When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Patvann —
I think you should re-read my post and home in on one line — banks are lending now; they were not a year ago. Now on to the rest of your drivel —
“Over a trillion dollars worth of commercial real estate comes due in 2010, and almost half of that amount is expected to be underwater. Over 350 billion, which will hit the bottom-line of the already stressed banking industry.”
Banks are lending now, so there will be refinancings. There was NO LENDING last year, and that makes all the difference. Confidence in the system, obviously, is much higher, hence all the TARP recipients willing to give back the billions in capital they took on a year ago.
“While you supply a mind-numbing stupid posit, based ONLY on an anecdotal comment from a “friend”, I spend many hours a week perusing the forecasts of the economic indicators. Even then, I would never base a position on my word alone, let alone ONE other dood/doodette.”
*sigh* Not just a “doodette”; but a deal maker for one of the largest real estate developers in the country. What she reported is consistent with what the numbers are showing: more confidence in the banking and finance system . . . which is what the TARP process was supposed to do . . . buy time to sort out.
Abnd there is this:
“Economic Reports Raise Hopes for Global Recovery”
Retail sales increased in November. We are getting stronger, against every cons expectation and wish of an economic catastrophe on Obama’s watch.
“-Your “drop in unemployment” is a mirage. Better known as “hiring for Christmas”. There is less than 10% of hiring managers forecasting expansion in 2010. A record low.”
Moron, the numbers are seasonally adjusted to smooth out the Christmas effect. In additon, the fact that people are hiring at Christmas, as opposed to not hiring, shows more confidence.
“-GM would NOT have fired everyone, and went home. The fact that you and the rest of the economic-illiterates in your party keep claiming this canard, shows how absolutely imperative it is to keep you and your ilk away from the levers of power.”
Idiot, you have no idea WHAT might have happened. No one with a brain thinks that the bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler would have been the first bankruptcy in history where 20% to 100% of the employees DON’T lose their jobs. Think this through! The employees who lost their jobs would have also lost their health insurance. They would have needed health insurance coverage as they lost that, too. They would not have money to pay real estate taxes, payroll taxes dry up, and they all file for unemployment. The unemployment coffers in many states were already dry without adding the auto workers, all the dealership employees, the parts manufacturers (who won’t get paid what they were owed and won’t receive new orders) — the ripple effect would have taken us from bad recession into catastrophe. Look, I know the Southern-based GOP didn’t care what happened to the country as a whole; but the Dems, being a national party, had to care.
“Many companies go bankrupt, and most come out stronger for it.”
What b.s.! A bankruptcy means, at minimum, that some creditors will receive nothing (and be worse off), some creditors will get pennies on the dollar (and be worse off), and some employees will lose their jobs altogether. And you are assuming that the company will emerge from bankruptcy. Not all companies do! Just ask any Eastern Airline employee how that company was “stronger” after bankruptcy. It wasn’t because it disappeared.
“What Obama did was Fascistic, and was nothing more than a favor to the union who voted for him. IT WAS A BRIBE FOR VOTES, AND A MEANS TO POWER. In the end, they will go under, with worse results for the employees than would have been otherwise, had they done it last year under existing laws, and without our tax money.”
That is ahistoric silliness. A bribe for votes, huh? Then why was the Bush administration supporting it?
Do you even know the basic facts, Patvann? The bailout was NOT OBAMA’S IDEA and started befor ehe became president. So if it was “fascistic”, then Bushie was the “Hitler” in this.
You cons and normal people diverge on this point: you think it would have been a good thing, in the middle of a recession, to
As for “fascistic” it is obvious that you have no idea what the word means. None of the auto companies were FORCED to take the government money. Ford didn’t! Some dictator! And if anyone with a vested interest opposed the deal, they could have objected in the bankrutcy proceeding. And some did. And guess what? They lost. Why? Because the purpose of bankruptcy is to pay the maximum number of creditors the maximum amount owed. We got there by the government lending the carcass of GM money to keep it going, keep its workers working during the recession (and not drawing unemployment benefits), pay some of the creditors and help the auto parts suppliers’ customers GM and Chrysler stay alive and keep buying parts.
-Inflation will come, regardless of unemployment numbers. The debt-ceiling is evidently made of tissue-paper, and is about to be raised a second time this year….another almost 2 trillion. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is about to pass 100% for the first time since the Depression.
“That date with Pollyanna must have gone well for you. The rest of us will continue to watch the data.”
You may think you are “watching” the data, but you have been listening to too much of that learned conservative economist, Glenn Beck . . . another undereducated disc jockey making money convincing non-reading conservative listeners that the sky is falling. Either you are cherry picking what numbers you consider in arriving at your dire conclusion, or you just don’t know how to interpret the data. It is one or the other, or possibly a little of both? You are seeing the data through the lens of a person who wants things to suck under Obama so he does not get a second term. I get that. I just think the numbers show that we are going to be roaring in the second and thrd quarter of 2010. Indeed, if you look at historic data, the prediction is easy.
I leave with this simple analysis —
This economy started sucking bigtime around December 2007. No, the second recession on Bush’s watch was not his “fault”; no president can outlaw the business cycle. But Bush is to blame for running deficits while the economy was expanding; that is when we should have been paying down debt, not adding to it the way he did. So I blame him for the gross mismanagement of the fisc from his first budget in 2002 through 2007. He never submitted a balanced budget . . . not a single one. That is criminal. Clinton handed him a surplus and Bush squandered it.
And don’t give me that b.s. about liberals controlling the budget. Because Bush and the GOP Congress and the GOP Senate were running the show, just as the Dems are running the show now. They get no pass on what they do any more than the GOPers get a pass on their mismanagement.
