Friday/Weekend Open Thread
The unemployment rate has risen to 8.1%. Not too unexpected.
Newt Gingrich is considering running for President in 2012 (yet again). He is definitely one of my favorite Republicans.
Have at it!
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2009-03-06 10:35
Tags:
Comments :
Hold up!
So, wondering why Obama can't seem to fill his economic cabinet (probably the most important)?
Added Frotto: "Nyah, nyah,n-nyah nyahh pbbtt!"
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Yeah, but don't
do the "pox on both your houses" thing. Dems had plenty of publicly stated good reasons for filibustering Estrada, Owens and the odious Hans von Spakovsky. I don't recall individual D Senators abusing the anonymous hold custom either.
I don't fault Tom Coburn for being Dr. No on all those spending items last year. He at least was willing to state his convictions, take the flack for it and propose an alternative.
I don't know the motivations behind this move, but it sounds simply like a Republican or two is being a jerk. And yeah, if your motive is petty retribution against Reid, at least don't actually say so. What an idiot.
Don't Get Me Wrong..
I'm not saying you can't put a hold on someone because you disagree with them, but if they are qualified to fulfill the position, then let them do their friggin' job. Not every person up for confirmation is detrimental to the survival of the United States if they get confirmed. Especially if they are a non-controversial nominee in the area they'd like to serve in. If you are going to thwart the vast, bi-partisan majority on certain nominees, go on the record! I like Senators like Coburn and Feingold who at least have the fortitude to take public, principled stands and deal with consequences rather than opposing in secret and stalling the entire process against the majority.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Exactly
no disagreement there. If I had to guess who's doing this it would be Vitter. It seems he's trying to compensate for his diaper issues by being a hyperpartisan darling to the base.
At some point
Newt is going to have to overcome his ego and learn that personal baggage counts. Just because the Republican party has a history of resurrecting old leaders (Nixon, Dole, Bush1, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Boehner, McCain, etc.), it doesn't they'll go gaga over another pudgy aging southern wasp who divorced his cancer-ridden wife and who'se "smaller government" philosophy only seemed to apply when Repubs were out of power.
Still, he often sounds less mindlessly boilerplate than all the other contenders except perhaps Huckabee. It would juice up the primary debates some.
What War on the Rich?
http://www.slate.com/id/2213029/
The radical new policies being proposed are the same policies that were in place in 2,001. The right is hysteronic. They can't stop talking about the radical wealth destruction. (Never mind that the wealth that was blown up over the last few years by financial gurus is estimated to be about 58 Trillion with a T) much more important is folks earning over 250 thou might have to pay a few dollars a day to keep the country going! The horrors.
I'm only half stupid
The WSJ on the real BHO...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Is he a dirty commie
in disguise. I hear he isn't a legal citizen either.
The financial meltdown is so easy to solve I don't know why he didn't do it on his first day in office. Trying to recreate 58 Trillion Dollars that was blown up by Wall Street that is owed to various countries around the world, should be a piece a cake. BHO...... not ready to lead.
I'm only half stupid
You can hyperventilate all you like at the sight of...
...what is now almost universal disapproval of Barry's economic opportunism, but that does not change the FACT that he is intent on taking the country in a direction that is unconstitutional, economically unsound, contrary to our principles, and is falling on deaf ears on the street.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
tsk
you are the one hyperventilating.
You represent a very fringe view.
I don't know too many people that would have the audacity to put up a quote celebrating Lincoln being shot.
Up next, why the government run post office is just like communism.
I'm only half stupid
See, ML, with all sincereity, this is the crux of our problem...
...When we are posting about Obama, and you reply referencing a different thread it makes it very difficult to get anywhere, except perhaps "you said this and you said that" sort of exchanges.
My point about Obama is a valid one, drawn from the WSJ, and shared by an ever increasing number every day. Obama is not trying to solve the economic crisis, he is, as Raum Emanuel pointed out, exploiting it to change the way we govern in America, and that is not acceptable to me.
