.


I wish the hell I could get a loan to buy a Bugatti
Veyron (only a mill and a half), drive it for a few months and then
have Freddie or Fannie pick up the payments. Sounds good to me. Hell,
I would gladly spend $10,000 to drive that little sucker for a few
months. And then the taxpayers could pick up the bill.

yet, this is exactly what you proposed at the outset of this post, isn't it?

Solve the problem from where it started, Tom.

I'd love to, but you cannot solve sheer greed after it has been appeased for
28 years, since Reagan raised it to holy grail status. Best to hope the
train wreck it led to can be averted or lessened in severity.

Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Dave LaCourse"
No! You stimulate an economy by cutting back on spending, and that
starts with tax cuts.

standard Reaganomics......which has, by now, proven to be an absolute
failure. ...

And there is the whole thing in a nutshell. This is precisely why Obama
needs to say "Screw You, I Won" to the GOP obstructionists in Congress.

I've heard the GOP being compared to the gawkers milling around the
house that's on fire deliberately obstructing the firemen. Supply-side
economics is, was, and always will be wrongheaded. Anyone who can't see
that by now is just plain blinded by ideology and ignorance.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

hussein the uniter, ea?


This is precisely why Obama
needs to say "Screw You, I Won"

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
? Supply-side
economics is, was, and always will be wrongheaded. Anyone who can't see
that by now is just plain blinded by ideology and ignorance.

it goes deeper than even that, Ken. Breaking the hold on some folks of the
Cult of Reagan will be slow process. Ronnie Raygun made his terms a success
by preaching a sermon of self-centered greed (of which trickle-down
economics plays a part) that led the nation down a very wrong path. It
sells, in large part, because it appeals to the human nature in many, if not
most of us. Yet, while guys like David blame the unravelling of the economy
on Dodd and Frank wanting folks to be able to buy houses, the ability of the
underfunded to purchase a home was directly a result of an unregulated
market in mortgage securities, which freed lenders from having to actually
worry about repayment, once they stuck some other poor suckers(like, say,
pensioners and municipalities) with the IOU. As RDean himself has pointed
out, this same set of principles(or lack thereof) has caused the oddball
fluctuation of oil prices, due to an unregulated commodities market. All of
this lack of regulation, lack of oversight and unbridled greed can rightly
be seen as the true legacy of Ronald Reagan.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
hussein the uniter, ea?


uniting everyone but the complete assholes isn't a bad thing, really.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

tough week for hussein...it takes a while to fig out
how washington works......did he ever find his birth
docs?

---------snip-------------------
After weeks of losing a public-relations fight with Republicans,
Obama's
aides considered any forward movement of Obama's legislation a
victory
toward fixing the economic crisis that has left 3.6 million Americans
without jobs.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

classy operation...

" A street artist famous for his red, white and blue "Hope" posters
of
Hussein Obama has been arrested on warrants accusing him of tagging
property with graffiti, police said Saturday"

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
tough week for hussein...it takes a while to fig out
how washington works.

it takes anyone a while to figure out how to be an effective President. You
can't possibly be suggesting that McCain would have handled the present
situation any better? Hell, that old boy would have been near death before
taking the oath, had he actually spent time thinking about the problems
Obama is actively dealing with. Thank goodness we got the President we
needed elected!!!
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
" A street artist famous for his red, white and blue "Hope" posters
of
Hussein Obama has been arrested on warrants accusing him of tagging
property with graffiti, police said Saturday"

Fairley has been a known graffiti artist for years. His "Giant" tags have
appeared around the country, and yes, he has gotten arrested a few times for
it. Art is subversive, sometimes great art is truly subversive. Get over it.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:31:38 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
With money available for home mortgages, those NOW in the
red because of bad Freddy and Fannie (Thanks to Barney and Dodd), can
pay for their homes by refinancing them at a payment they can afford.

What!!? You said, in another thread that Fannie and Freddie(at the behest of
Dodd and Frank) had folks buying $400,000 homes with small incomes. You can
re-write the interest all you want, but those folks will NEVER be able to
pay off those loans, unless the rate is zero, and the principal is cut.
Start cutting principal amounts and see how eager banks are to loan money.

Also, those in the market for a new home will put carpenters,
electricians, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc back to work.


sure, loads of folks will be eager to invest in a new home when they aren't
certain they will even have a job in a year or two.

Tom, the housing market is down because there is no money. And the
housing **** hit the fan in 2006.