And I don’t want to hear any b.s. about being at war. We borrowed that war funding from China! Bush should have been cutting spending, not expanding it.
Given the Dec. 2007 recession, though, deficits from that recession were inevitable. I would prefer we not have a $2 trillion deficit. But at the same time, the deficits would have still been around $1.2 trillion if Obama did nothing (thank you, drug bill!). And deficits are the cost of stabilizing the economy in a recession.
I know you cons opposed all that and would have prefer to “let what happens happen” — even if the implosion of the auto industry folowing after the implosion of the financial sector meant 15% or 20% unemployment rates. I hear your arguments . . . I just think they are nuts. But more important, in November 2008, the American people (the “real Americans”) had a choice between McCain, and a one term senator who you folks claimed was “the most liberal Senator in the Senate” [actually, he was ninth most liberal according to the American Conservative Union scorecard, but “ninth” has no zing to it]. The voters could have had an 80% conservative rating consertvative in charge, or the “ultraliberal.” By a 10 million vote margin, they chose the lib. You may not like it, but that is democracy. We will have our 2010 recovery under Obama, not McCain. Deal with it!
billy bob: But more important, in November 2008, the American people (the “real Americans”) had a choice between McCain, and a one term senator who you folks claimed was “the most liberal Senator in the Senate” [actually, he was ninth most liberal according to the American Conservative Union scorecard, but “ninth” has no zing to it].
May be because he only showed up for work 140 some odd days before becoming a professional campaigner…. LOL
BTW, your comments about lending increasing? You may wish to check what lending *is* being done. Commercial is still locked up tighter than a gnat’s butt, and residential is majority FHA. That’s 3.5% down, and the banks holding 96.5% of the stakes. FHA is denying being in trouble, despite a new out of balance assets to cash reserves sheet. Ginnie Mae is on the table for being the next bailout, along with FHA. All it takes is another drop in home values…. which will happen shortly after Benanke raises the rates.
Guess the halo bright shine from the POTUS crown is blinding your economic forecasts, billy bob. And I’m not getting this from Beck, since my cable generally stays tuned to only the financial news shows.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Donald Bly —
I don’t know which is more disturbing — your hatred for America, or your non-existent sense of humor.
“I’ll never buy a GM or Chrysler product again.”
Let’s do a hypothetical where all conservatives think the way you do. Cons account for about 30% of the population, you claim. OK. So you and your fellow 30%ers refuse to buy a GM car or a Chrysler because of Obama. Fine.
And who will that hurt, Bly? Obama? No. It will hurt the Americans who work at those companies, it will hurt their families, the American parts manufacturers, their employees, the banks that lend to the car companies and the parts manufacturers, the communities where their plants are located, the 30 odd states where they have a manufacturing or parts presence, and all their dealerships in each of the 50 states.
Why do you want those people to lose their jobs, Donald Bly? Why do you want our auto industry to go under — just as the Communist Chinese hope happens, so that they can come in and take over the market? Why do you cons (and al Qaeda) want this president to fail at his efforts to maintain this country as the technological, economic, military and political leader of this world?
Why do you conservatives hate America so much?
* * * * *
“People like Alan Mullaly, piloting Ford through a re-organizaton and making tough choices without begging for a dime of bailout money”
Yeah, no bailout money . . . just a $3.9 billion loan from Obama. Hmm . . . I guess that “hero” you mentioned is not above a little walking around money, huh?
“Apparently Mr Obama claimed at the White House Correspondents Association dinner that Car & Driver had named him as Auto Executive of the Year and that he was extremely proud of the honor. Car & Driver had to point out that Mr Obama LIED.”
Yeah . . . about that: during that same speech he also said about Michael Steele “Michael, for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout.” And he said “Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset, I’m sorry.”
I think he was telling a joke, goofball!
“Does the Presidential health care plan include psychiatric counseling?”
For your sake, and that of your family, I hope it does.
billy bob: Why do you cons (and al Qaeda) want this president to fail at his efforts to maintain this country as the technological, economic, military and political leader of this world?
Why do you conservatives hate America so much?
Again with your blanket, class warfare and insidious lies and insults. There’s not much to you as a “tolerant” person, is there, billy bob? More banner headlines that don’t translate to human compassion.
The comment that conservatives wish this country not to maintain their superior economy, military strength and technology advances is laughably absurd in the face of reality…. that being that *your* POTUS weakens the military budget, denies the commanders on the battlefield the complete resources they request for victory, and is driving our economy into the toilet along with the value of the dollar. The latter which may result in our loss of reserve currency status.
In light of reality vs your rose color hoax and chains spectacles view, why do you… personally… hate America so much to desire watching… nay, encouraging… it’s greatness to dissolve into just another Euro-socialist bankrupt mediocre power?
For myself, I’ll believe those in the industry, not a bunch of felating “reporters” at ABC, and certainly not you….someone who claims Bush-spending was the killer of the economy, but Obama’s spending is somehow “good” for that same economy. This “thought-process” of yours is what defines my first line.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
@ButtRobber
You should probably take the time to actually read the articles you use to try and bolster your assinine arguements before you link to them.
Ford gets DOE loans, not “Bailout” money, GM & Chrysler didn’t becaause they weren’t “viable companies”
Ford received $5.9 Billion in loans from the Department Of Energy and I want to stress that this is not a “Bailout” this program was initiated in 2007 under the Bush administration and the appropriations were made in 2008 before the industry meltdown.
This money will be used to further develop more fuel efficient cars, including Battery Electric and Plug In Hybrids. But there’s more, it will be used to develop technologies that will reduce weight across the model lineup.
I guess you missed the headline and it was 5.9 billion NOT 3.9 billion. You also, in your haste to rebutt my commentary, failed to notice the timeline. Pathetic.
