On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > Which of course he failed in since your economy is turning around faster > than anyone expected.
This simply isn't true. While everyone was focusing on the -85,000 jobs in December, which was bad enough, in reality the job situation got much worse as some 600,000 people simply dropped out of the work force. Real unemployment is closer to 17% than 10%. > There is so much about basic economics, basic > politics, basic philosophy and of course even basic theology that you know > next to nothing about. You are funny! > When you economy is booming, unemployment is low and > things are going well ...you will find a Republican Congress in control. And within a year of Democrats taking over, you will have continual crisis, endless bail outs, endless multi-trillion dollar social programs that explode the deficit, destabilize the dollar, and create political slush funds to manipulate future elections. So, why exactly is 70% of the "Stimulus" bill not spent, and already Obama wants another one? Even the AP last week wrote an article talking about the negligible impact of the stimulus bill on jobs. Why exactly did Michael Mann get over $500K of "stimulus" money? > again you will still be blaming obama for the > depression that didn't happen while ignoring the recession that DID occur > under the republicans. Correction. The recession occurred a full year after Democrats took control of Congress. The root cause was the sub-prime mortgage market, which was created by primarily Democrat social policies, with me-too "compassionate conservatives" continuing them because they were popular. I note that Bush an the Republicans did try to fix the most obvious "warning signs" in 2004 and 2005, at least as regards Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Democrats obstructed. The Republicans never had the super majority that Democrats enjoy now, and the Democrats were a model of how to use every rule in the book to slow progress down. Even after 8 years, an enormous number of Bush appointees to the courts were in limbo. This is all beyond dispute, we've linked to the CSPAN video of the debates. A compounding factor were the financial instruments the industry invented, particularly credit default swaps, to mitigate the risk of the social policies, which were not priced correctly because nobody had any experience pricing such instruments. No regulator would have had any better clue how to price them, and no lender would have continued willingly offering sub-prime mortgages mandated by Congress, without such a tool to mitigate the risk the policies inherently created. So when the sub-prime market went the inevitable way of the do-do, the whole thing came crashing down. There is still the question of the curious programmatic trading that began at 11:15 am on Sept 18, 2008, which precipitated the "crisis," and all of the backroom arm-twisting that lead to the disastrous TARP bail outs. Obama's position was identical to Bush's and McCains in all that happened throughout. A pox on all their houses for that. I would like you to explain to me why Obama picked Timothy Geithner (a Bush pick) for Treasury Secretary. Your answer to this question will determine whether I waste another breath trying to debate anything with you. Why is he supporting Bernanke (a Bush pick) for a new term? > The only difference between you and bob calco is the > QUANTITY of crap that you spew forth. And the difference between your arguments and ours is that we know what we're talking about, and you're blowing all of it out your arse - Publius -- "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