Uh, when did the housing **** hit the fan? Can you tell me? It was
right after Barney, Dodd, Omama, et al came into power in the 06
elections. Check out the economy before 06. Hell, I have never been
richer than I was in the summer of 06, neither have my children or
their children.

this paragraph is just plain ignorant. You weren't richer, in any way other
than ON PAPER. And, you can thank a host of 'leaders', from either party,
for allowing a grotesque bubble or collection of economic bubbles to build.
It was an illusion, David, don't you freaking get it?

Well, hell, Tom, our wealth is *always* on paper, even if we have
invested in nothing but gold or silver. Now, if you had that gold or
silver in your position, that would be different. Like I said, my
wealth reached its zenith in 2006. My house has lost value (thanks,
Barney), the stock market hasn't been very good, and people started
losing their houses a year after they were given unbelievable loans by
Freddie and Fannie.


None of this "spending spree" will amount to immediated jobs, not this
week, not next, perhaps not until a year from now. Everyone is so
much in a hurry to pass this bill NOW because it is so URGENT, yet
none of the money will go where it is needed.

the urgency lies in the need for immediate, positive action to arrest a
free-fall in public confidence in the economy, which is feeding a massive
dropoff in spending, leading to more layoffs, more business failures, and
then even lower confidence. The idea of our leaders doing absolutely
nothing(as you seem to advocate) will push this nation over a cliff.

I agree that it is urgent to pass a stimulus package, Tom, but this
one ain't it. Pelosi, Reid, and their bandits have added to much pork
to it. Once, just once, I would like to see Congress pass a bill
without any pork in it. I do not advocate doing nothing. I say solve
the problem from whence it came - MONEY. If a new mortgage with the
same rate but over a longer period was given to the folks that Freddie
and Fannie snagged, this wouldn't have happened. Give those folks the
money to save their homes. Give the money so that others can invest
in new homes or new businesses. When, or when, are you Democrat
liberals going to get rid of Pelosi and Reid. They have a lower
popularity rating than Bush at his worse. No one thinks they are
doing a good job, unless you live if SF or Nevada.

No! You stimulate an economy by cutting back on spending, and that
starts with tax cuts.

standard Reaganomics......which has, by now, proven to be an absolute
failure. All it does is create speculative bubbles, push the poor to even
poorer levels and benefit a handful of the citizenry. Another round or two
of that bull****, and you can count on a wholesale revolution.

Reaganomics? ****, boy, you aren't old enough to remember JFK, are
you? I voted for the man and the very FIRST thing he did was ramrod a
tax cut through Congress, and an economy of malaise once again began
to grow. Tax cuts, money put back into the working people of this
country, means more money spent, and means more money in governments'
coffers.

The people who produce the jobs (my daughter and
her husband, for example) need tax cuts, not more taxes.

their taxes are NOT GOING UP! Can't you read the bill, or do you simply wish
to base your opinion on BS from the far right?

Their taxes will go up. That is a given, regardless what you say.
They went up during Clinton and they laid off people. They HIRED
people five or so years ago.




Ah, but I DO get it. "Maybe" being the operative word. MAYBE it
don't/won't. A new museum in Las Vegas is NOT going to produce any
jobs in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.

trust me, PA and Massachusetts will get their fair share of the pie.

Riiiiiiight. I have no intentions of going to Neveda to work in as
museum, and I'm too old to lay sod.


But, making MONEY available to small business entrepreneurs, to other
businesses that have laid off people, to allow the working class to
keep more of the money they earn so that they can *spend* it, or save
it will help us recover.

what kind of imbecile business owner is going to hire people back when no
one is buying any products or services?? Giving a tax break, when income is
zero, to a business is just a smokescreen that accomplishes nothing.

My daughter and her husband hired people a few years ago. They laid
off people after Clinton raised taxes. Most of the employers in our
country are small businessmen. Bruce runs/owns a super market. His
business isn't zero. My daughter runs a gift shop. Her business is
doing just fine - could be better, but she is nowhere near going
under. Both of these people *employ* people. THEY'RE the ones that
produce jobs, not government.


I wish the hell I could get a loan to buy a Bugatti
Veyron (only a mill and a half), drive it for a few months and then
have Freddie or Fannie pick up the payments. Sounds good to me. Hell,
I would gladly spend $10,000 to drive that little sucker for a few
months. And then the taxpayers could pick up the bill.

yet, this is exactly what you proposed at the outset of this post, isn't it?

You miss the point, Tom. The above is what Freddie and Fannie did
(with housing) while Barney and Dodd said there was nothing wrong. As
early as 2006, people were complaining about F and F and the bad loans
they were making. If those folks could have their loans rewritten so
that instead of paying it off at XXXX amount each month for 30 years,
they pay less, but for 40 years. It could save some of them.

