Obama doesn't think our economic fundamentals are strong -- Is he a communist?

[dr. freeze]

America has as sound of economic fundamentals as any nation this world has ever seen PERIOD.

Why would anyone question that? Does anyone not think that the economy will rebound?

Ridiculous. What is Obama's solution? Rid ourselves of freedom and capitalism and institute communism?:scared :scared

There are a couple basic problems with what happened. People bought things and were allowed to buy things by creditors that they could not afford. Energy prices have skyrocketed to compound the problem.

Innovation will solve the latter problem and a few tougher lending rules will solve the former. People's pensions will take a bit of a hit but as always happens in investing, long term investments will rebound. Foolish short term investments will hit some folks in the shorts.

Does Obama really think that we need to radically change our economic system because of this mess? We have had tougher times before and capitalism brought us out of it. And it will again. (Unless the communists get too much power)

 

[Jabberwocky]

"There are a couple basic problems with what happened. People bought things and were allowed to buy things by creditors that they could not afford. Energy prices have skyrocketed to compound the problem."

3 of the 5 major financial houses in the country fold or are bought at a fraction of their former worth with AIG teetering on the ledge.

And this is your explanation?

(oh and don't worry about the 10 trillion in debt and shrinking dollar with rising inflation. Don't worry about the comments made by Alan Greenspan that these are the worse fundamentals he has seen in his lifetime. Its all just a bunch of communist hooey. Don't worry. Be happy.)

 

[kosar]

America has as sound of economic fundamentals as any nation this world has ever seen PERIOD.

Why would anyone question that? Does anyone not think that the economy will rebound?

Ridiculous. What is Obama's solution? Rid ourselves of freedom and capitalism and institute communism?:scared :scared

There are a couple basic problems with what happened. People bought things and were allowed to buy things by creditors that they could not afford. Energy prices have skyrocketed to compound the problem.

Innovation will solve the latter problem and a few tougher lending rules will solve the former. People's pensions will take a bit of a hit but as always happens in investing, long term investments will rebound. Foolish short term investments will hit some folks in the shorts.

Does Obama really think that we need to radically change our economic system because of this mess? We have had tougher times before and capitalism brought us out of it. And it will again. (Unless the communists get too much power)

lol- you never fail to produce a chuckle.

Yes, Communism is right on the horizon if the Dems win this time.

More comical is/are your assertion(s) that everything is just fine with regards to our economy.

Matthew,

you can't be this stupid.

 

[kosar]

America has as sound of economic fundamentals as any nation this world has ever seen PERIOD.

Simply retarded.

 

[THE KOD]

"There are a couple basic problems with what happened. People bought things and were allowed to buy things by creditors that they could not afford. Energy prices have skyrocketed to compound the problem."

3 of the 5 major financial houses in the country fold or are bought at a fraction of their former worth with AIG teetering on the ledge.

And this is your explanation?

(oh and don't worry about the 10 trillion in debt and shrinking dollar with rising inflation. Don't worry about the comments made by Alan Greenspan that these are the worse fundamentals he has seen in his lifetime. Its all just a bunch of communist hooey. Don't worry. Be happy.)

................................................................

yeh spend a trillion a month on war for the entire Cheney term and say the economy is strong.

Damn john younger.

neocon to the hilt.

 

[dr. freeze]

"There are a couple basic problems with what happened. People bought things and were allowed to buy things by creditors that they could not afford. Energy prices have skyrocketed to compound the problem."

3 of the 5 major financial houses in the country fold or are bought at a fraction of their former worth with AIG teetering on the ledge.

And this is your explanation?

.)

That is my explanation and that is the correct explanation. What is your explanation?

The dollar became weak after so many people went bankrupt while our government spends itself into oblivion (i.e. Bush and the Republicans acted like Democrats....shame on them:nono: :nono: )

The companies who financed those mortgages (and had portfolio's too heavily engaged with them, directly and indirectly) too a huge hit.

Simultaneously, energy costs have escalated.

Obviously, the above poster "Jabberwocky" has no idea as to what is going on. Continue posting your jibberish. The post I made is for those who have the capacity to learn something. I have come to the conclusion that many people are unable to understand anything other than screaming and yelling and political talking points.

So carry on, jabberwocky.

 

[dr. freeze]

Simply retarded.

Okay, Kosar, why don't you enlighten us with another country having a better standard of living which has a better prospect of making a huge comeback during tough times.:0corn :0corn :0corn

 

[dr. freeze]

lol- you never fail to produce a chuckle.

Yes, Communism is right on the horizon if the Dems win this time.

More comical is/are your assertion(s) that everything is just fine with regards to our economy.

Matthew,

you can't be this stupid.

I am not sure where I asserted everything is "just fine". Innovation is on its way to fix the energy crisis which will help the economy. Rules will be put in place to fix the housing/lending crisis. The dollar is actually on the rebound (somehow) which will move things again back on the upswing.

Now is the time to invest. Lets see where this market is one year from now. Two years from now. We will be fine.:0corn :0corn

 

[Jabberwocky]

Who is screaming and yelling talking points? I just find it humorous that your explanation for Lehman and Bear Stearns going belly up and Merrill Lynch (who I worked for a few years ago) being sold for fraction of its former worth along with AIG in jeopardy all boils down to individuals buying things they couldn't afford. But you are right, some people are incapable of learning anything.

 

[Roger Baltrey]

That is my explanation and that is the correct explanation. What is your explanation?

The dollar became weak after so many people went bankrupt while our government spends itself into oblivion (i.e. Bush and the Republicans acted like Democrats....shame on them:nono: :nono: )

The companies who financed those mortgages (and had portfolio's too heavily engaged with them, directly and indirectly) too a huge hit.

Simultaneously, energy costs have escalated.

