White House admits to planning bailout for MONTHS

[Against Miik!]

I knoe Daily Kos is a pretty left wing blog, but as far as I know, they are still pretty reputable for what they do. And would a story like this really be reported on anywhere else?

The White House today is drumming up extraordinary pressure on Congress to approve its plan to enact a $700 billion mortgage bailout fund, suggesting the markets cannot wait much longer and dispatching Vice President Cheney and other top officials up Pennsylvania Avenue to jawbone lawmakers.

......

[White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony] Fratto said it would be "unthinkable" for Congress not to pass legislation this week, asserting the result would be a "very, very serious situation" for the U.S. economy.

......

Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/23/124453/470/612/607556

[Smokey D]

It shouldn't be surprising that the government's financial wizards were prediciting a financial collapse ages ago. We've known for a long time that the housing market was in a bubble phase, and bubbles always pop. Not to mention the credit crunch has been in the news for almost a year now.

The fact of a bail out is not hugely surprising. The size of it might be more of a shock.

[SnackaryBinx]

I blame Carter.

[Aaron]

Yeah, I'm not surpised that the biggest economy in the world was preparing for this in the long-run. Really, as soon as you notice a boom you should plan for the bust.

[SnackaryBinx]

Boom's usually come from really bad ideas, like no questions asked mortgages. Now that was a bad idea.

[Aaron]

Hardly. Booms come from many different variables.

[FallingSnow]

What I don't understand is why everyone is throwing a fit about it (mostly Democrats). I'm sure the reprecussions of letting major corporations and lenders go under are far worse than spending some tax dollars.

[Smokey D]

Actually it's fiscal conservatives who are worried.

The main concern is that the money be made over with no strings attached, which would effectively reward the bad economic behavior of the financial industry.

[FallingSnow]

That makes sense, but there's a certain point where you can't allow the system to completely collapse. That has extreme reprecussions, as I stated.

My gathering was that the Democrats are the ones trying to block/amend the hell out of it...I haven't heard much complaining from the Republican camp.

[Smokey D]

I dunno, I heard it was Republicans flinching about increasing the government's role in the market and/or increasing taxpayer money exposure to default and Democrats using the issue to harangue the Administration and politicise it as much as possible.

That makes sense, but there's a certain point where you can't allow the system to completely collapse. That has extreme reprecussions, as I stated.

I agree.

[mph4ever]

does anyone have any numbers on how much the bush years have cost america in terms of non essential activity like the iraqi war or this bail out of wall street or the support for aig, freddie, fannie etc?

there has been a whole load of syphoning off of american tax payers money but they are getting nothing in return except higher persoanl bad debt

like if we take the trillion or so dollars that iraq has cost, add the current bail out package of $700bn, then thats a fair amount of dosh

btw, its not that bush is the only one, reagan, bush senior, clinton all did similar things during their terms in office. just wondering

[FallingSnow]

does anyone have any numbers on how much the bush years have cost america in terms of non essential activity like the iraqi war or this bail out of wall street or the support for aig, freddie, fannie etc?

there has been a whole load of syphoning off of american tax payers money but they are getting nothing in return except higher persoanl bad debt

like if we take the trillion or so dollars that iraq has cost, add the current bail out package of $700bn, then thats a fair amount of dosh

btw, its not that bush is the only one, reagan, bush senior, clinton all did similar things during their terms in office. just wondering

Not to be a dick or anything, but virtually every president for the past 60-70 years has done this in one form or another, which leads me to ask you this question....how are you qualified to determine what is essential?