Solve the problem from where it started, Tom.

I'd love to, but you cannot solve sheer greed after it has been appeased for
28 years, since Reagan raised it to holy grail status. Best to hope the
train wreck it led to can be averted or lessened in severity.

Again, horse caca. The problem started when no oversight by Barney
and Dodd on Freddie and Fannie. They were making loans that the
people couldn't pay back, but they wanted these people to have a piece
of the American pie, their own home. The bad loans started this whole
debacle, nor Reagan. And you have the gall to suggest greed without
naming Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Barney? Un****inbelievable.

Dave


Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Supply-side
economics is, was, and always will be wrongheaded. Anyone who can't see
that by now is just plain blinded by ideology and ignorance.

snip
... All of
this lack of regulation, lack of oversight and unbridled greed can rightly
be seen as the true legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Exactly right. When Reaganomics reached its pinnacle the economy went
predictably into the crapper. There's a reason a prominent Republican
dubbed it "voodoo economics".

Obama has his hands full, that's for sure.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:23:32 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Obama has his hands full, that's for sure.

Right, and Pelosi and Reid are getting their pockets full.

Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, the housing market is down because there is no money. And the
housing **** hit the fan in 2006.

no, you are wrong. The housing market is returning to sanity, after a
grossly inflated bubble.
Well, hell, Tom, our wealth is *always* on paper, even if we have
invested in nothing but gold or silver. Now, if you had that gold or
silver in your position, that would be different. Like I said, my
wealth reached its zenith in 2006. My house has lost value (thanks,
Barney), the stock market hasn't been very good, and people started
losing their houses a year after they were given unbelievable loans by
Freddie and Fannie.
once again, your lack of insight into reality is astounding.

Your net worth is only relevant if you intend on selling everything off.
Otherwise, it is just an exercise in paper calculations. The old adage of
selling when you can get the best price comes in here. Also, you assume a
certain wealth during a bubble and you make a serious mistake.
Let's go back, if you will to that couple you cited, driving a BMW and going
to a food pantry now. They are example #1 of the personal irresponsibility
that is significantly to blame in this mess. They THOUGHT they could afford
a beemer, but if they couldn't afford ****ing food after a financial
setback(whether job loss, health issue, whatever), they really couldn't.
But, I'll bet they thought they deserved one. Now, they are taking food from
the truly destitute and deserve to be slapped. Why the hell don't they sell
the car and buy their own damned food?
I do not advocate doing nothing. I say solve
the problem from whence it came - MONEY. If a new mortgage with the
same rate but over a longer period was given to the folks that Freddie
and Fannie snagged, this wouldn't have happened. Give those folks the
money to save their homes.

as I tried to point out, this clearly wouldn't work. Many lived over their
heads, and can't be saved that way. Their houses are not worth the mortgage
amount or anything close to it.

Their taxes will go up. That is a given, regardless what you say.
They went up during Clinton and they laid off people. They HIRED
people five or so years ago.
as I asked elsewhere, where do you find a tax increase? I only see a 250
Billion dollar lowering of taxation, in the current proposal. Oh, I get it,
since the GOP has you scared into thinking that ALL Democrats will raise
taxes, you are stupid enough to believe it?
But, making MONEY available to small business entrepreneurs, to other
businesses that have laid off people, to allow the working class to
keep more of the money they earn so that they can *spend* it, or save
it will help us recover.

no, it won't. NO businessperson worth **** is going to expand during a
severe economic slowdown. Maybe you know folks stupid enough to hire workers
they don't need, but I suspect that isn't a norm.
Again, horse caca. The problem started when no oversight by Barney
and Dodd on Freddie and Fannie.

what a load of crap. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. All
you can do is blame two guys who came into power after the horse had left
the freaking barn.


They were making loans that the
people couldn't pay back,

Oh, and others weren't?? Greed started us down this path, and Barney Frank
and Chris Dodd(while hardly a great help in the process) clearly weren't the
ones who sold a boatload of bum paper to unsuspecting investors to avoid the
normal responsible lending practices. And, Fannie and Freddie got in on that
game late, they hardly started the practice. None of that **** would have
happened with any real oversight. But, your fine friends in the GOP made
good and certain that almost all banking oversight and investment regulation
was null and void.
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:04:30 -0500, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:23:32 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Obama has his hands full, that's for sure.

Right, and Pelosi and Reid are getting their pockets full.

Dave


To mix a metaphor and end this thread for me,
youse guys have drank the koolaid, hook, line and sinker. Hey that
should be an OBROFF.

