On Jan 29, 3:09*pm, HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
*I'm not sure what the raving lunatic means by "having never held a
real
*job..." Being a lawyer is not a real job?

When did he actually practice law?

Being a teacher of
constitutional law is not a real job?

Maybe, but that's left to interpretation.

Being a community organizer is not *a real job?

Nothing great about that, but then again Lennin was a community
organizer so I might give him some points there.

Being a U.S. Senator is not a real job?

The way he was in my state, being on the campaign trail for POTUS at
least 3 of his 4 years as senator?

NO!

*Is being in the military a real job?

YES!

Oh...right. Sure. *snerk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You pussed out of it, sissy.

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:25:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Thunder, you need to pay just a little attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36n...eature=related

The regulators weren't allowed to do their job.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

Regulators did not want to do the job. You have Geitner, the head of the
New York Fed and not the treasury secretary. He did not say anything about
the bad banking practices while at the Fed. Rubin, O's economic advisor,
made a 300 hundred million while decimating the shareholder value at
Citigroup. He is also one of the Fed's owners from what I understand.
Paulson, made $700 million on the bad loans. Seems as if one of the things
these slimeballs all have in common is they are Harvard people. Goldman
Sacs another Fed owner and Harvard entity collateralized the loans in the
first place.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:31:38 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:25:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Thunder, you need to pay just a little attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36n...eature=related

The regulators weren't allowed to do their job.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

Regulators did not want to do the job. You have Geitner, the head of the
New York Fed and not the treasury secretary. He did not say anything about
the bad banking practices while at the Fed. Rubin, O's economic advisor,
made a 300 hundred million while decimating the shareholder value at
Citigroup. He is also one of the Fed's owners from what I understand.
Paulson, made $700 million on the bad loans. Seems as if one of the things
these slimeballs all have in common is they are Harvard people. Goldman
Sacs another Fed owner and Harvard entity collateralized the loans in the
first place.


The Freddie and Fanny regulators did! And they got their butts busted for
it.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

Frogwatch wrote:
Our parents have been referred to as “The Greatest Generation” for
saving the world from Nazis and Fascists, sending people to the moon
and their delayed gratification in the interests of their children.
Their children, the boomers, meanwhile embraced the corpse of
Communism while their elders were busy driving a stake in its heart.
Not content to thumb their noses at their parents sacrifices, the
boomers chose to embrace immediate gratification via massive debt to
fuel their every whim. Now that the bill has come due, in true boomer
fashion they are now trying to pass the bill onto their great
grandchildren via Obama’s “Stimulus Plan” that will be paid by
successive generations. Obama is the ultimate boomer having never
held a real job or done any honest days work he now thinks he is
qualified to spend our grandchildren’s money.
Interesting delusion.
We have witnessed what Global Corporatism or the partnership of
government/global merchants, or ownership of government has wrought. It
happened similarly in 29 and a couple of other times. Socialism was
never the fault.
Not many embrace Communism, I'm sure. Neither do they embrace the other
extreme we are in.
Sure there is going to be some socialist inrodes on social issues. I
hope that is all. We already have a form of socilsm for the Global
Corporations, Wall Street and Bankers. Taxpayers were just put in hock
up to their Grand children's ears.
Di you endorse that? Do you miss that? Are you one of the Wealth Global
Elites that control our government and economy? No you're not otherwise
you wouldn't have time to waste here.
What perversion and sense of loyalty do you have to what has been done
to America? Perhaps you embrace a global plantation?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:38 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


5%, that's it... No one has shown anything to dispute this.. They have
said it, but Lobsta' boats don't count...

It's considerably more than 5%.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?
bpid=133150&t=01001019292467236494

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:00:00 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

--Vic

IMO, this mentality that is killing us now started in the dot com balloon.
(that burst)
I remember companies going public within a year of incorporation and having
stock being valued and sold for astronomical prices although they had never
turned a profit. In fact, some had never produced a product or service.
It was the beginning of the get-rich-quick using other peoples' money
thought process and everyone was in on the game.