[mph4ever]

Not to be a dick or anything, but virtually every president for the past 60-70 years has done this in one form or another, which leads me to ask you this question....how are you qualified to determine what is essential?

sure, i know you are not being a dick. its a very good point and i accept that i am not qualified.

here, when we have elections then a lot of it is about a 5 year plan on how different parties would spend the money they raise with taxes during their term in office. this is usually a fairly well defined amount to meet their proposed objectives. then their ability to deliver is measured.

i was just wondering if anyone had any knowledge of what was promised to be spent during the election campaign and where it would be spent versus what was actually spent and where it was spent. and like you said, it has been going on for ages. i only mentioned reagan et all simply to acknowledge that is an ongoing circumstance

[FallingSnow]

Things often happen not according to plans; the resiliency of a president and his ability to work within events and situations that occur is something we depend upon in a strong leader. Sometimes that means they are able to spend less money (Clinton), sometimes more (Bush). The whole "promise made, promise kept" wish that Americans have is ridiculous.

[Smokey D]

Gonna point out that Clinton didn't create higher debt, he created a surplus.

But asking the question how much did Bush spend on non-essential items begs the question what is essential. I wouldn't call the bail out non-essential. And in all fairness I wouldn't call it Bush's fault.

[Against Miik!]

I've heard two really interesting points of view on this. One was for how the bailout should not happen. I completely forgot where I heard it, and what the details were, so I have to try and remember that.

The other was from Warren Buffett, who believes we should go along with the buyout, but not at the price that is being asked. He believes that the banks are vastly overstating the price of these assets, so as to not reveal how bad things truly are. He thinks we should buy them up at market price, which is much lower. If we do that, and handle things the right way, we may actually be able to profit from the buyout. But this will be far more difficult to do at the price that is currently being asked.

[Permanent Solution]

It's true, if the government buys everything at current market prices, as long as the market recovers there should be a profit because these companies are at ridiculous prices.

Of course, if the market still fails...

[Already_Taken]

To those saying there is no trickle-down from the current administration, I say T boone pickens. his windmills will actually create too much power for our existing electric infrastructure to handle. that's what i'm talking about!

[SnackaryBinx]

To those saying there is no trickle-down from the current administration, I say T boone pickens. his windmills will actually create too much power for our existing electric infrastructure to handle. that's what i'm talking about!

could you please break that down so normal humans can understand it? :confused:

[Already_Taken]

t boone pickens is the guy who's building a bunch of windmills from the texas panhandle northward. well, most normal people couldn't afford that, but this mofo is loaded. he is loaded because he was an executive for exxon i think or one of those. the reason hes loaded is because bush kept taxes nice and low for corporations. he is investing this money in the future by building renewable energy in the form of wind turbines, and he is developing enough of them to where it will actually flood our power grid with more power than it can already handle. we and our children will benefit from this, not t boone pickens.

[SnackaryBinx]

to be honest, we've been doing trickle down economics since Reagen. And through the billions dollars of debt (and the one time when we had a surplus, but that was because we had Clinton in office) we now have power grids in Texas. To be honest, I think that's a little too little for all these years of trickle down economics.

[Already_Taken]

okay i didn't say it was the only way, but that's huge and if you can't see that then get glasses. rich people are the reason we have a lot of cool ****. they invest in it. we reap the benefits as the technology becomes common knowledge and widespread.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

[Smokey D]

Trickle down does work in some things but it isn't an efficient model of wealth redistribution.

As for Warren Buffet and the idea of buying the bad debt at lower prices, I dunno. I would have thought that part of the problem is market price is so much lower than what the lenders were expecting. But what I know: Warren Buffet is probably right.

[FallingSnow]

to be honest, we've been doing trickle down economics since Reagen. And through the billions dollars of debt (and the one time when we had a surplus, but that was because we had Clinton in office) we now have power grids in Texas. To be honest, I think that's a little too little for all these years of trickle down economics.

Haha.

Let's not give him credit for everything. One man alone is not responsible for the economic/financial status of the nation.

I love how people love to praise Clinton and rag on Bush Jr., as if they alone are responsible for the rise and fall of the U.S. economy. There are so many variable factors and so many other people/groups involved it's ridiculous.

[JohnXDoe]

yes lets not blame "one man" as long as its your man

lets blame one man if its not :rolleyes:

[FallingSnow]

I blame everyone equally tbh. Not sure what you're getting at.