Davey

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
I have seen no leadership from the messiah. He is supporting the bill as
it came out of the House. very little stimulation and gobs of cost.

actually, exactly wrong, Bill. Obama is quietly supporting the version
that is being re-written in the Senate, and urging the House to go along
without re-tinkering with it.
And, based on the economics experts, the balance of the Senate compromise
fit the mold of what is needed. The only questions seemingly remaining
a 1) will this approach work, or be timely enough and 2) is it large
enough? Many feel, given the current rate of job loss and business losses,
a package of double this size is needed.
Tom


Obama has changed his support to the new bill. Just going along with the
flow. Where is some leadership. A package double this may be needed. But
not with the hurryup writing of this bill. This bill is a clusterf&&k in
regards to anybody really understanding the bill and what we really need.
Resodding the Mall is not something needed for a stimulus, as well as a lot
of other pet projects inserted. The last $850 Billion Bailout was written
with the same haste and look how it turned out. And that was a Democrat
controlled Congress also, so do not try to blame Bush for the failure. Put
the blame where it belongs. Congress! BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE!

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
... As for any stimulus package, you are going to be able to point to
various projects as pork, but certainly, the final bill looks like it
will attempt to address housing, try to stimulate job growth and also
keep a lot of businesses afloat. Whether it will work, or be enough, or
in time, is a guess at best.

It's a given in our political system that all spending bills
come out of the House. The stimulus package was put together
by House Dems. Now it moves to the Senate where they will
translate it from the crayon to an actual typewritten package.
If Obama is half the leader I believe him to be the final
version will make sense.

I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...

You should have your eyes checked.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good eyes.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...
You should have your eyes checked.

Good eyes.

But you still can't see.

Try removing those ideological blinkers and the ignorance tinted
sunglasses.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
How about government cutting the excess spending?

what, exactly, do you consider 'excess' spending?? Hell,
the vast majority of the budget is for defense spending and established
programs such as Medicare, Social Security
and the like.



Lots of the liquidity problems are the Government(s) excess borrowing.
Takes lots of loan money for private people and business out of
circulation.

um, not really, but I am not going to waste 3 pages explaining it to you.
Look it up.
Finally, do you(and others) understand: the principle behind an 'economic
stimulus' is SPENDING by the government. Now, you can choose to disagree
with the principle or theory behind that, but that is what it is.
As for jeff's concerns, I share them, but realize that we are facing a
situation far more dire than jacking up a federal deficit. Layoff levels
of 1/2 million souls per month will lead to a commercial collapse(and thus
commercial real estate/commercial loan collapse) that, if nothing else,
will make folks forget about the housing loan mess pretty quick, as there
is far more dubious paper out there on commercial real estate than there
was on housing, I suspect. If something doesn't stabilize both employment
levels and public confidence, and very quickly, an ugly downturn could
easily become something much worse, IMO.
Tom


A stimulus bill should not cause more problems for us and our children and
grandchildren than not doing as much. Temporary government jobs will just
postpone the recession, layoffs until the trillion bucks is spent. We had a
bailout bill passed by a Democrat controlled Congress with Republican votes
also, and look what that has done. Stimulated $18 billion in bonus money
and not stimulus or bailout. I do not want the same thing with the next ill
conceived bill. Rushed out of Congress with a few people in the corner
writing it. Look at the "Stimulus" spending. Most is not a stimulus, but
future pork. Give a forgiveness of taxes up to $3000 credit on a mortgage,
and most in trouble paying for the house will be able to keep the house.
Buy up 50% of the bad mortgages and will stop a lot of the real estate
problems and would cost a hell of a lot less than $800 billion. And we as a
people need to feel some pain. We as a country have been living on borrowed
money for too long. Just like the dot.com boom, greed has ruled. Houses
are no where worth what they have sold for in the last 10 years. My
daughters condo in a beach area of SoCal bought for $400k 7 years ago, was
selling for $900k after 6 years. Lots of fraud in the mortgage world. Not
all in the banks side. Cases of people buying a house for $200k, selling it
to a friend of family member a year later for $400k, and a 3rd F or F buying
it for $700k a year later and then defaulting on the loan. Nice profit of
$500k split 3 ways in 2 years. Good income, eh? Everybody wants the
"Stimulus" bill to erase all pain, give back all investment losses and pay
for their house and gas bill. Sounds like this is what you want. What are
you going to tell your grandchildren when they asked why did you take all
our money to pay for your excesses. Stimulus does not mean we have to
bankrupt the country in 3 years. I have not seen a lot of smart in the
current packages.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I fully admit to being a partisan Democrat. What's ridiculous
to me is the partisans who deny that they're partisan.