My thoughts on Lincoln are he was a treasonous tyrrant, who trampled the constitution, ruled as a dictator, and deserved to be shot, but I would have preferred it was from a confederate firing squad.
Which would you care to discuss?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Not really
Your views are too far on the scary militant right wing fringe for my taste.
I have too many other things to do than try to convince you that Obama is not a communist, if that is what you really believe.
I'm only half stupid
I'd like a citation
I won't disagree that his plan is opportunistic, but I haven't seen any data to suggest that his economic plans nor his opportunism has received "almost universal disapproval".
His announced plans are certainly ambitious (which I like to see from both sides of the aisle instead of this steady, incremental change, BS), but I think this is generally the platform on which he ran. People did vote for this, no matter how much you, I, or anyone dislikes the direction he is taking the country.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Data is hard to come by
But there's this latest AP report
We could quibble over definitions (and excuse partisan hyperbole), but I think it's reasonable to say that his economic plans have been received negatively by some proportion of the nation, be it businesses or individuals.
Wait until Christmas. I bet the national mood sours greatly by then.
I hope Obama has not spent all his political capital on this highly risky roll of the dice. There are other items (healthcare, alternative energy) I think he should tackle rather than tilting at this windmill.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Curious
All of the factors cited in the AP article as negative, do you think they would be viewed as more negative or less negative, if Obama had just gone with the status quo.
What do you think economic indicators would look like say without a stimulus package, a relatively normal budget, and a cessation of the TARP plan.
Do you have a suggestion as to a better fix for the financial system, given that our globally connected banks seem to be illiquid? What do you think would happen for example if we just quit bailing out the banks? Would that be good for the oil business, global shipping companies, and student loans?
I'm only half stupid
I think if he had simply done what he said...
...he was going to do, people would be ok.
Of course he has never held one position long enough to say that it is indeed his one true position on any given subject, but suffice it to say, had he governed from the center, really made an effort to be bipartisan, come up with real stimulus instead of all this contrived re-governing disguised as stimulus, I think had he been that guy people saw in the primaries, and not the radical liberal hack he was the rest of his life, people would be fine, the markets would too, but in light of that not being the case, we are seeing the beginning of what is likely too be one of the darker periods in US history.
Of course this is all just fine by me because it only hastens the return of sanity, and the counter swing that this will all undoubtedly produce towards a return to freedom, liberty, and good old capitalism.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
and what is your recollection
of what he said he would do?
My recollection is that he wanted a strong middle class, tax cuts for 95% of folks, health care reform, emphasis on education, and alternative energy.
What is the big surprise?
According to you he was a liberal hack during the primaries. The only thing that has changed is learning the extent of damage that that Wall Street Crooks did to our economy, and now Obama has to deal with it, while the screaming media and folks like you call him ugly names.
The right wing media is doing a great disservice to our country with the insane rhetoric and lies they spew forth, and folks like you buy into it hook line and sinker. It's sad and dangerous.
I'm only half stupid
Just as I thought...
Silly me, why would I expect anything less, I could have provided that answer without the benefit of having you respond, that's how bad it is dear.
But you simply refuse to try anything else, so be it.
Have a nice weekend.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"Bailing out the banks"
"Bailing out the banks" is one thing.
The stimulus package is another
The budget is a third
I believe I've already stated my positions on the first two. Fixing the financial system is necessary, although it seems to be becoming clearer that the "fixers" are about as clueless about how to do that as I am.
I fail to see the "stimulus" in the stimulus package, other than the tax cuts. The rest is just spending, which may or may not have much effect on our overall economic situation. If spending alone were the salvation of the economy, we should be in fabulous shape already given the enormous spending of the prior set of lawmakers. The stimulus package is well-intentioned, but even its most hopeful supporters don't see it affecting employment by more than a fraction of a percentage point. I am not overjoyed to see the Obama Administration outspend the entire eight years of the Bush Administration within three months of taking office.