I'm the furthest thing from a Bush supporter.


And Obama is only a threat if he has the backing of Congress, but I'd like to not invite trouble to my doorstep by voting for him.

[JohnXDoe]

i'm getting at we need more government involvment in these things and more government oversight. the Dems aren't perfect, but they have the nerve to say "you don't need another car you need to spend and invest your money wisely" while giving the people the protection they need. or at least trying

the Bush Administration iis just asleep at the wheel

last might CNN played 16 clips of Bush this year saying "the economy is strong" "your money is safe."

blah blah blah. leadership and policy making from the top does count. and holding some real influence from the top. Bush has none of it. he and his Administration are asleep at the wheel and always talk about "being on the side of the American people," yet they do crap about anything except to give us bogus rebate checks to "bolster the economy"

thats a joke

we had a SURPLUS under Clinton and the economy was strong. the last 20 years under repubs we've had record deficits and now this crap

that is what i am getting at

[DBoons Ghost]

Consumers don't get off scott free in this do they?

I mean, Americans are ****ing stupid. This proves how stupid they are. Know your business.

Bush is responsible for a lot over the last 8 years, but not this. This is Wall Street's fault, and the fact they were left to prey on consumers. Both of those parties are to blame in this.

That, and maybe reality TV and the superficial lifestyle we sell to the world. People don't come here to live nice and raise children, they come here to get rich quick by any means necesarry.

So quick to point fingers. Look in the ****ing mirror.

[FallingSnow]

@JohnXDoe

Need I remind you it was a Republican whose ideas helped bring an end to the energy/financial crisis of the 80s and who still holds one of the highest approval ratings of former U.S. Presidents? If you really want to play that hand, it fails.

Clinton held no more influence than Bush (either one, tbh), and vice versa. The president has very little to do with actual impact on the economy. Ideas are just ideas unless they have the backing of legislators.

This is not Bush's or the Republicans' fault, by a long shot.

[JohnXDoe]

Consumers don't get off scott free in this do they?

I mean, Americans are ****ing stupid. This proves how stupid they are. Know your business.

Bush is responsible for a lot over the last 8 years, but not this. This is Wall Street's fault, and the fact they were left to prey on consumers. Both of those parties are to blame in this.

That, and maybe reality TV and the superficial lifestyle we sell to the world. People don't come here to live nice and raise children, they come here to get rich quick by any means necesarry.

So quick to point fingers. Look in the ****ing mirror.
i agree. but good leadership can change that. if, as Obama said, Bush had rallied the people at 9/11 for good and war, rather then war, greed, and to "go shopping," this mess could have been avoided

leadership. every country needs it
@JohnXDoe

Need I remind you it was a Republican whose ideas helped bring an end to the energy/financial crisis of the 80s and who still holds one of the highest approval ratings of former U.S. Presidents? If you really want to play that hand, it fails.

Clinton held no more influence than Bush (either one, tbh), and vice versa. The president has very little to do with actual impact on the economy. Ideas are just ideas unless they have the backing of legislators.

This is not Bush's or the Republicans' fault, by a long shot.
Reagan was a bad joke. their was no "energy / financial crisis" in the 80's and old man Reagan did squat about any of it

and idc what you say (or anybody) about the economy just being "luck of the draw" or government having nothing to do with anything

history gets longer. and the past 30 years show repubs fuk things up and Dems have to clean up the mess. the Carter years notwithstanding as that was when the real energy crisis and economic crisis happened. coming out of Vietnam and the troubles in the middle east. but that stuff was settling by the time Reagan took office. and it was Carter who inherited that crap from Ford / Nixon

the proof is in the pudding. the republican party atm is twisting in the wind

[FallingSnow]

If you know anything about economics you know that it is often self-running and self-sufficient; it's very difficult for the government to do enough to force its hand with the financial sector. Therefore, it's very, very impossible for a single man to do the same; in other words, as I continue to state, quit blaming Bush for our current situation and quit giving Clinton the credit for "saving" us. Policies can have influence but rarely have impact, and when they do, they have to have the backing of legislators (both Republican AND Democrat) to be implemented.