Seems like the partisan's here see no evil, hear no evil from their side
of the aisle. ...

I've already suggested that you get your eyes checked, apparently
you're going to need a hearing test too. But you're right in that
I don't see or hear any "evil" connected with Daschle. He made a
very understandable error, reported it to the IRS and paid up in
full. Like I said, no harm, no foul as far as I'm concerned. But
having said that, he did have to withdraw from consideration and
he did so with grace and class. And I'm still not seeing or hearing
any "evil".

I am a registered Democrat and did not vote for Bush or Kerry or Gore.
They are all so bad I voted Libertarian. ...

In other words you'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw spitballs
at the players on the field instead of doing your civic duty.

And what we have for a stimulus bill is mostly pork. Extreme pork. A 900
page bill that no one that is voting on it has read, or understands.
That will not stimulate and will cost my great grandchildren gobs of
money for the sins of my generation and childrens generation.

If we don't pass a stimulus bill in a damn big hurry your great
grandkids won't have to worry about paying down the gobs of money
because they won't have any money. Yeah, it's *that* bad.

--
Ken Fortenberry

What stimulus? Most is pork. Pure, unadulterated lard. Most of the
spending is not now, but years from now. Mob museums? Resod the mall?
These are stimulus? Sitting on the sidelines throwing spitballs. Nope,
voting for the pieces of **** the 2 major parties have run for the last few
cycles, is supporting running pieces of ****. Maybe if a majority of the
voters picked a Libertarian or Green Party candidate, etc. maybe the 2 major
parties would get back in line. I look at both the Dems and Repubs as close
to the Whigs in effectiveness. And both should go the same way.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
? Supply-side
economics is, was, and always will be wrongheaded. Anyone who can't see
that by now is just plain blinded by ideology and ignorance.

it goes deeper than even that, Ken. Breaking the hold on some folks of the
Cult of Reagan will be slow process. Ronnie Raygun made his terms a
success by preaching a sermon of self-centered greed (of which
trickle-down economics plays a part) that led the nation down a very wrong
path. It sells, in large part, because it appeals to the human nature in
many, if not most of us. Yet, while guys like David blame the unravelling
of the economy on Dodd and Frank wanting folks to be able to buy houses,
the ability of the underfunded to purchase a home was directly a result of
an unregulated market in mortgage securities, which freed lenders from
having to actually worry about repayment, once they stuck some other poor
suckers(like, say, pensioners and municipalities) with the IOU. As RDean
himself has pointed out, this same set of principles(or lack thereof) has
caused the oddball fluctuation of oil prices, due to an unregulated
commodities market. All of this lack of regulation, lack of oversight and
unbridled greed can rightly be seen as the true legacy of Ronald Reagan.
Tom


If you are blaming the banks for working the rules as written where they
write a mortgage, take their juice and pass off the loan, you better be
prepared to blame your worshiped Clinton. Franklin D. Raines is the one who
pushed that and he as head of Fannie Mae should have gone to jail for lies
about the profit and safety of FM while he was pocketing nearly a $100
million in bonus money. I bet you take all the deductions allowed on your
1040 also. Some one going to give you a bunch of money you take it. I
guess the financial health of the country is not a important as overpaid
college staff.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, the housing market is down because there is no money. And the
housing **** hit the fan in 2006.

no, you are wrong. The housing market is returning to sanity, after a
grossly inflated bubble.

And the bubble was because of LIAR and not down and easy credit loans.
Loans only made because F&F said they would cover them. Same thing happened
in the dot.bomb Easy money, low margins and everyone thinking the stock
could only go up. Stock for a company with no income, and a website, etc.
Did made Clinton look good. Lots of money coming in from the option taxes
and last conservative Republicans that held spending in check for at least 2
years. Allowed lot of surplus money. Unfortunately that surplus was
committed to long term spending and when the surplus vaporized, we had bills
to pay and no money.

We need a Stimulus package, not a trillion pounds of pork. Look at JFK for
how he jump started the economy.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
How about government cutting the excess spending?

what, exactly, do you consider 'excess' spending?? Hell,
the vast majority of the budget is for defense spending and established
programs such as Medicare, Social Security
and the like.



