Forum
« Chiping away brick Rubber Tree with a Pedigree (Redux) »
November 16, 2008
Obama's First Interview: Oh my God!
Obama today actually said:
"The United States government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy."
Not worry about deficits? Spend our way out of this recession? Seriously, is he a complete idiot?
If you were planning to purchase real estate, don't. Everything is about to go to hell.
Comments
Seems a little late to worry about deficits after 8 years of freeing the rich from paying taxes and conducting 2 wars at once, no? This country needs basic infrastructure investment (that's when you build roads and subways instead of sports arenas and fighter jets). Spend away.
As to whether or not one should buy real estate - well that is a different question. But why, pray tell should, that be the primary standard of a society?
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 16, 2008 10:43 PM
Putnamdenizen,
He wasn't only referring to infrastructure spending. He was referring to no holds barred government waste in every conceivable manner -- spending that will make the cost of the Iraq war look like chump change.
It's one thing to bail out the banking industry on which the rest of the economy relies, but picking failing industries like the auto industry, and giving them billions in taxpayer money so they can survive another year at best is beyond foolish.
The stock market will tank far more than it has already when it gets a strong enough a whiff of Obama's socialist agenda. Our capitalist system is based on allowing the strongest to thrive and the weakest to fail. His actions over time will turn the US into a mediocre European style planned state, and the damage will be nearly impossible to reverse once it begins.
Obama will CHANGE this country all right. We're screwed.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 16, 2008 11:31 PM
You folks love to blame Bush for the bad economy when in fact his free market, hands off, low tax policies helped make the last eight years pretty damn good for most of you.
Well, you got the anti-Bush you wanted. Let's see if you're still happy when the stock market and housing market drop another 50% or more.
You folks asked for it, and based on today's interview, it looks like you're going to get it.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 16, 2008 11:47 PM
"You folks asked for it, and .... it looks like you're going to get it." The stock market is down 35% ... We already GOT IT idiot!!!!!
Posted by: annieny at November 16, 2008 11:55 PM
Annieny,
My point is that it's gonna drop a hell of a lot more. . . chances are your job and your retirement savings will be wiped out (you'll look back fondly on the days when the stock market had only dropped 35%).
When you're out of work, living in squalor in Allentown PA, getting by on food stamps the Obama government sends you every month, you won't be calling me an idiot . . . possibly because you won't be able to afford to replace your broken computer.
The current world financial crisis is not Bush's fault, despite the fact that it makes you feel better by blaming him. A lack of sufficient bank regulation from the Clinton Administration's revision of investment banking laws is the largest single cause, though many other factors are also involved.
If it weren't for seven years of damn good economic growth under Bush prior to the banking meltdown, we'd be in a lot worse shape than we are now.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 12:36 AM
So if this was Clinton's fault, why didn't Bush do something to fix it? He had eight years to come up with a plan.
Posted by: Just Wondering at November 17, 2008 1:10 AM
I love how republicans blamed Clinton for everything bad that happened during the Bush presidency (blame the former prez), and now they're somehow blaming Obama (future prez) for the economy going under. The economy (and a lot more than just that) is screwed because of Bush. Get a clue dude. No one except for the most kool-aid drinking republicans are buying your bs any more. And oh, by the way, the earth was created 6,000 years ago ... yeah riiiiight!
Posted by: werner at November 17, 2008 2:07 AM
Hey IB, it's pretty much classic mainstream Keynesian economics that dictate it's OK to run a deficit in a recession as a stimulative way to get out of it. The theory is that when times improve gov't receipts will increase and the deficit will be repaid. There's nothing lefty or liberal about that line of thinking.
No serious economist today would make a point for paying down the deficit with what's going on right now. It would be the absolute worst possible thing to do. If you can find references to the contrary, I'd be interested.
Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel in economics, was recently quoted as stating that FDR tried to balance the budget in 1936 by raising taxes and cutting spending, which led to a serious economic 'relapse' and the return of double digit unemployment. He also stated that a prior Hoover tax increase completely wiped out the stimulative effect of all the public works projects that had been put in place. His point was that Obama needs to err on the side of over-stimulation, not the other way around.