The economy has natural cycles, and sure as **** when this boat rights itself (which it will eventually) Obama will take all the credit for it and people will be stupid enough to buy into it.

[JohnXDoe]

i know shi.t about economics. i only know this:

republicans lower taxes on the well to do, the country goes into debt and often recession, and the GOP loves to tell us "we have no control" and "it doesn't really matter."

meanwhile they increase spending, actually growing government. its not "smaller' government. its as big as ever. so then they throw up a guy liike McCain who says he is going to cut spending. and he is. right where it hurts the working class of this country

tax breaks for the well to do, debt, recession. Bush Sr had to clean up after Reagan. but he couldn't quite do it because he came from Reagan. same 'ol same 'ol. so the country got smart and elected a GOOD President. young, smart, talented. think what you want about him, but the man won playing a sax on Arsenio Hall

we have another and he's going tp clean this mess up. and you'll say "oh now he is going to get all the credit. it would have happened anyway"

well too bad. i guess republican Presidents just have real bad timing because the country seems to suck more under them

all of them

Obama '08 :smoke:

[FallingSnow]

A large part of the increased spending during the last few Republican terms has been due to wars and natural disasters, where financial support is obviously essential. Clinton managed to avoid most of the huge natural disasters and was too chicken **** to take care of anything overseas. Thus, his administration's need for money was far less.

I fail to see how that excuses the enourmous amounts of tax increases the Democrats want to impose, especially Obama himself. If you really want to talk history, let's talk about how very, very little the Democrats taxes have done to fix anything with our health care or education systems. They like to throw more money at problems in the hopes they will be fixed. That's no better than the Republicans.

They're all crooked as ****; I'm just sick of everyone blaming the Republicans for everything, because it's not true in the slightest. Everyone has a hand in it, and nobody in Washington has a ****ing clue anymore. It just so happens that I personally believe that this round of Democrats, including Obama, are a little more insane than usual.

[JohnXDoe]

well call it the lesser of two evils if you must. or if i must. but whatever you call it it does seem we have a two party system in this country. i like it fine. and its time for the other party to give it a go for awhile

maybe its just a ying and a yang thing. it can't stay the same forever. it just can't. not for four more years. if Bush had been a better President and leader McCain might have a chance. because even if things weren't so great some people could still say "well Bush wasn't so bad maybe McCain will be a little better"

but Bush is bad on all fronts. idk how he leads this GOP. its been hijacked by talk radio and the loonies that call in. and "smart" people who think the country is a corporation and "we the people" are their goddamn employees. i'm tired of the "don't trust government" to do anything crap and attitude. the entire idea of Bush policy toward the economy is slash regulations, no oversight of anything, and if it stands in the way of MAXIMUM PROFIT its no good. so, the economy just spins and spins and the government never once looks at these outrageous sub prime loans and says "maybe we need to look into this? this might not be good and maybe should not be lawful?"

but no, we are all big boys and girls so don't need good rules. we are trustworthy. the banks, the people, the lenders and borrowers. we can ALL be trusted to have good judgment about MONEY

we needed some regulation, some rules, some common sense policy. a President who reads the newspaper everyday and thinks "wtf is this all about" and stays up to date everyday on everything. Barack Obama is who we have in a two party system who can do that. for me John McCain is eight years too late

i think we need someone to take office who can bend and twist with the wind right now. someone who won't be intimidated by Washington and inspire people to work well there on all issues. i actually think Barack Obama will be a good bi partisan President who will win over many conservatives

the man has values, he has principles and integrity. at least to a certain degree. and he does believe in personal responsibility. like many Presidents, he has character. even if flawed. he is....elevated. same as McCain. these are powerful men, no doubt

but Obama i believe will use that power best. i think he will be a fair, firm, and outgoing President. and i think he can steer the country through the times ahead with a steady vision

i didn't feel this way until recently. but before the recent economic mess i started to. if i sound "anti republican" its just because its that time of year. and it only comes every four years. so some true thoughts and feelings have to come out. i'm a Democrat. i guess thats that

i was looking at McCain, supported Hillary. but when its all said and done Barack Obama for a new America that needs a bit of "new."