Yeah, I remember my daily entry into the investment department where I
worked as a contractor supporting the fixed income piece.
October, 1997. $50 billion value.
The employees supporting equities (@ $20 billion) were always sitting
around the "decor" tables scattered there eating bagels and reading
Barrons, Fortune or the WSJ. Bigshots. Bonused.
Same people I had worked with 10 years earlier, but they kept their
noses to the wheel. They mostly read IBM manuals then.
Those dot com IPO's kept rolling in for a couple years.
Even before the bust about half those employees were dumped and the
best sent packing to other departments.
Not that they should have been. They were mostly very good people,
who were suffering with cognitive dissonance.
The CFO was a greedy sleazeball afflicted with the same hubris.
Of course the CFO got his way.
But the dot com bust was just a speed bump on the way downhill.
The DOW just kept going up.
Track it with industrial job losses, savings rates, and personal debt
and it's clear it was a unsustainable. My take, anyway.
Here we are. I predicted this when Americans went to Jap cars and you
couldn't get U.S. made consumer electronics.
But I was way off in my timing. I always thought it would happen by
the mid-nineties. We lasted this long because the pols - including
the Dems - abandoned all fiscal responsibility and fell for the Wall
Street con job on free trade (NOT) and free money (NOT).
Classic house of cards, sand castle stuff.
I see this getting a lot worse. We're hitting Reagan's low points on
economic indicators. I expect we'll blast through his unemployment
figures soon. The corp HQ my wife cooks for is putting about 20%
of the employees on the street.
Hope I'm wrong.
Hey! On the bright side, I'm often wrong!

--Vic

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:12:39 -0800, jps wrote:



I haven't confirmed but rumor is that many of the layoffs at Microsoft
were blue badge (permanent hires) US citizens and few were H1-B's.

If so, I don't think it's a good formula for enticing congress to
relax H1-B quotas, as Microsoft has long argued.

Doesn't surprise me. As I've said, the corporate ethos is
America-neutral. That would be their term though, as globalists.
I just consider it anti-American worker, because that's the effect.

We need a more educated workforce. While manufacturing would be a
good thing, we need more engineers and programmers.

Well, you've mentioned "integrated solution."
Though we do need more engineers and software people, the factory end
is just as important. Most people just aren't cut out for high tech.
Much of the "retraining" talk by clueless pols is ignorant bull****.

--Vic

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:25:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

IMO, this mentality that is killing us now started in the dot com
balloon. (that burst)
I remember companies going public within a year of incorporation and
having stock being valued and sold for astronomical prices although
they had never turned a profit. In fact, some had never produced a
product or service. It was the beginning of the get-rich-quick using
other peoples' money thought process and everyone was in on the game.

Greed is as American as apple pie.

I suppose that's true, but I don't confuse greed with genuine, honest
attempts to better one's self financially or otherwise. Quite often the
ambition someone has opens opportunities for others as well.

Dreams of and setting goals for success is also as American as apple
pie. Part of success includes financial reward for many, and there's
nothing wrong with that, IMO. To gain financially at the expense of
others is wrong, and that's what we are witnessing.

We're on the same track. Nothing wrong with dreams, setting goals and
achieving them, and attaining some financial reward. That's not greed.

Some financial reward?

What's "some" financial reward? Who defines what "some" is and what
"greed" is?

--

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good."

Steven Wright

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:25:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the
debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

IMO, this mentality that is killing us now started in the dot com
balloon. (that burst)
I remember companies going public within a year of incorporation and
having stock being valued and sold for astronomical prices although
they had never turned a profit. In fact, some had never produced a
product or service. It was the beginning of the get-rich-quick using
other peoples' money thought process and everyone was in on the game.

Greed is as American as apple pie.

I suppose that's true, but I don't confuse greed with genuine, honest
attempts to better one's self financially or otherwise. Quite often the
ambition someone has opens opportunities for others as well.

Dreams of and setting goals for success is also as American as apple
pie. Part of success includes financial reward for many, and there's
nothing wrong with that, IMO. To gain financially at the expense of
others is wrong, and that's what we are witnessing.

We're on the same track. Nothing wrong with dreams, setting goals and
achieving them, and attaining some financial reward. That's not greed.

Some financial reward?

What's "some" financial reward? Who defines what "some" is and what
"greed" is?



In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward that you
can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:25:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or
the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

IMO, this mentality that is killing us now started in the dot com
balloon. (that burst)
I remember companies going public within a year of incorporation and
having stock being valued and sold for astronomical prices although
they had never turned a profit. In fact, some had never produced a
product or service. It was the beginning of the get-rich-quick using
other peoples' money thought process and everyone was in on the game.

Greed is as American as apple pie.

I suppose that's true, but I don't confuse greed with genuine, honest
attempts to better one's self financially or otherwise. Quite often
the
ambition someone has opens opportunities for others as well.

Dreams of and setting goals for success is also as American as apple
pie. Part of success includes financial reward for many, and there's
nothing wrong with that, IMO. To gain financially at the expense of
others is wrong, and that's what we are witnessing.

We're on the same track. Nothing wrong with dreams, setting goals and
achieving them, and attaining some financial reward. That's not greed.

Some financial reward?

What's "some" financial reward? Who defines what "some" is and what
"greed" is?



In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward that
you can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...