So, while I am as big an advocate of a balanced budget as the next person (and remind you that it's been Democrats, not Republicans that have delivered one), it would be incredibly stupid, in fact suicidal, to pursue that goal until the economy has stabilized.
Posted by: denton at November 17, 2008 7:09 AM
Watching 60minutes I now think the Savior is well-intentioned but He is not entirely up to speed with the agenda -- no longer hidden -- of the Man Behind the Curtain, which is the New World Order of world gov't by and for the globalist elites.
We the People need to get beyond the phony left/right, liberal/conservative Democan/Republicrat paradigm and unite against these sociopaths of which the Good Shepherd is their (apparently unwitting) frontman.
Your gov't does not love you. Our republic was decades ago co-opted by the bankers, for whom our constitution is their greatest obstacle, and for whom the Federal Reserve, a consortium of private bankers, is their instrument of control
Continuity of Gov't was implemented at around 10am on 9/11
9/11 was orchestrated by traitors from within, and not without the airtight assistance of Mossad
If Obama entrenches himself against the corporatist military/industrial complex of financiers, he will be liquidated by the same network that offed JFK, MLK, RFK, and and a white supremacist will be their patsy, their Oswald, their Atta
After 60minutes I now kind of think Obama means well, but I don't think he is an heroic fighter. So, for example, if his handlers dictate that he have the Israeli mole Rahm as chief-of-staff, he'll acquiesce
Posted by: simplicimus at November 17, 2008 7:19 AM
denton, you're right. Tin Testicles has no grasp of economic theory. Don't expect an intelligent response.
simpliciminded...again, same shit as your Friday post..conspiracy theory that makes you look like a real ignorant fool.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 17, 2008 8:06 AM
I'm reminded of the story about the 4 blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is - you right-wing, conspiracy mongers are wearing blinders. I thought the interview was really heartening - showing level-headed, intelligent people w/ life histories that have instilled cautious pragmatism.
Posted by: Arkady at November 17, 2008 9:12 AM
"seven years of damn good economic growth" under the Bush administration?????
Let's see, unemployment is substantially higher now than when he took office, we went from a massive surplus to a massive deficit, the stock market is waaay lower, home values are falling, people are losing their homes all over the country at higher rates than normal, and wages did not do particularly well against inflation. BTW, how do the # of new jobs under Bush compare with the # of new jobs under Clinton?
Posted by: slopefarm at November 17, 2008 9:31 AM
Here let me help you.
Keynesian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
In economics Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, also Keynesian economics and Keynesian Theory), is based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. According to Keynesian economics the state can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects.
and...
John Maynard Keynes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes CB (pronounced /ˈkeɪnz/ "cains") (June 5, 1883 – April 21, 1946) was a British economist whose ideas, called Keynesian economics, had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments' fiscal policies. He advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. He is one of the fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics and often considered to be the most influential economist of the 20th century. [1] [2] [3]
Hope this helps
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: Return of The What at November 17, 2008 9:45 AM
It was a typical boot licking mainstream media Obama interview. No probing follow-ups, no surprise questions, just the same old brown-nosing Obama worship I expected.
And I don't blame Clinton alone for the financial crisis. Certainly republicans, democrats, bankers, regulators, borrowers, and sure to some degree Bush are to blame -- but nobody in congress said or did anything in time, so picking out Bush as the fall-guy is unfair.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 9:46 AM
Bush will go down as possibly the worst president to ever get 8 years in office. Right now their is no easy answer for what we are going thru and what we are going to go thru. The only way out of this is to go thru a deep recession and not borrow any more. We must take a bad 10 yrs of low spending and high taxes. Of course if we make a huge discovery in energy than we can better our future. As for asset bubble this one we just went thru is nothing compared to what happened in Japan in the 90's where people were paying over 100 grand for a square foot for homes. Highest square ft prices i have seen are 3000 sq ft.
Posted by: HOBOKENROCKS at November 17, 2008 9:49 AM
Where the hell do you think the buck stops TinTesticles. Please get a grip.
What...your cut-and-paste definitions on Keynes were probably educational for you.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 17, 2008 9:53 AM
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages.