maybe nothing will "change" so much. but it will be a breath of fresh air. and a time to feel good about one part of our history

[Already_Taken]

john mccain has his priorities out of order, and it will show by how he wants to spend tax money. i think obama honestly will try to please the american constituency. i think he really wants to be a good president. fallingsnow calling him a threat is hilarious, because he actually believes the scaremongerers hahaha

[TBrown87]

A large part of the increased spending during the last few Republican terms has been due to wars and natural disasters, where financial support is obviously essential. Clinton managed to avoid most of the huge natural disasters and was too chicken **** to take care of anything overseas. Thus, his administration's need for money was far less.

I fail to see how that excuses the enourmous amounts of tax increases the Democrats want to impose, especially Obama himself. If you really want to talk history, let's talk about how very, very little the Democrats taxes have done to fix anything with our health care or education systems. They like to throw more money at problems in the hopes they will be fixed. That's no better than the Republicans.

They're all crooked as ****; I'm just sick of everyone blaming the Republicans for everything, because it's not true in the slightest. Everyone has a hand in it, and nobody in Washington has a ****ing clue anymore. It just so happens that I personally believe that this round of Democrats, including Obama, are a little more insane than usual.

you are one of the least benightedly unintelligent life forms it has been my displeasure to not be able to avoid meeting.

[FallingSnow]

you are one of the least benightedly unintelligent life forms it has been my displeasure to not be able to avoid meeting.

Apparently I am intelligent enough to communicate my points calmly and concisely, rather than simply post to insult people on such a petty and superficial level...as you seem content to do. If you have a disagreement on principles, speak up. Otherwise, please don't waste people's time with insults.



fallingsnow calling him a threat is hilarious, because he actually believes the scaremongerers

There is such a thing as independant thought, one that I am very capable of. Simply because I have many of the same opinions as some of the "radicals" doesn't automatically mean I buy into bullshit simply because it is fed to me. Again, I've formed my thoughts quite independantly.

I have sat down and reviewed Sen. Obama's tax propositions and his general financial plans. I can tell you that they are not the best for my household and in fact could do some financial harm to my family. Now, considering my family is not that different from many others, I would venture to claim that they can't be all that great for many other households as well.

Also, I simply disagree with his foreign policy and national security stances on principle, not because some yahoo on tv says so. Again, independant thought---which we are all capable of and I am very much entitled to.

[guitrguy]

A large part of the increased spending during the last few Republican terms has been due to wars and natural disasters, where financial support is obviously essential. Clinton managed to avoid most of the huge natural disasters and was too chicken **** to take care of anything overseas. Thus, his administration's need for money was far less.

funny how the larger of the two expenses is largely protested, yet sustained despite the disapproval of the international community.

[McP3000]

republicans lower taxes on the well to do, the country goes into debt and often recession, and the GOP loves to tell us "we have no control" and "it doesn't really matter."
it could very easily be said that the tax breaks the conservatives provide jumpstart the failing economy and the effects of the breaks can't be seen until years later, usually when an opposite party member is in office.

you really dont know anything about economics

[Iskandar]

Still waiting for that jumpstart!

[TBrown87]

Apparently I am intelligent enough to communicate my points calmly and concisely, rather than simply post to insult people on such a petty and superficial level...as you seem content to do. If you have a disagreement on principles, speak up. Otherwise, please don't waste people's time with insults.

Funnily enough I was complimenting you. But I take it back.

[guitrguy]

it could very easily be said that the tax breaks the conservatives provide jumpstart the failing economy and the effects of the breaks can't be seen until years later, usually when an opposite party member is in office.

you really dont know anything about economics

lol trickle down economics.