You assume I hate America… wrong. I hate the payoffs and corruption that marks the Obama administration.
You talk about the damage to the families of the auto workers, the union workers whose intransient demands have helped lead GM and Chrysler down the road to bankruptcy, and I use the term “bankruptcy” very loosely here. You seem to not care one bit about the families of the bond holders whose rights were ignored and whose investment was stolen in favor of ownership positions for the unions. Obama payolla.
Companies come and go. Failure is what weeds out the weak, ill concieved and mismanaged, keeping the American economy strong and vibrant. In nature it is called survival of the fittest.
You lament about all those that will be damaged in the supply chain if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go bust. How many of those same supply chain companies will be hurt when the “reincarnated” GM and Chrysler can’t pay their bills in the future because they are still mismanaged and unable to respond in a timely manner to the changing markets.
If GM and Chrysler had disappeared off the face of the earth other companies would have bought their assets and absorbed them into their operations. If ownership of the assets changes hands it does not mean that there is no need for autoworkers to run those machines (maybe they wouldn’t be union workers, oh dear!) or a need for parts. Dealerships would carry a different line of autos, it just wouldn’t have GM or Chrysler on the marquee.
Mr ButtRob, I suggest you use your “talking points” to heat your home and take a historical look at what happens to workers and the assets of failed companies.
It’s nice to see ACORN offices keeping Saturday hours. At least someone is working.
Old Trooper
13 years ago
B-Rob, so far 133 Bank Closures, record National Debt, highest unemployment since the Depression and no 3rd Qtr. data in yet.
Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie hopelessly burdened with debt and borrowed TARP cash to be thrown at these failed Govt. Entities that are poorly managed. I see nothing to cheer about there.
Polls that You don’t understand (or won’t) indicate that the Obama Admin policies do not have the confidence of the American People as I posted.
Regarding arguments with Fools or exchanging personal insults here, I refuse to do that.
Present them in person and I am more that willing to accommodate your “needs”. I find your perspective to be less than prudent and I am not intimidated by your bar room approach to discussion, however I will not sink to your level here. To be quite frank, keyboard courage is no substitute for the logic that you seem to lack.
If I do not respond to Your future postings it is out of respect for the forum here and your apparent personal issues are Your Problem. I do not argue with fools or present personal insults on the internet. I hope you are clear on that. Present me with that in person with that. I am in Kandahar right now so come on over. I’m kinda busy here. I can spare you 10 minutes and world class first aid afterwards.
Ya mean how FDIC’s Sheila Blair was publicly insisting that the FDIC wasn’t bankrupt, and everything would be okay?” That was at the same time the FDIC played a few monetary figure games and infused some “special assessment fees” and TLGP funds to the DIF.
But as Jake Towne pointed out in that article, ’tis a bit tough for the FDIC to genuinely go bankrupt since they’ll just fire up the Fed Reserve printing presses… assuming they aren’t already out of ink.
Apparently, under this admin, “pay as you go” is now passe…. the idea is to pay upfront (like O’healthcare), and let ’em spend the money in advance.
David Spurr at The Daily Markets called that turd a turd, immediately labeling it a sham. A form of extortion for bailout funds that creates an “asset” on the bank’s balance sheets while simultaneously draining it of cash and liquidity… all vital for that lending that Geither’s been screaming about (apparently falling on billy bob’s deaf ears). He spent quite a bit of time hunched over coffee and donuts in November, trying to come up with a low capital program to get the money flowing.
*Obama’s promise to follow thru on achieving cap and trade like results via EPA regs,
*a further fall in US dollar’s value, rising oil and “prepaying” for expensive alternative energies
*higher rates that will lead to dropping prices and a new rush of short sales,
*rising defaults and foreclosures
*Congress, asking taxpayers to “pre-pay” for health insurance that is further on the horizon
and it’s easy to see all will translate to less disposable household income.
Doesn’t take a “climate scientist” to see that da economic sheeeeeet ought to *start* flying mid to late next year, and have us by the nuts for decades. We’re told to save (and in fact, being forced to), while also being told to spend and contribute to a recovery.
duh wuh…
Meanwhile guys like billy bob will continue to tell us to just ignore that man behind the curtain, and look at the pretty headlines and speech talking points.
B-Rob
13 years ago
Mata and Old Trooper —
This is how I see it:
George W. Bush was a failure as a president because he did not enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. Under no rational measure are we better off now than we were eight years before he took office.
Obama is going an entirely different route in his quest to enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. We will know in four years whether his approach has succeeded. Until then, I simply don’t give a crap about what the polls say. Remember, Troop, George H.W. Bush was flying high in December 1989 . . . how’d that one turn out? And given Bush’s abject failure as a president, why would any thinking person want to again pursue the same failed course that the GOPers offer?
Ah, that is why the cons go their a$$es handed to them in the 2008 election: you only offered more of the same failed ideas, but in a “mavericky” package of a septuagenarian who suspended his campaign until a bailout deal was cut, then un-suspended his campaign even though no deal was cut, and an ignoramus governor as his running mate. Cons under Bush proved they could not be trusted with any important decisions.
If Obama is taking this country in a direction you do not like, you are free to move elsewhere. But the rest of us will stay, be optimistic, and continue to work to make this country the best it can be.
If you are with us, let’s get it done. If you are going to be pessimistic and not supportive, then get the fcuk out of the way and find another country to live in . . . .
You are simply hilarious! Still singing the song that the auto workers would have been rehired and the assets of the manufacturers purchased. Okay, smart guy, then why is no one buying the old factories that the auto companies closed? And why would a purchaser of assets rehire the 45 year old 20 year auto workers, when the bankruptcy would have eliminated those employees rights to employment?