Obviously, the above poster "Jabberwocky" has no idea as to what is going on. Continue posting your jibberish. The post I made is for those who have the capacity to learn something. I have come to the conclusion that many people are unable to understand anything other than screaming and yelling and political talking points.

So carry on, jabberwocky.

Freeze,

You are correct on Bush's spending. No one ever takes him or repubs to task to for defence buildup that they didn't pay for. It's fine to start long drawn out wars but you can't cut taxes simultaneously. I agree that Obama doesn't have answers (He claims that he will "fix" health care) but take Johnny Mac to task also as he now is in favor of both war and tax cuts and you can't do it.

 

[dr. freeze]

Who is screaming and yelling talking points? I just find it humorous that your explanation for Lehman and Bear Stearns going belly up and Merrill Lynch (who I worked for a few years ago) being sold for fraction of its former worth along with AIG in jeopardy all boils down to individuals buying things they couldn't afford. But you are right, some people are incapable of learning anything.

Well, if you want to laugh, laugh. Do your own research and maybe you can find out for yourself.

The Dem's (and now McCain as well) will say that the lenders (banks) need to be regulated. Unfortunately, I agree with them at to some extent. However, I also think that foxes are being put in charge of the henhouse with this argument as I don't trust the government and especially politicians. (And the government has never been accused of being financially responsible).

I am not sure what the solution is other than creating more rules (which is what will inevitably happen) but I am no great economic/banking theorist or for that matter, well-read.

 

[dr. freeze]

Freeze,

You are correct on Bush's spending. No one ever takes him or repubs to task to for defence buildup that they didn't pay for. It's fine to start long drawn out wars but you can't cut taxes simultaneously. I agree that Obama doesn't have answers (He claims that he will "fix" health care) but take Johnny Mac to task also as he now is in favor of both war and tax cuts and you can't do it.

Roger -- we could if we would use Iraq's oil to pay for the restoration of their country. Why we wouldn't do this I am not sure.

You have to admit that there is a point on taxation where you will get less income to the treasury no matter which way you increase or decrease the income tax. (If you tax the people 90% you will have no growth and if you tax the people 1% you will have no income). I would rather see parties arguing about where this "tipping point" is but instead you see candidates such as Obama and the leftists who subscribe to the theory that the income tax is a device for class warfare and wealth redistribution instead of raising money for the treasury.

Personally, I think that a tax rate around 25% on the wealthy would be most optimal for economic growth which would increase the tax revenue coming in at that level (more growth= more wealth = more revenue). I have no facts to back this up but I don't think a 45-50% tax rate would help anyone out.

 

[THE KOD]

but I am no great economic/banking theorist or for that matter, well-read.

............................................................

Yeh neither is McCain

stupid is as stupid does

 

[dr. freeze]

............................................................

Yeh neither is McCain

stupid is as stupid does

Yes but Obama is a brilliant economist who descended from the heavens just in time to be America's savior and thinks the tax code's primary purpose is to redistribute weath instead of raise money for the treasury.

Scotty, you can't even use the word "neo-con" correctly. I also don't feel you are well-read in much of anything so keep in your impressionable Obama trance, go drink your milk and eat your cookie, and have a good night sleep.

 

[djv]

Fundamentals don't lie. Unemployment now 6.2%.
Jobs lost just this year over 600000.
Deficit over $350000.
Real worth of ones home down 20% most places and over 30 others.
Stock market has lost many all they had.
But as Obama said we can fix it. What Old John say. He will have a commision look into it.

 

[THE KOD]

Scotty, you can't even use the word "neo-con" correctly. I also don't feel you are well-read in much of anything so keep in your impressionable Obama trance, go drink your milk and eat your cookie, and have a good night sleep.

.............................................................

I know you know how to spell neocon because you are one deep down.

I am voting for the lesser of two evils . What is wrong with that ?

At least the President will make intelligent decisions and we wont have four more years of Bush , unless McCain gets sick and then Palin. That crazy woman !

Its not a trance. Its logical thinking about what is best for the counrty.

I dont care for milk and I am not supposed to eat cookies. So guess I will just have a whiskey and potato chips.

 

[dr. freeze]

Fundamentals don't lie. Unemployment now 6.2%.
Jobs lost just this year over 600000.
Deficit over $350000.
Real worth of ones home down 20% most places and over 30 others.
Stock market has lost many all they had.
But as Obama said we can fix it. What Old John say. He will have a commision look into it.

No, Obama says "THE GOVERNMENT will fix it".

Seeing how well off financially THE GOVERNMENT is, I am not sure why anyone would believe this.:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie

 

[THE KOD]

No, Obama says "THE GOVERNMENT will fix it".

Seeing how well off financially THE GOVERNMENT is, I am not sure why anyone would believe this.:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie

...............................................................

Yeh thanks to Bush and Cheney and McBush in the Senate working hard for the people.

 

[dr. freeze]

...............................................................

Yeh thanks to Bush and Cheney and McBush in the Senate working hard for the people.

Scotty, I agree. The government is incompetent. That is why it amazes me how a party who criticizes the current administration proposes more government as its solution. :scared :scared :scared

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yes but Obama is a brilliant economist who descended from the heavens just in time to be America's savior and thinks the tax code's primary purpose is to redistribute weath instead of raise money for the treasury.

Scotty, you can't even use the word "neo-con" correctly. I also don't feel you are well-read in much of anything so keep in your impressionable Obama trance, go drink your milk and eat your cookie, and have a good night sleep.

Who told you to hyphenate neocon? :shrug:

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives.[1][2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, an American Jew from an orthodox Jewish family[6], and father of William Kristol who became the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol had been an active supporter of Trotskyism, but wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[3] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[7]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[8][9] The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became central with the Bush Doctrine.

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).