On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:58:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:29*am, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. *He likes to make it up as he goes. *I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

THAT is a KEY observation. if unemployment was 25% and he'd done
nothing to stop this, would the same people bitch about the deficit?

On 25/01/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2010 5:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
andrew sullivan drops the big one on the 'enraged' independent right
wingers:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...g-babyism.html

What you have here is big babyism. After the worst downturn in memory,
bequeathed a massive and growing debt, two failing wars, a financial
sector threatening to bring down the entire economy, Obama has
betrayed this person by preventing a Second Great Depression.

We will hear more of these non-sequiturs; the 24-hour news cycle
prevents any memory past the last six months; the easy, lazy meme of
Obama-the-lefty will be pressed home by FNC/RNC and the MSM will grab
onto it because it's a narrative they can understand and that helps
insulate them from charges of bias. That none of this has any direct
relationship with economic and political reality is barely relevant.

Lets look at what would happen if history was different and Obama said NO
to bailouts, let them die and simply stole a hybrid page from Reagan with
a slash in government spending added in to cut taxes. Maybe leave the
average American worker with an extra $3000/year, $250 mo.

Take the banks, just ake them over and liqudate tossing the fraud bankers
out cold on the street, no severence, nada. Share holders, bond holders,
everyone but average depositors get to walk away. Guarantee only the FDIC
insured say to $300,000. The cost of this would be small, a few hundred
billion tops.

GM, Chrylser, let them collapse. Most ended up unemployed but with the
$100+ billion saved, extened declining unemplyment benefits could last
decades with that kind of cash while people look for productive employers,
and most GMers are unemployed anyway. Wagoner, let him take only his
shirts and a SEC SOX warrant...to jail.

Ford would even do better, picking up plants, equipment and market share.
Fewer Ford people would be let go as Ford could easily absorb the market
and propser even more to become very stable. Even buy more parts from
suppliers.

Old GM could be bought, fire all the crud and recover quite a bit of cash
from brands, rights and even divion sell offs.

All told, instead of $2 trillion more debt, perhaps $200 billion.

Business wouldl then be smarter as not to let a company like GM operate in
fraud so long, not extend the credit to a reclassly criminal level like
GM. Carlyle and Cerberus would have to suck in the loses for Osama Bin
laden's brother, Gates, and other ubber-filthy rich. Not really impacting
main stream America too mucha t all as Toyota, Ford, Honda are all hiring
and not firing. Good peole get jobs, GM losers pulled to hard on GM blood
sucking get the lessons.

Government cuts in spending, say $800 billion, put a $600 billion surplus,
to give back to the workers. Aim right in the middle class, not negro
middle class, American middle class, and take less taxes immediately.

Now each American, working Americans that is, has an extra $400 month for
spending, should juice the economy real quick right out aof a resession
into vibrant economy. Even government tax revenues go up as economic GDP
goes up big time.

Noww for banks and debt welchers. Make it illegal to loan money to
welchers for 15 years. Banks cannot leverage loans to past delinquent
debtors, period. Baks must pay savings rates of no less than 1/2 point
below loan rates. Encourage savings. Also slowly remove morgage
deductability as it encourages debt. 100% deductable at 20 years of age,
0 deducable at 50. At 45 only 1/2 is deducatable. This will reduce debt
float taking pressure off of too much dambed debt.

Take on civic and state debt, US governmetn will take in on at 1% interest
BUT the debtor civic or state must NEVER borrow to increase debt again.
Further, 10% of their gross revenues go to pay the debt down each year.
If the state or civic runs out of money before december 31st, they shut
down or the milliary moves in and fires the whole government with cause no
severance).

This will **** off debt mongering liberals, but this cheap debt and easy
money types f--ked us and it is time for some serious restrictions on the
stupidity and selfish liberal debtor greed.

And by now, we would be well out of the recession except for some whining
liberal defunct debtors.

I see tonigh Obama now wants more trillions to debt spend, going to tray
Reagan for the poor. LMAO. Did he finally read some K-6 history? But
probalby too little too late as with a $2 trillion burned up, and $1.9
trillion more deficit-debt spend to come, government debt might be now
just too big to ever pay it off.

You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

Sure beats Obama, Obama bet the farm ($2 trillion and wants $1.9T more)
and it isn't working.

On 26/01/2010 8:58 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

Have jobs?

Reagan could do it. Guess Obama isn't as good. Sure racks up the debt
though.

On 26/01/2010 10:32 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?