The budget, I have no comment on at this time, other than to remark that if this is "living within our means" and "making hard choices" ..... pfui.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Your cynicism is duly noted.
Also understandable.
It's pretty clear from your critique that you see no way out of this economic morass.
Sorry to hear that.
I will just note that the last eight years had tax cuts which you claim are stimulative. I don't see how that worked out so well either.
How do you give a tax cut to someone who is unemployed and can't find a job, especially seeing as how there are around 600,000 new claims per month.
I'm only half stupid
The blanket response...
Do you have that one copied to your clipboard?
Because your acknowledgments of everyone's cynicism, naivety, blatant disregard, and ignorance are your ubiquitous reply, and are continually "duly noted", but never taken into account.
(A deep breath, sigh, and a move on are in order I suppose...)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Now you are at war
with expressions?
Way not to address any part of the issue at hand which is policy directed at solving the credit crunch and joblessness.
This is just such a typical strawman. Take a phrase, go to war with it, and refuse to acknowledge that the country faces a serious economic downturn, that requires the nations focus and attention, which btw, is what was being discussed.
I'm only half stupid
What are Republicans putting on the table
as policy?
A spending freeze and more tax cuts for the very wealthy and letting banks fail? How do you suggest that that will turn our country around?
If George Soros and Repurt Murdoch pay less taxes how will that stimulate the economy?
How?
I'm only half stupid
Gee, lets see...
1) Lets not steal from one group in order to redistribute it to another, and pay all that overhead to do it, lets instead support families through allowing them to keep the money they've already earned, why make it so complicated;
2) Lets make doing business in America as attractive as possible, and give some economic relief for American businesses and entrepreneurs so they can hire people and stimulate the economy, crazy thinking huh, business, driving the economy;
and 3) Lets save future generations from a crushing debt burden and let America function by the Constitution and it's founding principles. Let's not create a stifling unwieldy inefficient bureaucracy that stymies the American economic engine that made us the most powerful economic force the world has ever known.
Lets remain a free people who enjoy liberties the rest of the world is so envious of, and is the reason so many want to come here.
That's how.
...If we start asking "how" sweetheart, you'd have a lot of splain'in to do to justify Barry's ideas to fix this deal.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's a nice platitude sandwich
with a side of bland rhetoric.
"Let's be free" sounds pretty doesn't it, but what are the policy details to start stabilizing job losses get the banks lending again and get the economy turned around?
Any specifics on how to create a job or six million in light of the current unemployment numbers and the credit freeze?
I'm only half stupid
Sure...
I provided you a long, very clear, and concise list of things in a post a month ago, remember? I am not going to take the time to write it all out AGAIN, just so you can tell me how growing the government is stimulus.
Let me ask you, how does giving a tax refund check to someone who pays no taxes so they can spend it on a pair of tennis shoes or a big mac - ONE TIME really stimulate the economy?
How does growing the government stimulate the economy, it only creates more overhead, more debt, and more taxes on less payers!
When you break your leg, there is pain ML, you can elevate it and take some medication, but the event and recovery are uncomfortable.
We need to let the pain happen, and do the core fundamental things that we know make for a good economy.
Do you realize banks have more money than they ever have had? Anyway, you don't know jack about anything, you're a wind up toy, nothing more.
You couldn't factually find your way out of a paper bag!
Let's see what your team has cooking;
Loan money to those with no means to repay.
That leads to inherent bad financial instruments in the system.
When the inevitable happens.
1.2 Trillion "Stimulus
750 Billion Dollar TARP
480 Billion Pork Bill
= Worst economic conditions on earth.
Let those like GM go down, and reorganize
Let the bad banks fail, we don't need these zombie banks.
...Whatever, go babble your nonsense to someone like John who has the patience to continually, day after day, make it crystal clear how stupefying your ignorance is.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
IF banks have more money than in forever
then why aren't they lending?
Why are the taking enormous right downs on their balance sheets? Just for grins?