The Library will include:
The Hurricane Katrina Room , which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
The National Debt room which is huge and has no ceiling.
The 'Tax Cut' Room with entry only to the wealthy.
The 'Economy Room' which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location,complete with shotgun gallery.
The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
The Supreme Court's Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.
Posted by: Arkady at November 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Thanks What,
But where's the part where Keynes espouses big tax increases on businesses and high income earners?
Denton,
Thanks for the Keynesian economic lesson, but you contradict yourself when you mention the utter failure of Hoover's tax increases with the result of negating "all the public works projects that were put in place."
I'm certainly no economist, but clearly economists are wrong as often they are right. I don't think more government spending (aka tax increases) will get us out of this mess.
The real estate market needs to crash, failing businesses need to go under, folks who can't pay their mortgages should be foreclosed on . . . we need a clean slate.
Obama will put this country further into debt and prolong national economic malaise for years.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 10:03 AM
I don't know why I am even responding to this.
But I have to second (third? fourth?) the notion that no economist with a reputation to protect is going to agree with you, IB.
Deficit spending in this situation is the only sane alternative.
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 10:07 AM
And for the record, I'm not a Republican.
I have no "religious" political party affiliations.
I just want the US economy to remain the strongest in the world, and I'm very afraid that Obama will undue major underpinnings of our economic system.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 10:13 AM
Arkady, that was brilliant and really sums it all up! Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Schultz at November 17, 2008 10:16 AM
News Flash for you IB: the economy has been undermined! Why are you allowing fear to dictate/run your life? You've got to get hold of yourself man!Take a deep breath and think. The world is not coming to a fiery end because Obama was elected.
How old are you? Have you not lived through downturns before? Not minimizing the extreme difficulty of our current situation, but really now. Climb down off the chandelier, and reason.
Undo major underpinnings? Are you cracked? No more coffee for you!
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Vanburenproud,
Would your advice to somebody who just lost his job or business be to apply for more credit cards and go further into debt?
If not, than why do think our government should do the same thing?
Not to mention that Obama's pet issue, massive government investment in researching alternative energies, is a terrible idea.
Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving public transportation, something concrete that will definitely help, not just a wasteful means of paying salaries to the otherwise unemployed?
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Cobblehiller,
I usually drink tea, not coffee, but I hear you and I hope you're right.
I'm not old, but my greatest mentor, a very successful amazing man, lived through the Great Depression and I've heard all about it. And I agree, the world won't come to an end under Obama.
In some ways I've prepared my entire life for what's about to happen. In a few years, or maybe sooner, when real assets are being sold off for pennies, I'm going to buy like mad. The bright side to Obama's agenda is that there will be opportunities for folks with big savings to buy real estate dirt cheap -- soviet style. I plan to have the iron balls to do it.
But I'll try to get a grip in the meantime, and I appreciate your levity.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 10:38 AM
There's a problem of scale here. I understand why you are reacting strongly to the word "trillion" when attached to the word "dollars," but even if Obama put a New New Deal in place, the debt-to-earnings ratio of the US would still be pretty good.
With that sense of scale in mind, let's return to your desire, IB, to frame this in terms of an individual person's economy.
Say you're an individual person who lost their house in a fire, found out that their insurance company wouldn't pay for it, dropped the transmission in their car, and got laid off, all in one or two weeks.
Keynsian Economics basically is saying that the smartest thing to do in this situation is to use credit to stop the downward spiral. To whip out the visa and get a metrocard, an interview suit, a gift for the friend you're couch surfing with, a fresh stack of resumes and a brownie (to boost your morale so that you can face a job interview).
With this "deficit spending," a way out of a nasty fix becomes possible. Once you're employed and have a place to live again, the bill comes due and you pay it back.
Without it, you, the individual in a bad situation, has to endure not just losing your house, car and job in a couple of weeks, but then has very few resources for getting out of trouble.
The situation is really, really bad right now. All of Michigan could crumble. Unemployment will probably reach 10%, and that doesn't count underemployment, people who just aren't looking for unemployment benefits anymore, or unemployed freelancers, who are not eligible for unemployment benefits. It's a time for thrift, sure. But it's also a time to fix a series of huge problems.