Michelle is all-knowing, all powerful.

Give Michelle a break, she is helping employee people, as her servants.

On 26/01/2010 5:00 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:58:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

THAT is a KEY observation. if unemployment was 25% and he'd done
nothing to stop this, would the same people bitch about the deficit?

Liberals hate this, but governmetn spending does not create wealth, it
consumes it. And debt speding is particularily evil because it will be
paid in the future for todays bailout failure.

People who vote Obama/democrat, just ****ing away their financial
liberty. Worst part is they are taking others with them.

On 26/01/2010 4:59 PM, bpuharic wrote:

Lets look at what would happen if history was different and Obama said
NO to bailout

that was tried in '29.

hell you people are so dumb you dont even learn from history. and
sullivan had it right. you're a CRYBABY

Actually, in 1929 they did too try to spend their way back out of a
depression with a far lot les debt than today.

It didn't work. It took a decade right up to WW II to get them out of
the depression.

Read some books other than Obama does Lim Lee.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:45:55 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 26/01/2010 5:00 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:58:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

THAT is a KEY observation. if unemployment was 25% and he'd done
nothing to stop this, would the same people bitch about the deficit?

Liberals hate this, but governmetn spending does not create wealth,

right wingers HATE this but money is money. if you spend it, it goes
into the economy

if the consumer doesnt spend, and the govt doesnt spend, the economy
collapses.

and the consumer wasnt spending last year

but the right...makes alfred e neuman look like albert einstein


People who vote Obama/democrat, just ****ing away their financial
liberty. Worst part is they are taking others with them.

yeah. .look at how much bush and cheney did for freedom and the
economy

if they hadn't ****ed away a trillion dollars in iraq we'd be able to
spend that money here

this moron thinks obama's been president for 8 years...he's a

CRYBABY:


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...g-babyism.html

What you have here is big babyism. After the worst downturn in memory,
bequeathed a massive and growing debt, two failing wars, a financial
sector threatening to bring down the entire economy, Obama has
betrayed this person by preventing a Second Great Depression.

We will hear more of these non-sequiturs; the 24-hour news cycle
prevents any memory past the last six months; the easy, lazy meme of
Obama-the-lefty will be pressed home by FNC/RNC and the MSM will grab
onto it because it's a narrative they can understand and that helps
insulate them from charges of bias. That none of this has any direct
relationship with economic and political reality is barely relevant.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 26/01/2010 10:32 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up.
The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?


Michelle is all-knowing, all powerful.

Give Michelle a break, she is helping employee people, as her servants.



Just like all previous First Ladies.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:43:03 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 26/01/2010 8:58 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up. The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

Have jobs?

Reagan could do it. Guess Obama isn't as good. Sure racks up the debt
though.

USAToday had a summary of a survey of 50 economists. the median
estimate is that 1.2million jobs were saved by the stimuluis

of course, the right wing would prefer 25% unemployment...

it took reagan 2 years. this idiot is a CRYBABY

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...g-babyism.html


What you have here is big babyism. After the worst downturn in memory,
bequeathed a massive and growing debt, two failing wars, a financial
sector threatening to bring down the entire economy, Obama has
betrayed this person by preventing a Second Great Depression.

We will hear more of these non-sequiturs; the 24-hour news cycle
prevents any memory past the last six months; the easy, lazy meme of
Obama-the-lefty will be pressed home by FNC/RNC and the MSM will grab
onto it because it's a narrative they can understand and that helps
insulate them from charges of bias. That none of this has any direct
relationship with economic and political reality is barely relevant.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 26/01/2010 5:00 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:58:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:29 am, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
You're just stupid. You're quoting numbers that are totally made up.
The
only explanation is lack of intellectual capital.

You're catching on. He likes to make it up as he goes. I don't think
he's made a post that didn't contain factual errors.

Besides that how in hell would ANYONE know what would have happened if
Obama had done something different?

THAT is a KEY observation. if unemployment was 25% and he'd done
nothing to stop this, would the same people bitch about the deficit?

Liberals hate this, but governmetn spending does not create wealth, it
consumes it. And debt speding is particularily evil because it will be
paid in the future for todays bailout failure.

You're wrong, at least as far as economic recovery goes. Feel free to quote
Herbert Hoover if you feel the need.


People who vote Obama/democrat, just ****ing away their financial liberty.
Worst part is they are taking others with them.

Just like the people who voted for GWB twice.

--
Nom=de=Plume