You obviously have nothing more than a conservative blog-level knowledge of what actually happens during a bankruptcy, otherwise you would not have offered the moronic claim that companies come back “stronger” after a bankruptcy. This nutty assertion is belied, of course, by the fact that, if that were so, then companies would voluntarily declare bankruptcy all the time, in order to get “stronger.”
And the bond holders families . . . you shed tears for them, but not the workers? Not a surprise.
I loop back to my central thesis, which you, of course, did not even bother to address: the middle of a sharp recession is not the time to dump a couple million unemployed auto workers and parts supplier employee onto the welfare rolls. This is basic common sense which you fail to address.
The Obama bailout bought time . . . for the auto companies, the workers, the suppliers, and the economy as a whole. You may not like it, but there it is.
If you cons had won in 2008, then you would have been able to have the bold experiment of a 2 million employee enterprise like GM hitting the rocks at full speed with no government intervention. But thank God, the voters voted the right way in November 2008, so we did not have to find out exactly what would have happened had you guys had your way.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Old Trooper and Ay Chihuahua —
I know you guys all hope the country goes to hell like Glenn Beck claims it is. But the truth is, it is not. Public opinion polls or no public opinion polls, the fact is that we are turning in the right direction.
I know that pains you. I know you want 15% unemployment and double digit inflation . . . but it’s not going to happen. Nope, we will be rolling come the third quarter of 2010. Then Michelle Obama’s youngest decision will be whether to let the girls have different bed rooms during the second term.
I think you must have meant….. Michelle Obama’s “immature” decision, a true fit.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
@B-Rob
Do you have reading comprehension issues? You attribute to me things I never said! Typical of the leftist inability to keep facts straight.
You obviously have nothing more than a conservative blog-level knowledge of what actually happens during a bankruptcy, otherwise you would not have offered the moronic claim that companies come back “stronger” after a bankruptcy. This nutty assertion is belied, of course, by the fact that, if that were so, then companies would voluntarily declare bankruptcy all the time, in order to get “stronger.”
I did not write “companies come back stronger after bankruptcy”, dumbass get your facts straight.
And why would a purchaser of assets rehire the 45 year old 20 year auto workers
Perhaps they wouldn’t if the worker insisted on a Union only position at an exhorbitant wage with exhorbitant benefits packages, a major contibuting factor to GM and Chryslers inability to profit from their operations. Such is the law of supply and demand.
And yes… I do feel much more empathy for the families of the bond holders that had their investments stolen from them contrary to normal bankruptcy law and given to the very people that have contributed to GM and Chryslers financial woes. I’m betting by your logic that you’d be for giving thieves a finders fee for looting someones bank account.
Your assertion that I did not address your central thesis is bullshit. Had GM and Chrysler gone through normal bankruptcy procedures, union contracts would have been up for renegotiations. GM and Chrysler might have been able to restructure to a point where they could continue operations without bailout money, but with new labor contracts. Bankruptcy does not always mean total liquidation of all assets and the laying off of all employees, it often simply means a restructuring. Did you forget that they tried to come up with a plan but the Unions were intransient in their demands?
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it works, no one said that there isn’t pain involved. Instead, you advocate for a socialist utopia that is a pipedream and forces everyone to lower their standard of living to compensate those that don’t or will not produce.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Patvann
13 years ago
Donald
You will increasingly find that Rob excels in the “strawman”. He argues with his own internal voices, that he attributes coming from you. Debate grade: “F”. This shows a strong pre-conceived position, unable to accept new datum.
He will also attempt to diminish your posit by “position-association”. See how Glen Beck is constantly brought to the fore, no matter the topic. Debate grade: “F”. This betrays an internal methodology, in that because HE uses populist information for his posit(s), then YOU must also be doing the same. Which means bringing up Beck, or any other highly visible person to transfer his emotional hate he has for them, onto you, regardless of the facts shown, or the source cited.
Then there is the “comparator”. The old standby, in which anything seen as “bad” in the present tense, is immediately compared to past events. or persons. Debate grade: “F”. We have witnessed this weak tact countless times.
Distributed among his scatology of debate tactics, is the ever-present name-calling. Which by itself shows weakness-of-position, but can be excused when 4th-order exasperation is attained by whomever is having to deal with his inane, fact-less, and pathetic methodology.
In this light we witness Mike’s America, and almost everyone else who’s had the misfortune of attempting a serious debate with him end up cussing him out…which he remarkably sees as a net-positive for his position. (or lack there-of, because the difference is so slight.)
All this leads on to wonder why in light of the fact that not only is he here alone, and suffering along at a 1% “correct” quotient, does he continue to come back over and over and over and…?
I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Facts, data, experience, history, quotes, research…none of this matters to him, as they can all be internally re-defined so-as to trigger the external “hate-strength”, that substitutes for the lack of an internal “love-strength”. Many Progressive suffer this malady.
I recommend ridicule. One need not even feel bad about doing so, as he will actually feel better (and more loved) when you do.
George W. Bush was a failure as a president because he did not enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. Under no rational measure are we better off now than we were eight years before he took office.
Military increased equipment and manpower after years of Clinton/GOP Congress decline. The nation’s technological advances did not slow, nor are they in the hands of the POTUS. Politically I agree we aren’t better off because we now have “let’s remake America into a Euro-socialist country” Obama. The economic superiority of numbers and stats under Bush… including Bush budget increases which, under Obama in just 11 months, can be considered modest… are far superior to what the Dems have done in Congress since 2007 to date. Remember it’s Congress who holds the purse strings. And the largest deficit drive up came at their hands.
As far as national security… we are far safer than we were on 912. Whether that remains to be seen with importing enemy combatants to US soil and giving them Constitutional rights is anyone’s guess. Frankly, it looks to me to convolute prosecution of war on the battlefield, and opens up mirandizing those detained… as well as risking valuable intel demanded by the bench during a trial.