Just as it would in your own personal economy, that's going to require capital.
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 11:13 AM
VP,
I agree that borrowing in order to make basic investments to fix our economic situation is prudent if not done wastefully. Of course in your hypothetical case, borrowing for purchases such as an interview suit, shoes, etc., is the smart move to make.
But it sure sounds to me like Obama's spending agenda is far greater than borrowing for concrete fixes like job training, infrastructure efficiencies, and an interview "haircut."
Dumping billions into failing industries to buy time for bloated overpaid politically connected unions is another enchilada entirely. Too much government intervention is worse than no intervention at all. Allowing the free market to recover naturally, sure with better regulation, and perhaps specific tax incentives to help businesses and struggling families alike is the right solution.
But you sound like a reasonable person. Too bad you're not President.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 11:35 AM
I disagree, IB, and this might turn into a classic Big Government v. Small Government argument that we might not bridge, but I am still willing to explain why I think Obama is, if anything, not willing to do enough spending:
1. Unemployment is a huge drain. The government sees a huge spending increase no matter what when unemployment goes up, because unemployed people need stuff like unemployment benefits, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare, etc.
2. Unemployment is going to totally fucking skyrocket. Remember that 10% is conservative and doesn't include a lot of people who don't qualify for unemployment insurance.
3. Not only does the federal government have to pay for these unemployed people to basically survive, but these unemployed people don't buy anything. Without addressing unemployment, there is no future growth, whatever the tax scenario.
4. At the same time, our infrastructure is totally crumbling, and we are also at a point in history when we need a lot of new infrastructure because we simply must figure out this oil dependency problem and this global warming problem.
These are enormous problems that won't go away, and that capitalism by itself isn't going to fix well. If everyone is going to get an electric car, then it makes sense to set up GM to make the best electric cars available, and get charging stations set up everywhere. If we are going to make a conversion to wind power, then we need to spend on the infrastructure to do that.
5. This happens to create massive numbers of jobs, and solves the two biggest foreign policy/global economy problems we face.
This investment in infrastructure does more than stabilizes our enormous unemployment problem. It sets us up to actually take a leadership position in this new energy economy that I am sure India would love to kick our asses in!
Why not invest to be the leader in solar and wind technology? Why not allow GM to make the best electric cars, with the lightest batteries?
And what on earth makes you think, IB, that capitalism is going to orchestrate this kind of total re-organization of our energy infrastructure "naturally"?
I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 11:53 AM
VB,
I guess it just comes down to you having a lot more faith in government than I have. My opinion is government spending is largely (90%) wasted. Private spending is much more productive strictly because it doesn't involve the secret motives and back room deals involved in every political decision. Also private business revolves around making a profit while government actions are designed to please the masses.
I believe our economy is still the strongest in the world because our private businesses make the best products, our tax system, though flawed, is better than most, and free trade is by and large our MO. Most other countries have leaders like Obama who falsely promise government will solve all their problems, and they're clearly worse off for it.
Our government should be a protector of our rights and freedoms, not our business adviser. Electric cars sounds great, but unless they're a profitable endeavor, they won't succeed. Besides GM makes big trucks. If you believe massive government investment in GM, who can't even pay their bills doing what they do best, will have them competing with the Japanese in fuel efficient vehicles EVER, you're dreaming the impossible.
As an aside, of course I certainly believe in protecting the environment, but am suspicious of the political motivations behind "fighting global warming."
I know several scientists/environmental engineers personally why believe there is not sufficient evidence to prove that global warming exists. In other words, they believe the icebergs would be melting anyways. Why believe Al Gore on global warming? I'd rather trust specialists I know personally with no political affiliations.
Capitalism has worked for us so far, obviously with some hick-ups. But why the hell should we want Obama, a lawyer, not even a businessman, to make this country's investment decisions for us? Too many other countries have already proven how disastrous planned economies end up.
Let's not reinvent the wheel. Let's do what we do best and what's been proven to work.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 12:24 PM
I think that it's time to reinvent the wheel. We are in a world of shit.
GM doesn't have to make big trucks. GM made a great electric car that it doesn't sell for capitalistic reasons.
Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is pretty much agreed upon in the scientific community.
And we have a government. Why not use it? Why have an antagonistic, mistrustful relationship with it?
Capitalism needs regulation in order to work. Even Alan Greenspan is ready to admit that.
GW Bush was a businessman. *That* worked out great!
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 12:53 PM
IB, it's funny, I usually get Barron's on Saturday but this weekend I got caught up in other things, so I forgot and only just picked it up.
I think most people would agree that Barron's is a pretty conservative publication. May I call your attention to the cover, and the steps that it calls on Mr. Obama to make:
Massive stimulus package, aid to automakers, and homeowner relief are but the tip of the iceberg.
barrons.com
Posted by: denton at November 17, 2008 2:36 PM
Ironballs,
In have no idea if you're quoting Obama correctly, but I hope you are. This is pretty much Economics 101--the sort of thing Paul Krugman has been recommending lately in his column [but then, what does Krugman know? The Nobel prize in Economics doesn't mean all that much: -) ]
Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 17, 2008 2:51 PM
Denton,
Sorry--I didn't see your reference to Krugman's column, which makes my previous comment superfluous.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 17, 2008 3:09 PM
I never said anything about not wanting government regulation. Once again, it was a lack of sufficient banking regulation, that fueled the housing and credit crisis we now face. Everybody who allowed it to happen is to blame.
I'm glad you folks have such faith in government solving our economic problems, because I have less than zero faith.
In order to increase spending, government has to raise taxes which counters any positive attributes of its increased spending.
Obama's tax and spend/waste agenda will dig us further into the hole and the stock market appears to agree with me.
Remember it's also basic Economics 101 that the stock market takes into account all known information in pricing stocks -- the whole efficient market hypothesis. Unless something completely unknown about Obama's agenda is announced, the writing on the wall can't be disputed.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 3:34 PM
IB, again, how old are you? This is the real world, not some economic theory class you took in college last year.
Who has been doing all the spending, and then spending some more for the past 8 years dear? Who has been doing the majority of the deregulating and the dismantaling of the risk management infrastructure - And how were they able to do it? Does the name Paulson come to mind? Please IB think!
Taxes used to be higher. Bush lowered them for higher income individ. and corps. And then proceeded to spend spend spend like a drunken sailor! I don't know how you manage your personal finances, but if I bring home less, I certainly can't start spending more!
You sound like a scared child with these arguments. You've got to calm down and think for yourself a little bit and stop looking for panaceas in text books.
It's going to be a grind, but it was going to be a grind now matter who got into office. And if you think for one minute that McCain would not have raised taxes then you're more of a sucker that I thought.
Posted by: cobblehiller at November 17, 2008 3:53 PM
It's depressing that in a country of approximately 300 million people, the best the voters could come up with were McCain and Obama.
Atleast McCain claimed he'd reduce taxes, and said he'd stick to the basics -- infrastucture and security spending.
Obama's "proposed agenda" is tax, spend, tax, waste, tax, spend, tax, waste . . .
Seriously, the choice couldn't have been any clearer.
On a superficial level, I agree Obama is great PR. But unfortunatelty he'll really be the one making the most important decisions to affect this country once he takes office.
Atleast the beer's still cold. He can't take that away from us.
Posted by: IronBalls at November 17, 2008 4:31 PM
Cobblehiller makes a valid point about all the spending Republicans have been doing since Reagan. Seriously, it can't get any worse than it's already been.
Go have a drink tonight and relax! It's all going to be OK!
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 4:42 PM
VBP, sorry, did you say SINCE Reagan? Reagan was the ultimate spender. His huge deficits were not paid back until Bill Clinton.
In recent times there have only been two presidents that have managed to run a fiscally responsible government, i.e., have a balanced budget. Bill Clinton and JFK, who had a balanced budget in 1969.
It's amazing how Republicans are always talking about 'tax and spend' Democrats, while the most fiscally irresponsible budgets have been under Reagan and GWB.
Posted by: denton at November 17, 2008 5:01 PM
There you go denton, countering misty-eyed nostalgia (for a past that never was) with pesky facts. Shame on you!