[griftadan]

posted for relevancy

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

[Smokey D]

Still waiting for that jumpstart!

Actually the extra money sloshing around was probably part of the boom that led to this current crisis. Lower taxes usually do help the economy, but there has to be appropriate regulation in other areas and the government can't be ramping up spending at the same time


As for Clinton and Bush being personally responsible for the economy, neither is. They are responsible for how the government deals with it. Bush's economy dealt badly with it and left the country in a bad position to deal with the inevitable bubble pop. Clinton built a surplus, which left the government in a relatively cushy position. It might be said that Bush had to deal with more expensive things than Clinton and that this accounts for the mess. To a point this is true, but virtually all of the expenses suffered by the Bush Administration were brought on by choices made by the Administration. Therefore, they are responsible.

[JohnXDoe]

you really dont know anything about economics


you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

- Bob Dylan

[Smokey D]

Well it helps.

[JohnXDoe]

only if you don't know how to lick your finger and stick it in the air

:p

[JohnXDoe]

Barack seems to share my pov on some of these matters. he said so in the debate. so i'll go with that :)

on another note Jim Lehar is a pretty bad moderator so far

[BridgeToSolace]

you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

- Bob Dylan


You're right, you don't need an expert to know the most basic and cursory elements of a subject.

Good luck predicting the weather based on pressure/winds/humidity/other **** though :p

[iamjoe2]

dude, obamas economic stance isnt that great, its alot of hype...

it dosent really do anything.

[FallingSnow]

Funnily enough I was complimenting you.

Oh. My bad, haha. I misinterpereted you then.


dude, obamas economic stance isnt that great, its alot of hype...

it dosent really do anything.

This, on every level. Really, he doesn't have much of an economic stance, other than tax the piss out of the people he defines as rich, and, well, spend more money. As if the Democrats' rampant taxes and spending have fixed anything any more than the Republicans' stubbornness has.

[McP3000]

This, on every level. Really, he doesn't have much of an economic stance, other than tax the piss out of the people he defines as rich, and, well, spend more money. As if the Democrats' rampant taxes and spending have fixed anything any more than the Republicans' stubbornness has.
My old history teacher used to say that theres one main difference between Democrats in Washington and Republicans in Washington.

Republicans want to cut taxes and overspend
Democrats want to raise taxes and spend even more than that.

[FallingSnow]

Haha, that's actually about the gist of it. Smart man.

Here's where McCain has some decent planning though...he actually wants to cut a pissload of unnecessary spending, something his own party is heavily opposed to.

[JohnXDoe]

oh well since your history teacher said so....

it doesn't matter what anyone wants the rest of us with common sense to believe. the government plays an inherent role in our economic success or failure. them keeping taxes low on the well to do is supposed to help us all. but it doesn't. and it hurts the many. it just does. everyone should pay their fair share. this, "they" say, will hurt the economy. when you tell the rich(er) in the country "well we won't waste it anymore. we'll put it to good use" they say "oh big government stealing from my pocket. just have an army to protect my things from the poor who want them and would rob my house. that is the only role of government"

hey fu a holes

pay your damn taxes

does America (the Government) own any oil companies? private? no, i believe not. but who goes to do business with the saudi's and shakes hands and makes deals? American POLITICIANS. who went to war in 92 to protect the interest of oil in Kuwait? the American military.. fighting for oil. oil which is bought and sold on the open and "free market."

how much did the oil companies pay for that war. how much are they paying for this one?

no, they shouldn't have to. we're all in it together. we should pay together.

the country is pathetic. the government broke and in debt. its citizens, largely in debt. no one seems to want to pay for anything. its sad.

cut spending cut spending cut spending. mine mine mine. pathetic

government plays a large role in the economy. stop trying to convince us it doesn't as wall street crumbles on the heels of deregulation and money going "round and round" until it disappears before it ever "trickles down"

its like a scam. it is a scam

your "trickle down economics"