Obama is going an entirely different route in his quest to enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. We will know in four years whether his approach has succeeded.
Actually, we’ll know in July 2011… well before “da won’s” term’ination. As far as “enhancing”? Exactly what has Obama done to “enhance” any of the four categories mentioned? another day older and deeper in debt economy – political policies on energy and healthcare that will bankrupt this nation for decades – and hamstringing the military. Yeah, count me impressed.
But I will agree that I don’t pay much attention to polls either. I do, however, pay attention to demonstrations in the streets over the spending frenzy.
If Obama is taking this country in a direction you do not like, you are free to move elsewhere. But the rest of us will stay, be optimistic, and continue to work to make this country the best it can be.
Considering it’s you and your ilk, as well as your POTUS, working actively to subvert the founding principles of the US Constitution, I suggest it is you who should be shown the door. “Remake” this country in Obama’s image while I draw breath? I’ll go down fighting…
I’m still waiting for The Smartest Guy In the RoomTM to explain to all of us mouth-breathing, bottom-dwelling dolts exactly how “we are turning in the right direction”.
Oh yeah, we’re gonna need something more than a “friend” who supposedly said that the commercial real estate has miraculously come back to life.
Well, Aye… let’s give billy bob a reminder as to who are the parties desiring to subvert the US Constitution by implementing policies and programs well outside the fundamental powers of Congress.
Can’t say as we weren’t warned all throughout his campaign. Just so many refused to believe it, using the Alinsky target and isolate those of us who would say *listen* to what he says… *look* as his “associates”, as he has invited us to do.
However the demonstrations in the streets INRE spending and an out of control Congress reveal that more than a few are now starting to finally hear… .and believe… his promises to destroy the US’s founding principles. Better late than never.
MATA, HI, FROM DECEMBER 30 IN 2010, AND HE is still trying to implement change,
getting closer and more of pushing his agenda ,not waiting for THE NEW ELECTED
TO ARRIVE AND START WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AT LAST,
IT’S LIKE A FRENZIE IN THERE PASSING THOSE LAWS TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD WITH
SOVIET UNION,AND THEIR NEW PARTNER CHINA,
AND THERE IS MORE UNDERNEAT THAT WE DON’T KNOW YET,
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF 2011 FOR THE NEW CONSERVATIVES TO FOCUS ON ?
SHOULD THEY TAKLE ALL FRONTS THAT SHOULD BE REPEAL? OR TAKE IT ONE FINISH IT AND GRAB THE MORE URGENT NEXT ONE ,AND FIX IT AND SO ON. BYE
@ Patvann —
I think you should re-read my post and home in on one line — banks are lending now; they were not a year ago. Now on to the rest of your drivel —
“Over a trillion dollars worth of commercial real estate comes due in 2010, and almost half of that amount is expected to be underwater. Over 350 billion, which will hit the bottom-line of the already stressed banking industry.”
Banks are lending now, so there will be refinancings. There was NO LENDING last year, and that makes all the difference. Confidence in the system, obviously, is much higher, hence all the TARP recipients willing to give back the billions in capital they took on a year ago.
“While you supply a mind-numbing stupid posit, based ONLY on an anecdotal comment from a “friend”, I spend many hours a week perusing the forecasts of the economic indicators. Even then, I would never base a position on my word alone, let alone ONE other dood/doodette.”
*sigh* Not just a “doodette”; but a deal maker for one of the largest real estate developers in the country. What she reported is consistent with what the numbers are showing: more confidence in the banking and finance system . . . which is what the TARP process was supposed to do . . . buy time to sort out.
Abnd there is this:
“Economic Reports Raise Hopes for Global Recovery”
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9310145
Retail sales increased in November. We are getting stronger, against every cons expectation and wish of an economic catastrophe on Obama’s watch.
“-Your “drop in unemployment” is a mirage. Better known as “hiring for Christmas”. There is less than 10% of hiring managers forecasting expansion in 2010. A record low.”
Moron, the numbers are seasonally adjusted to smooth out the Christmas effect. In additon, the fact that people are hiring at Christmas, as opposed to not hiring, shows more confidence.
“-GM would NOT have fired everyone, and went home. The fact that you and the rest of the economic-illiterates in your party keep claiming this canard, shows how absolutely imperative it is to keep you and your ilk away from the levers of power.”
Idiot, you have no idea WHAT might have happened. No one with a brain thinks that the bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler would have been the first bankruptcy in history where 20% to 100% of the employees DON’T lose their jobs. Think this through! The employees who lost their jobs would have also lost their health insurance. They would have needed health insurance coverage as they lost that, too. They would not have money to pay real estate taxes, payroll taxes dry up, and they all file for unemployment. The unemployment coffers in many states were already dry without adding the auto workers, all the dealership employees, the parts manufacturers (who won’t get paid what they were owed and won’t receive new orders) — the ripple effect would have taken us from bad recession into catastrophe. Look, I know the Southern-based GOP didn’t care what happened to the country as a whole; but the Dems, being a national party, had to care.
“Many companies go bankrupt, and most come out stronger for it.”
What b.s.! A bankruptcy means, at minimum, that some creditors will receive nothing (and be worse off), some creditors will get pennies on the dollar (and be worse off), and some employees will lose their jobs altogether. And you are assuming that the company will emerge from bankruptcy. Not all companies do! Just ask any Eastern Airline employee how that company was “stronger” after bankruptcy. It wasn’t because it disappeared.
“What Obama did was Fascistic, and was nothing more than a favor to the union who voted for him. IT WAS A BRIBE FOR VOTES, AND A MEANS TO POWER. In the end, they will go under, with worse results for the employees than would have been otherwise, had they done it last year under existing laws, and without our tax money.”