Lots of the liquidity problems are the Government(s) excess borrowing.
Takes lots of loan money for private people and business out of
circulation.

um, not really, but I am not going to waste 3 pages explaining it to you.
Look it up.
Finally, do you(and others) understand: the principle behind an 'economic
stimulus' is SPENDING by the government. Now, you can choose to disagree
with the principle or theory behind that, but that is what it is.
As for jeff's concerns, I share them, but realize that we are facing a
situation far more dire than jacking up a federal deficit. Layoff levels
of 1/2 million souls per month will lead to a commercial collapse(and
thus commercial real estate/commercial loan collapse) that, if nothing
else, will make folks forget about the housing loan mess pretty quick, as
there is far more dubious paper out there on commercial real estate than
there was on housing, I suspect. If something doesn't stabilize both
employment levels and public confidence, and very quickly, an ugly
downturn could easily become something much worse, IMO.
Tom


A stimulus bill should not cause more problems for us and our children and
grandchildren than not doing as much. Temporary government jobs will just
postpone the recession, layoffs until the trillion bucks is spent. We had
a bailout bill passed by a Democrat controlled Congress with Republican
votes also, and look what that has done. Stimulated $18 billion in bonus
money and not stimulus or bailout. I do not want the same thing with the
next ill conceived bill. Rushed out of Congress with a few people in the
corner writing it. Look at the "Stimulus" spending. Most is not a
stimulus, but future pork. Give a forgiveness of taxes up to $3000 credit
on a mortgage, and most in trouble paying for the house will be able to
keep the house. Buy up 50% of the bad mortgages and will stop a lot of the
real estate problems and would cost a hell of a lot less than $800
billion. And we as a people need to feel some pain. We as a country have
been living on borrowed money for too long. Just like the dot.com boom,
greed has ruled. Houses are no where worth what they have sold for in the
last 10 years. My daughters condo in a beach area of SoCal bought for
$400k 7 years ago, was selling for $900k after 6 years. Lots of fraud in
the mortgage world. Not all in the banks side. Cases of people buying a
house for $200k, selling it to a friend of family member a year later for
$400k, and a 3rd F or F buying it for $700k a year later and then
defaulting on the loan. Nice profit of $500k split 3 ways in 2 years.
Good income, eh? Everybody wants the "Stimulus" bill to erase all pain,
give back all investment losses and pay for their house and gas bill.
Sounds like this is what you want. What are you going to tell your
grandchildren when they asked why did you take all our money to pay for
your excesses. Stimulus does not mean we have to bankrupt the country in
3 years. I have not seen a lot of smart in the current packages.


Seems as if the non partisan Congressional Budget Office thinks somewhat
like me.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...
You should have your eyes checked.

Good eyes.

But you still can't see.

Try removing those ideological blinkers and the ignorance tinted
sunglasses.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Where is the leadership? Not on this stimulus. Seems as if his most
ethical administration and no lobbyists leadership is false. I am hoping he
succeeds in office. But I do not agree with all his socialist leanings, but
I want the country to be better in 4 years. But I have not seen any real
leadership so far. I have a feeling he is going to be like Clinton and see
which way the winds blow before making pronouncements. I would rather see a
Harry S Truman "the buck stops here" leadership. Making hard decisions even
when the his majority of followers disagree. You are the one blinded by
ideology.

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
I have seen no leadership from the messiah. ...
You should have your eyes checked.
Good eyes.
But you still can't see.

Try removing those ideological blinkers and the ignorance tinted
sunglasses.

Where is the leadership? Not on this stimulus. Seems as if his most
ethical administration and no lobbyists leadership is false. I am hoping he
succeeds in office. But I do not agree with all his socialist leanings, but
I want the country to be better in 4 years. But I have not seen any real
leadership so far. I have a feeling he is going to be like Clinton and see
which way the winds blow before making pronouncements. I would rather see a
Harry S Truman "the buck stops here" leadership. Making hard decisions even
when the his majority of followers disagree. You are the one blinded by
ideology.

If you haven't seen any leadership out of the White House over the
last two weeks it's because you don't *want* to see any leadership.

This stimulus bill and the TARP are the biggest spending bills ever
in the history of the planet, most Americans oppose them and Obama
is going to get it passed and signed in under a month. That, Mr. Bill,
is leadership.

Obama took personal responsibility for the failed Daschle nomination.
That, Mr. Bill, is "the buck stops here" leadership.

You appear to want Obama to abandon his principles, **** off the left
and do the things *you* think are right before you'll give him any
credit for leadership. That, Mr. Bill, is blind ideology.

It's only been two weeks, get back to me in two years Mr. Bill.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
Seems as if the non partisan Congressional Budget Office thinks somewhat
like me.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/

LOL !! Seems to me the right-wing fascist rag "Washington Times" thinks
somewhat like you. You should actually read the CBO report for yourself
instead of believing the nonsense spewed by that "newspaper".