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 17, 2008 6:50 PM
naivedudinbedsty:
Stigmatizing truthers as "conspiracy theorists" is the lame refuge of naive duds that don't got a nickel's worth of game.
Bring on a single cogent case for who got NORAD to stand down, or how office fires can cause collapses at free-fall speed. Maybe al CIAduh was CONSPIRING to plant moles throughout U.S. air defense systems, maybe al CIAduh figured out how to de-activate Pentagon's standard procedures
Or make your case for the validity of any single aspect of Philip Zelikov's cover-up. Tell me why for example 100K was wired to Atta by the head of the ISI, the same head of Pakistani intelligence who was meeting with, on the morning of 9/11, Porter fucking Goss
Stop sucking your thumbs and bone up on this before you start slinging faggy pat put-downs
Posted by: simplicimus at November 17, 2008 7:11 PM
You see, so the worldwide war on terra is a fraud, and thus the Patriot Act and domestic spying have been implemented for other reasons, namely to impose totalitarian control.
And Obama won't repeal any of this, much less expose the September criminals who orchestrated the atrocities of 9/11.
In fact my sources tell us that Obama gives them left-wing cover, a bright new face, to advance their agenda of world governance in which we all will be debt-slaves
Posted by: simplicimus at November 17, 2008 7:35 PM
Denton wrote:
"VBP, sorry, did you say SINCE Reagan? Reagan was the ultimate spender. His huge deficits were not paid back until Bill Clinton."
Yes, I did say since Reagan, as in Reagan was the hugest spender and deficit creater on the planet... until GWB came along and busted his record!
Read my post before you tar me with the tax-cut-and-spend Republican brush, my good man or woman! I said plainly that Republicans spend!
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 7:45 PM
And while I'm at it... pull your head out of your conspiracy-theorizing ass, simplicimus. We are already debt-slaves!
Posted by: vanburenproud at November 17, 2008 7:47 PM
don't be so proud, vanburen, see my comment to naivedudinbedsty at 7:11
same goes for you, what do you got besides a faggy pat put-down about my "conspiracy-theorizing ass?"
make an argument, what do you got on 9/11?
one thing, what do got??
Posted by: simplicimus at November 17, 2008 8:00 PM
You want the truth behind 911? It was frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads:
- http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 17, 2008 9:01 PM
First they ignore you
Then they ridicule you
Then they attack you
Then you win
That was Gandhi I think
Posted by: simplicimus at November 18, 2008 6:00 AM
Actually, having first ridiculed you, I will now ignore you.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 18, 2008 1:05 PM
IB-
"Private spending is much more productive strictly because it doesn't involve the secret motives and back room deals involved in every political decision."
Are you f*cking kidding me? Have you ever worked in Corporate America?! It's ALL about politics and secret motives and back room deals. Money gets pissed away constantly for the same reasons it does in the government, just not as consistently.
Frankly, there's nothing more I'd like to see than Detroit going down the tubes. Let Honda, Toyota, or whoever make the cars, I don't care. But then again, see VBP at 11.53 am for valid reasons why this probably shouldn't happen.
Also, try redstate.com. Up your alley.
Posted by: basketball_jones at November 18, 2008 3:32 PM
Just trying to help you cut your losses, Sparky, I know a lot of ignoramuses who are so INVESTED in the Official Version
Posted by: simplicimus at November 18, 2008 7:16 PM
ironballs must be one of those layed off investment bankers...he probably worked for lehman and thought that dick fuld was really looking out for him
Posted by: eman1234 at November 19, 2008 9:20 PM
Don't blame Bush Blame all those idiots that bought million dollar homes and had no money or intentions of living in those homes till the end of the mortgage. Everyone wanted to sell to make a profit. I didn't vote for Obama but you know what if he is going to bring down home prices in places like Carroll Gardens so working families can afford to live there then God Bless Him. This is nonsense, We have homeowners who brag about having million dollar homes in Brooklyn, who are crying like cry babies because Bloomberg will not give them their long promised 400.00 dollar check. Boo Hoo I gotta raise my tents rent 100.00 dollars a month to make up for it.
Posted by: hannible at December 13, 2008 8:16 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.