That is ahistoric silliness. A bribe for votes, huh? Then why was the Bush administration supporting it?
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/21/Cheney-chides-Congress-over-auto-bailout/UPI-75321229898210/
Do you even know the basic facts, Patvann? The bailout was NOT OBAMA’S IDEA and started befor ehe became president. So if it was “fascistic”, then Bushie was the “Hitler” in this.
You cons and normal people diverge on this point: you think it would have been a good thing, in the middle of a recession, to
As for “fascistic” it is obvious that you have no idea what the word means. None of the auto companies were FORCED to take the government money. Ford didn’t! Some dictator! And if anyone with a vested interest opposed the deal, they could have objected in the bankrutcy proceeding. And some did. And guess what? They lost. Why? Because the purpose of bankruptcy is to pay the maximum number of creditors the maximum amount owed. We got there by the government lending the carcass of GM money to keep it going, keep its workers working during the recession (and not drawing unemployment benefits), pay some of the creditors and help the auto parts suppliers’ customers GM and Chrysler stay alive and keep buying parts.
-Inflation will come, regardless of unemployment numbers. The debt-ceiling is evidently made of tissue-paper, and is about to be raised a second time this year….another almost 2 trillion. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is about to pass 100% for the first time since the Depression.
“That date with Pollyanna must have gone well for you. The rest of us will continue to watch the data.”
You may think you are “watching” the data, but you have been listening to too much of that learned conservative economist, Glenn Beck . . . another undereducated disc jockey making money convincing non-reading conservative listeners that the sky is falling. Either you are cherry picking what numbers you consider in arriving at your dire conclusion, or you just don’t know how to interpret the data. It is one or the other, or possibly a little of both? You are seeing the data through the lens of a person who wants things to suck under Obama so he does not get a second term. I get that. I just think the numbers show that we are going to be roaring in the second and thrd quarter of 2010. Indeed, if you look at historic data, the prediction is easy.
I leave with this simple analysis —
This economy started sucking bigtime around December 2007. No, the second recession on Bush’s watch was not his “fault”; no president can outlaw the business cycle. But Bush is to blame for running deficits while the economy was expanding; that is when we should have been paying down debt, not adding to it the way he did. So I blame him for the gross mismanagement of the fisc from his first budget in 2002 through 2007. He never submitted a balanced budget . . . not a single one. That is criminal. Clinton handed him a surplus and Bush squandered it.
And don’t give me that b.s. about liberals controlling the budget. Because Bush and the GOP Congress and the GOP Senate were running the show, just as the Dems are running the show now. They get no pass on what they do any more than the GOPers get a pass on their mismanagement.
And I don’t want to hear any b.s. about being at war. We borrowed that war funding from China! Bush should have been cutting spending, not expanding it.
Given the Dec. 2007 recession, though, deficits from that recession were inevitable. I would prefer we not have a $2 trillion deficit. But at the same time, the deficits would have still been around $1.2 trillion if Obama did nothing (thank you, drug bill!). And deficits are the cost of stabilizing the economy in a recession.
I know you cons opposed all that and would have prefer to “let what happens happen” — even if the implosion of the auto industry folowing after the implosion of the financial sector meant 15% or 20% unemployment rates. I hear your arguments . . . I just think they are nuts. But more important, in November 2008, the American people (the “real Americans”) had a choice between McCain, and a one term senator who you folks claimed was “the most liberal Senator in the Senate” [actually, he was ninth most liberal according to the American Conservative Union scorecard, but “ninth” has no zing to it]. The voters could have had an 80% conservative rating consertvative in charge, or the “ultraliberal.” By a 10 million vote margin, they chose the lib. You may not like it, but that is democracy. We will have our 2010 recovery under Obama, not McCain. Deal with it!
May be because he only showed up for work 140 some odd days before becoming a professional campaigner…. LOL
BTW, your comments about lending increasing? You may wish to check what lending *is* being done. Commercial is still locked up tighter than a gnat’s butt, and residential is majority FHA. That’s 3.5% down, and the banks holding 96.5% of the stakes. FHA is denying being in trouble, despite a new out of balance assets to cash reserves sheet. Ginnie Mae is on the table for being the next bailout, along with FHA. All it takes is another drop in home values…. which will happen shortly after Benanke raises the rates.
Guess the halo bright shine from the POTUS crown is blinding your economic forecasts, billy bob. And I’m not getting this from Beck, since my cable generally stays tuned to only the financial news shows.
@ Donald Bly —
I don’t know which is more disturbing — your hatred for America, or your non-existent sense of humor.
“I’ll never buy a GM or Chrysler product again.”
Let’s do a hypothetical where all conservatives think the way you do. Cons account for about 30% of the population, you claim. OK. So you and your fellow 30%ers refuse to buy a GM car or a Chrysler because of Obama. Fine.
And who will that hurt, Bly? Obama? No. It will hurt the Americans who work at those companies, it will hurt their families, the American parts manufacturers, their employees, the banks that lend to the car companies and the parts manufacturers, the communities where their plants are located, the 30 odd states where they have a manufacturing or parts presence, and all their dealerships in each of the 50 states.
Why do you want those people to lose their jobs, Donald Bly? Why do you want our auto industry to go under — just as the Communist Chinese hope happens, so that they can come in and take over the market? Why do you cons (and al Qaeda) want this president to fail at his efforts to maintain this country as the technological, economic, military and political leader of this world?
Why do you conservatives hate America so much?
* * * * *
“People like Alan Mullaly, piloting Ford through a re-organizaton and making tough choices without begging for a dime of bailout money”
http://myforddreams2.blogspot.com/2009/06/ford-gets-doe-loans-not-bailout-money.html
Yeah, no bailout money . . . just a $3.9 billion loan from Obama. Hmm . . . I guess that “hero” you mentioned is not above a little walking around money, huh?