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
This stimulus bill and the TARP are the biggest spending bills ever
in the history of the planet, most Americans oppose them and Obama
is going to get it passed and signed in under a month. That, Mr. Bill,
is leadership.

Obama took personal responsibility for the failed Daschle nomination.
That, Mr. Bill, is "the buck stops here" leadership.

You appear to want Obama to abandon his principles, **** off the left
and do the things *you* think are right before you'll give him any
credit for leadership. That, Mr. Bill, is blind ideology.

It's only been two weeks, get back to me in two years Mr. Bill.

agreed, largely, Ken. I do wish he would get out and push hard to restore
the 46 Billion that was to go to the States, much of it for education. That
money would impact jobs, immediately, and prevent taxes and fees from rising
in states which are facing huge revenue shortfalls. In fact, that part that
the Republicans campaigned to cut might have had as much immediate
stimulatory impact as anything in the bill. $16 Billion was for school
construction projects currently on hold(hence, 'shovel ready', if one wishes
to use that detestable term).
Also, I give Calif.Bill credit for one part of his argument, the
observations on PERSONAL sacrifice and responsibility. I note that Louie
chose not to respond on that matter, when I brought up the BMW driving food
bank patrons. A great deal of this problem was brought on by the conduct of
the citizenry, and a bit of sacrifice by us all will be needed to get out of
this problem. And yes, part of that, far down the road, should the economy
stabilize, is an increase in taxation to help restore some fiscal sanity to
the government. Obama and his team are well aware that we are nowhere near
the point where that is an issue to deal with, and hence(Louie, are you
reading?) they plan NO TAX INCREASES for the forseeable future. Except for
Dave LaCourse and his immediate family, which will be a rider that Barney
Frank plans to attach to the Conference Committee bill.g
Tom
Tom

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
This stimulus bill and the TARP are the biggest spending bills ever
in the history of the planet, most Americans oppose them and Obama
is going to get it passed and signed in under a month. That, Mr. Bill,
is leadership.

Obama took personal responsibility for the failed Daschle nomination.
That, Mr. Bill, is "the buck stops here" leadership.

You appear to want Obama to abandon his principles, **** off the left
and do the things *you* think are right before you'll give him any
credit for leadership. That, Mr. Bill, is blind ideology.

It's only been two weeks, get back to me in two years Mr. Bill.

agreed, largely, Ken. I do wish he would get out and push hard to restore
the 46 Billion that was to go to the States, much of it for education. That
money would impact jobs, immediately, and prevent taxes and fees from rising
in states which are facing huge revenue shortfalls. In fact, that part that
the Republicans campaigned to cut might have had as much immediate
stimulatory impact as anything in the bill. $16 Billion was for school
construction projects currently on hold(hence, 'shovel ready', if one wishes
to use that detestable term).

The House - Senate reconciliation process ought to be interesting. Pelosi
was alleged to have told Obama, “I don’t mind you driving the bus over me,
but I don’t appreciate your backing it up and running over me again and
again.”
I'm hoping Obama will get over this bi-partisan crap and tell the GOP to
go straight to hell.

Also, I give Calif.Bill credit for one part of his argument, the
observations on PERSONAL sacrifice and responsibility. I note that Louie
chose not to respond on that matter, when I brought up the BMW driving food
bank patrons. A great deal of this problem was brought on by the conduct of
the citizenry, and a bit of sacrifice by us all will be needed to get out of
this problem.

We're all going to have to sacrifice but I don't buy into the notion
that this economic catastrophe can be attributed to the citizenry.
That sounds like George Will pontificating from on high and it's just
flat out wrong. This catastrophe was caused by a lack of regulatory
oversight. It wasn't the poor schmuck who bought more home than he
could afford, it was the bankers who called that 'C' rated mortgage
a 'AAA' rated mortgage and the so-called regulators who let them get
away with it that are at the bottom of this pyramid. Take thousands
of such mortgages, bundled them up, sell them as if they're 'AAA' nine
or ten times, leverage them some hundred fold as derivatives and then
stand back and watch Lehman Bros. bite the dust. Don't blame this on
the citizenry.