[McP3000]

oh well since your history teacher said so....
Dude it was a light hearted joke with a semblance of truth, chill out

it doesn't matter what anyone wants the rest of us with common sense to believe. the government plays an inherent role in our economic success or failure. them keeping taxes low on the well to do is supposed to help us all. but it doesn't. and it hurts the many. it just does. everyone should pay their fair share. this, "they" say, will hurt the economy. when you tell the rich(er) in the country "well we won't waste it anymore. we'll put it to good use" they say "oh big government stealing from my pocket. just have an army to protect my things from the poor who want them and would rob my house. that is the only role of government"

hey fu a holes

pay your damn taxes

does America (the Government) own any oil companies? private? no, i believe not. but who goes to do business with the saudi's and shakes hands and makes deals? American POLITICIANS. who went to war in 92 to protect the interest of oil in Kuwait? the American military.. fighting for oil. oil which is bought and sold on the open and "free market."

how much did the oil companies pay for that war. how much are they paying for this one?

no, they shouldn't have to. we're all in it together. we should pay together.

the country is pathetic. the government broke and in debt. its citizens, largely in debt. no one seems to want to pay for anything. its sad.

cut spending cut spending cut spending. mine mine mine. pathetic

government plays a large role in the economy. stop trying to convince us it doesn't as wall street crumbles on the heels of deregulation and money going "round and round" until it disappears before it ever "trickles down"

its like a scam. it is a scam

your "trickle down economics"
you're pathetic

[JohnXDoe]

enlighten me



EDIT: i thought i was "blind" too? still waiting for some wisdom

[McP3000]

enlighten me



EDIT: i thought i was "blind" too? still waiting for some wisdom
blind was the wrong word, i apologize for using it.

[JohnXDoe]

yeah well i shouldn't make it so black and white, either. i know it isn't. and i understand as much about the finer points of the economy and how it works as the other average american. which is to say not much

but i do understand that i don't want a country which is at the whim of one last and final "economic" system. we live in the grip of "capitalism" and that is fine. and while through the roof economic growth is good, siphoning off the top can be beneficial for the country. if the government invests wisely. government can give contracts to private companies for healthcare, energy programs, roads and infrastructure. these create jobs and put people to work.

now people say "leave it to the private sector to create jobs." well yes. but job creation is just a side benefit to sell the public. we really do need the infrastructure improvements, an energy program, better healthcare, and a few other things. we need to lead in science and education. its all GOOD for the country at this point in history

the stickler for me are those who want ME to believe government is inept, untrustworthy, and a threat to my money and freedom. i tend to view this as an over reaction. some really believe this and its pure paranoia. the democrats don't want to tax people blind or spend out of control. they will simply tax people fair and by doing so will help keep spending in control. can spending still be cut? sure. it always can. but of course just like "earmarks" my wasteful spending one place is another persons bridge to success, school, or road to drive down. for another person it might be that tank we just bought but don't need, or subsidizing oil companies through tax breaks they don't really need. not for the sake of oil prices but for the sake of "investors" and making a bigger profit. so thats sort of inverted waste, not collecting what you can. what you legally can

instead we say "we'll give you a break." and some would like to make these permanent. permanent tax "breaks"

funny when i take a break at work its never been "permanent." its been a break. thats why its called a "break." then its time to get back to work. because if not nothing gets done. the break has to end for the well to do and well off of the country, as well. they like to say "pull yourselves UP by your bootstraps." so they can do a little of the same for the country which has been so good to them

Obama said "bottom up" economics in the debate. millions of people agree. "economist" can say we are wrong, academics can say it doesn't add up, cynics can say it doesn't matter

if thats all true we will see. or perhaps just like under Clinton if Obama takes office we will see record growth, job creation, a budget surplus, and a secure economy and America once again?

after the last eight years and the record of Reagan / Bush from '80 to '92 that is a chance for "Change" i am willing to take with my vote

[JohnXDoe]

/back on topic


well apparently a "bailout" agreement has been reached at this late hour

we will see....