“Apparently Mr Obama claimed at the White House Correspondents Association dinner that Car & Driver had named him as Auto Executive of the Year and that he was extremely proud of the honor. Car & Driver had to point out that Mr Obama LIED.”
Yeah . . . about that: during that same speech he also said about Michael Steele “Michael, for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout.” And he said “Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset, I’m sorry.”
I think he was telling a joke, goofball!
“Does the Presidential health care plan include psychiatric counseling?”
For your sake, and that of your family, I hope it does.
Again with your blanket, class warfare and insidious lies and insults. There’s not much to you as a “tolerant” person, is there, billy bob? More banner headlines that don’t translate to human compassion.
The comment that conservatives wish this country not to maintain their superior economy, military strength and technology advances is laughably absurd in the face of reality…. that being that *your* POTUS weakens the military budget, denies the commanders on the battlefield the complete resources they request for victory, and is driving our economy into the toilet along with the value of the dollar. The latter which may result in our loss of reserve currency status.
In light of reality vs your rose color hoax and chains spectacles view, why do you… personally… hate America so much to desire watching… nay, encouraging… it’s greatness to dissolve into just another Euro-socialist bankrupt mediocre power?
Cog na tive diss o nance.
We’ll see, won’t we?
For myself, I’ll believe those in the industry, not a bunch of felating “reporters” at ABC, and certainly not you….someone who claims Bush-spending was the killer of the economy, but Obama’s spending is somehow “good” for that same economy. This “thought-process” of yours is what defines my first line.
@ButtRobber
You should probably take the time to actually read the articles you use to try and bolster your assinine arguements before you link to them.
I guess you missed the headline and it was 5.9 billion NOT 3.9 billion. You also, in your haste to rebutt my commentary, failed to notice the timeline. Pathetic.
You assume I hate America… wrong. I hate the payoffs and corruption that marks the Obama administration.
You talk about the damage to the families of the auto workers, the union workers whose intransient demands have helped lead GM and Chrysler down the road to bankruptcy, and I use the term “bankruptcy” very loosely here. You seem to not care one bit about the families of the bond holders whose rights were ignored and whose investment was stolen in favor of ownership positions for the unions. Obama payolla.
Companies come and go. Failure is what weeds out the weak, ill concieved and mismanaged, keeping the American economy strong and vibrant. In nature it is called survival of the fittest.
You lament about all those that will be damaged in the supply chain if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go bust. How many of those same supply chain companies will be hurt when the “reincarnated” GM and Chrysler can’t pay their bills in the future because they are still mismanaged and unable to respond in a timely manner to the changing markets.
If GM and Chrysler had disappeared off the face of the earth other companies would have bought their assets and absorbed them into their operations. If ownership of the assets changes hands it does not mean that there is no need for autoworkers to run those machines (maybe they wouldn’t be union workers, oh dear!) or a need for parts. Dealerships would carry a different line of autos, it just wouldn’t have GM or Chrysler on the marquee.
Mr ButtRob, I suggest you use your “talking points” to heat your home and take a historical look at what happens to workers and the assets of failed companies.
It’s nice to see ACORN offices keeping Saturday hours. At least someone is working.
B-Rob, so far 133 Bank Closures, record National Debt, highest unemployment since the Depression and no 3rd Qtr. data in yet.
Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie hopelessly burdened with debt and borrowed TARP cash to be thrown at these failed Govt. Entities that are poorly managed. I see nothing to cheer about there.
Polls that You don’t understand (or won’t) indicate that the Obama Admin policies do not have the confidence of the American People as I posted.
Regarding arguments with Fools or exchanging personal insults here, I refuse to do that.
Present them in person and I am more that willing to accommodate your “needs”. I find your perspective to be less than prudent and I am not intimidated by your bar room approach to discussion, however I will not sink to your level here. To be quite frank, keyboard courage is no substitute for the logic that you seem to lack.
If I do not respond to Your future postings it is out of respect for the forum here and your apparent personal issues are Your Problem. I do not argue with fools or present personal insults on the internet. I hope you are clear on that. Present me with that in person with that. I am in Kandahar right now so come on over. I’m kinda busy here. I can spare you 10 minutes and world class first aid afterwards.
Hey Mata….
Maybe you could show him how much is left in the FDIC account. 😉
Rhymes with “nero”.
Ya mean how FDIC’s Sheila Blair was publicly insisting that the FDIC wasn’t bankrupt, and everything would be okay?” That was at the same time the FDIC played a few monetary figure games and infused some “special assessment fees” and TLGP funds to the DIF.
Twas but a month later when the September projections came out that bank failures were going to cost $100 bil over the next four years, taking it into a negative balance anyway.
But as Jake Towne pointed out in that article, ’tis a bit tough for the FDIC to genuinely go bankrupt since they’ll just fire up the Fed Reserve printing presses… assuming they aren’t already out of ink.
This negative balance, and perhaps out of ink in the printing press stockroom, may be the reason the FDIC was suggesting the banks pre-pay their deposit insurance premiums for 2009 4Q, and for the entire years of 2010, 2011 and 2012 in one fell swoop just a month ago.
Apparently, under this admin, “pay as you go” is now passe…. the idea is to pay upfront (like O’healthcare), and let ’em spend the money in advance.
David Spurr at The Daily Markets called that turd a turd, immediately labeling it a sham. A form of extortion for bailout funds that creates an “asset” on the bank’s balance sheets while simultaneously draining it of cash and liquidity… all vital for that lending that Geither’s been screaming about (apparently falling on billy bob’s deaf ears). He spent quite a bit of time hunched over coffee and donuts in November, trying to come up with a low capital program to get the money flowing.