And yes, part of that, far down the road, should the economy
stabilize, is an increase in taxation to help restore some fiscal sanity to
the government. Obama and his team are well aware that we are nowhere near
the point where that is an issue to deal with, and hence(Louie, are you
reading?) they plan NO TAX INCREASES for the forseeable future. Except for
Dave LaCourse and his immediate family, which will be a rider that Barney
Frank plans to attach to the Conference Committee bill.g

Poor Louie, that damn Barney Frank really has it in for him. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote:
I have seen no leadership from the messiah. He is supporting the bill as
it came out of the House. very little stimulation and gobs of cost.

actually, exactly wrong, Bill. Obama is quietly supporting the version
that is being re-written in the Senate, and urging the House to go along
without re-tinkering with it.
And, based on the economics experts, the balance of the Senate compromise
fit the mold of what is needed. The only questions seemingly remaining
a 1) will this approach work, or be timely enough and 2) is it large
enough? Many feel, given the current rate of job loss and business losses,
a package of double this size is needed.

Obama has changed his support to the new bill. Just going along with the
flow. Where is some leadership.

Obama came out strongly in opposition to the "Buy American" provisions
in the stimulus bill. That is leadership, Mr. Bill.

A package double this may be needed. But
not with the hurryup writing of this bill. This bill is a clusterf&&k in
regards to anybody really understanding the bill and what we really need.

The thing is, we're in uncharted territory here. The economies of the
world have never been so interconnected and the scale of the catastrophe
has never been this enormous. *NOBODY* knows, for sure, what to do or
what we really need.

That's why the spitball throwers like you and the ideologues of the GOP
are sitting in the catbird seat right now. We all know that there will
be missteps, mistakes and outright failures in trying to address this
catastrophe. So the GOP washes their hands of the whole deal, nitpicks
each and every misstep and says, "See, we told you so. We should have
followed the GOP plan."

Resodding the Mall is not something needed for a stimulus, as well as a lot
of other pet projects inserted. The last $850 Billion Bailout was written
with the same haste and look how it turned out.

OK genius, how did it turn out ? Tell us what the current state of the
economy would look like if we hadn't put the first half of that bailout
into the financial institutions. And then look into your crystal ball
and tell us what Geithner is going to announce about the second half on
Tuesday.

And that was a Democrat
controlled Congress also, so do not try to blame Bush for the failure.

Congress gave the Bush administration (read Paulson) pretty much carte
blanche on distributing the first half of TARP. If it failed, and you
have no way of knowing whether it did or not, then it is certainly the
fault of the Bush administration.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:39:26 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

Also, I give Calif.Bill credit for one part of his argument, the
observations on PERSONAL sacrifice and responsibility. I note that Louie
chose not to respond on that matter, when I brought up the BMW driving food
bank patrons. A great deal of this problem was brought on by the conduct of
the citizenry, and a bit of sacrifice by us all will be needed to get out of
this problem.

Horse caca. The couple with the BMW lost their jobs. Perhaps they
too couldn't afford a BMW, like the homes sold to thousands that
couldn't afford it, via F and F. Remember how excited you were when
you bought your first home? The loan officer at the bank went over
everything about your income and how you could pay for it. And, it
turned out he was right. When F and F got involved with loans they
KNEW the people could not repay, THEY - F and F - were irresponsible.
I agree if the folks borring the money had any modicum of common sense
they wouldn't have entered into the contract. But F and F wanted to
loan them the money, did, and billions have been lost because of it.

The couple with the BMW, Cambodian imigrants, btw, will probably sell
the BMW, or at least they should if they are relying on others to feed
them. They seemed like respectable, honest, hard working people who
are just caught up in the present economical problems.

BTW, today's economy is nowhere near as bad as it was in the lat 70s
when we had double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates.
Are you old enough to remember those horrible years under Carter? We
got through those years without trillion dollar "stimulus" packages.

Dave

Willie and Wesley and the boys...
 

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:25:29 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

We're all going to have to sacrifice but I don't buy into the notion
that this economic catastrophe can be attributed to the citizenry.
That sounds like George Will pontificating from on high and it's just
flat out wrong. This catastrophe was caused by a lack of regulatory
oversight. It wasn't the poor schmuck who bought more home than he
could afford, it was the bankers who called that 'C' rated mortgage
a 'AAA' rated mortgage and the so-called regulators who let them get
away with it that are at the bottom of this pyramid. Take thousands
of such mortgages, bundled them up, sell them as if they're 'AAA' nine
or ten times, leverage them some hundred fold as derivatives and then
stand back and watch Lehman Bros. bite the dust. Don't blame this on
the citizenry.

Exactamundo. And the failure of F and F can be attributed to those
who had oversight on them, namely Barney, Dodd, Obama, et al. I can
still see the clip of Barney in 2006 saying, "There is nothing wrong
with F and F. They are doing well." Horse caca!

Dave