GM got in the dire position it is in because of GMAC, the financial arm of the company that was essentially engaged in a ponzi that used credit from car loans, the same way that AIG used toxic assets as collatoral for insuring toxic assets.
Your analysis of the situation is about as fact free as your notion that Rush has the same number of listeners as the adult population of the country.
I'm only half stupid
i yi yi?
ML: Why are the taking enormous right downs on their balance sheets? Just for grins?
What, do you think banks should pay on defaulted paper?
ML: GM got in the dire position it is in because of GMAC, the financial arm of the company that was essentially engaged in a ponzi that used credit from car loans, the same way that AIG used toxic assets as collateral for insuring toxic assets.
Everything in the universe is not due to toxic assets ML. GM's sales have been sh!t for a long time, with or without GMAC they're in trouble.
ML: Your analysis of the situation is about as fact free as your notion that Rush has the same number of listeners as the adult population of the country.
I apologize, I didn't see the third digit...23 Million a week is what I meant. Point remains the same.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The point is, though, stinerman is that,
like with oh, so many other POTUS elections, people allowed themselves to be totally swept off their feet by Obama's charisma and skillfulness at being an orator. Scores and scores of people didn't see, or refused to see that the charisma and fancy rhetoric masks someone who really is inexperienced and doesn't really know what he's doing.
Christopher Buckley
on Rush Limbaugh, snobby Washington elites and why he still holds out for the audacity of hope.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/rush-limbaugh-obama-opinions-contributo...
I'm only half stupid
The only person rolling over in their grave is...
...William F. Buckley Jr.
The rest of us just realize that sometimes even when the seed doesn't fall from the tree, it bounces and rolls down the hill into the gutter.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A blog about ignorance?
is new blog covering topics as they relate to ignorance. Interesting.
As of this posting, there are 5 entries:
A Welcome Intro, Political Ignorance, Measuring Ignorance, Measuring Economic Thinking and finally "Who is ignorant?".
This comes to us from a University Professor in NZ.
He's been basing this off of pre-existing studies and further research.
See how you like it...
is obama keeping his promises?
The St. Petersburg time has a list of Obama's campaign promises
, and evaluations of whether he is upholding them. It looks well organized.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Warren Buffet Speaks
and calms the markets. They were headed down 157 points. Now they are rebounding.
He claims that in Sept, it was the equivalent of an Economic Pearl Harbor (run on money market funds would have collapsed the financial system).
He trusts Obama and team but thinks his message on the economy has been a bit muddled.
He claims our economy is still in trouble and we need the nation to come together and focus on the problem with a united effort and avoid the divisive rhetoric during a time of 'war' , which he equates to our global economic crises.
He also stated out loud that if he could get his hands on those toxic assets they are the most valuable thing the banks have on the books. The return for the money will someday be grand.
He claims that corporations have behaved very badly, and that it was absolutely necessary for the government to intervene.
I'm only half stupid
Buffet is kind of a joke.
I mean really. The guy is rich, but he contradicts himself constantly. He made a lot of money creating large conglomerations which are the very things the left constantly berates for it's corporatism and monopolistic behavior. The idea that he's the good guy because he thinks Obama is an okay guy is simply a devisive gesture. The guy also said the government should be taking more of his money in taxes. But he's apparently too stupid to realize the only person keeping him from giving it away to the same effect is himself.
Buffet makes for a nice soundbite. But that's it.
He is a successful, seemingly law-abiding
extremely rich joke.
His interests seem very corporate oriented, which I guess is life these days.
A lot of folks don't like him, and a lot of folks don't like George Soros.
Each is successful in their own right. They both have a right to speak their minds.
Lots of people thought he was a good guy BEFORE he voted for Obama.
Voting for Obama is does not disqualify people from expressing themselves, just because they happen to be rich.
T Boone PIckens votedfor McCain, but still supports the President. Is he a joke too?
=)
I'm only half stupid