On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Charles Bennett <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mar 2, 2009, at 9:37 PM, Henry McGilton (Boulevardier) wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03aig.html?_r=1&hp >>> >>> And see Jim Rogers' comments on the subject: >>> >>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_10/ >>> b4122017811535.htm >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> He is dead on. We have pissed away 150 Billion giving AIG bailout >> money but that is going to end up being chump change before Obama is >> done. > > I agree with you (horror) that these bailouts are a grave mistake. > > However, instead of just stating that, you have to turn it into a > tirade against Obama, because he humiliated your preferred party.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.. My preferred party was a party to the whole mess too. (I'm not for sure I actually have a preferred party anymore as they are all SOBs) How we got to this mess can be blamed on Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 directly. McRino *might* have been a little better at not sticking his foot in his mouth, since he has more years of politician speak but the run up to this has been years in the making and Obama really didn't play much of a role in getting here. He is just a plain old Chicago machine Politician with a real gift for speaking.. (no I will not reference the obvious Blazing Saddles quote..) > > The mess was made over the last 10 years or so, the vast majority of > which was presided over by a repub. admin. and a Democrat congress.. Remember that it is THEY who control the purse strings no matter what the President wants to spend. Want to pull up their voting records and look at what they voted for, in support of Bush and Co.? > that did absolutely nothing > about it until it went super-critical and *then* set about doing > exactly that for which you are criticising Obama. My rant against Obama is NOT for how we got here but where he wants us to go.. I'm criticizing him for what he wants to do the "fix" the problem. I think his solution will take a bad situation (that he did NOT make) and turn it into a a real, Biblical size disaster that WILL be of his and the Dem congresses own making. > > The trouble is that in the modern world *no* US admin is going to have > the balls to really let capitalism "flow". They *know* that they'll > get their clocks cleaned by any number of other economies if they stop > propping up their dinosaurs. The longer they do prop up those dino's the worse the pain is going to be when they finally fail. Sooner or later they will completely run out of "other peoples money" to bail them out and then what? > I am fairly sure that the Obama admin > don't like what they are doing in many cases They ran for the job. They promised that this was "THEIR TIME" sounds kind of hollow at the moment no? Never forget that they asked for the job and convinced the people of the US (52 percent anyway,) that they had a better way, and could correct the mistakes of the previous admin. That was their words, so let's judge them against their own promises.. If they didn't not see this coming then they are indeed dangerously naive. (McRino wanted TARP I so he's in the same place as far as I'm concerned..) 3 million new jobs in the first year my ass... (Yes THAT was the campaign promise) Notice how it changed to "prevent the loss of up to three million jobs" I'll scrounge up the campaign sound bites if you want but his tune has changed a lot.. Kind of like how he promised to reduce the deficit in 2011. If he gets his way he will "reduce" the deficit to slightly more than Bush II had in his last year. Only a politician would create a giant deficit then claim to have reduced it by bringing it back to more than where he started.. That sort of thing is why I have no party... > (though there are sound > arguments for bringing more government control into the financial and > medical sectors and in the big bad world, you have to *buy* that). There are ways to get to universal health care coverage that still uses the free market system. For financials, simply setting a rule about the amount of leverage allowed would have gone a long way. AIG had about 1 dollar for every 30 leveraged. That is simply insane. Imagine having very high risk investments that total 30 times your net worth. > > However many mistakes are being made, the current admin is by any > reasonable assessment, less blundering, less naive and less > incompetent than the last one. How can you say that? There is no time period to access them over and they haven't been tested in an honest to goodness disaster. (yet) I'd say that we have really have no idea how deeply naive and incompetent they actually are. (if they are) but the way they are handling their very first problem doesn't inspire much confidence. Ask me in a year or two. If they have turned this all around, I'l man up and admit it. (and will have made good money in the stock market if I correctly call the bottom..) So far they have shown a complete misunderstanding of the stock market and the DOW numbers directly mirror their words. As for blundering, what have they done so far that wouldn't be described that way? Cabinet appointments? please. Reassuring the financial markets? Nope. Encouraging people to be productive and create jobs? no.. They think "they" are going to do that. In fact they are going to bail out mortgages of people that have no business owning a home and screwing those that are actually, you know, PAYING, their mortgages. To get it right. the people that are paying are the one's with 401k and investment.. They are not going to put money in stocks and are not going to want to see capital gains go up. The people he is bailing out are, by definition, BROKE. They might vote for him but they are not going to either buy a NEW house (which would help the economy) or create ANY jobs.. Most likely they are the ones that are going to lose their jobs when the economy completely tanks. How would you describe that other than naive? Now imagine a real disaster.. You really think the current administration could deal with a 9/11 style disaster tomorrow? On top of the economic crisis? A nuclear Iran and Israel's new PM taking it to Tehran putting oil back at $150.00 and plunging the mideast into a shooting war? Before we say they are actually better, let's wait and see how the first season goes in the big leagues.. I'm not going to award them the trophy before the season even starts.. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