But most small banks steer away because of onerous TARP restrictions. Geee? Ya think?? So after having their way with the TARP funds (this admin and Congress did have release and control over half of that money, and still haven’t shown us the money trail…), they’re rethinking the “tight restrictions” (HA… that’s an oxymoron…) on TARP and thinking of usurping Congressional rules and lightening up on the demands. This is, of course, if there’s anything left after the Zero admin illegally uses TARP funds for other purposes such as home loan modification programs and home weatherization incentives.
Typical idiocy of making the same mistake again, hoping for a different outcome. ala the fact that Obama’s original loan mod plan has only resulted in 1711 permanent modifications, but has lots over 400,000 “trial” modifications. And of course, the Treasury’s not too transparent when how these are coming along, either….
Then add
*Obama’s promise to follow thru on achieving cap and trade like results via EPA regs,
*a further fall in US dollar’s value, rising oil and “prepaying” for expensive alternative energies
*higher rates that will lead to dropping prices and a new rush of short sales,
*rising defaults and foreclosures
*Congress, asking taxpayers to “pre-pay” for health insurance that is further on the horizon
and it’s easy to see all will translate to less disposable household income.
Doesn’t take a “climate scientist” to see that da economic sheeeeeet ought to *start* flying mid to late next year, and have us by the nuts for decades. We’re told to save (and in fact, being forced to), while also being told to spend and contribute to a recovery.
duh wuh…
Meanwhile guys like billy bob will continue to tell us to just ignore that man behind the curtain, and look at the pretty headlines and speech talking points.
Mata and Old Trooper —
This is how I see it:
George W. Bush was a failure as a president because he did not enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. Under no rational measure are we better off now than we were eight years before he took office.
Obama is going an entirely different route in his quest to enhance the military, technological, political and economic superiority of this country. We will know in four years whether his approach has succeeded. Until then, I simply don’t give a crap about what the polls say. Remember, Troop, George H.W. Bush was flying high in December 1989 . . . how’d that one turn out? And given Bush’s abject failure as a president, why would any thinking person want to again pursue the same failed course that the GOPers offer?
Ah, that is why the cons go their a$$es handed to them in the 2008 election: you only offered more of the same failed ideas, but in a “mavericky” package of a septuagenarian who suspended his campaign until a bailout deal was cut, then un-suspended his campaign even though no deal was cut, and an ignoramus governor as his running mate. Cons under Bush proved they could not be trusted with any important decisions.
If Obama is taking this country in a direction you do not like, you are free to move elsewhere. But the rest of us will stay, be optimistic, and continue to work to make this country the best it can be.
If you are with us, let’s get it done. If you are going to be pessimistic and not supportive, then get the fcuk out of the way and find another country to live in . . . .
@ Donald Bly —
You are simply hilarious! Still singing the song that the auto workers would have been rehired and the assets of the manufacturers purchased. Okay, smart guy, then why is no one buying the old factories that the auto companies closed? And why would a purchaser of assets rehire the 45 year old 20 year auto workers, when the bankruptcy would have eliminated those employees rights to employment?
You obviously have nothing more than a conservative blog-level knowledge of what actually happens during a bankruptcy, otherwise you would not have offered the moronic claim that companies come back “stronger” after a bankruptcy. This nutty assertion is belied, of course, by the fact that, if that were so, then companies would voluntarily declare bankruptcy all the time, in order to get “stronger.”
And the bond holders families . . . you shed tears for them, but not the workers? Not a surprise.
I loop back to my central thesis, which you, of course, did not even bother to address: the middle of a sharp recession is not the time to dump a couple million unemployed auto workers and parts supplier employee onto the welfare rolls. This is basic common sense which you fail to address.
The Obama bailout bought time . . . for the auto companies, the workers, the suppliers, and the economy as a whole. You may not like it, but there it is.
If you cons had won in 2008, then you would have been able to have the bold experiment of a 2 million employee enterprise like GM hitting the rocks at full speed with no government intervention. But thank God, the voters voted the right way in November 2008, so we did not have to find out exactly what would have happened had you guys had your way.
@ Old Trooper and Ay Chihuahua —
I know you guys all hope the country goes to hell like Glenn Beck claims it is. But the truth is, it is not. Public opinion polls or no public opinion polls, the fact is that we are turning in the right direction.
I know that pains you. I know you want 15% unemployment and double digit inflation . . . but it’s not going to happen. Nope, we will be rolling come the third quarter of 2010. Then Michelle Obama’s youngest decision will be whether to let the girls have different bed rooms during the second term.
If, by that, you mean that the American People are finally waking up to the nightmare that is Barack Obama then you’re correct.
Outside of that, you’re wrong.
Again.
@B-Rob:
I think you must have meant….. Michelle Obama’s “immature” decision, a true fit.
@B-Rob
Do you have reading comprehension issues? You attribute to me things I never said! Typical of the leftist inability to keep facts straight.
I did not write “companies come back stronger after bankruptcy”, dumbass get your facts straight.
Perhaps they wouldn’t if the worker insisted on a Union only position at an exhorbitant wage with exhorbitant benefits packages, a major contibuting factor to GM and Chryslers inability to profit from their operations. Such is the law of supply and demand.
And yes… I do feel much more empathy for the families of the bond holders that had their investments stolen from them contrary to normal bankruptcy law and given to the very people that have contributed to GM and Chryslers financial woes. I’m betting by your logic that you’d be for giving thieves a finders fee for looting someones bank account.
Your assertion that I did not address your central thesis is bullshit. Had GM and Chrysler gone through normal bankruptcy procedures, union contracts would have been up for renegotiations. GM and Chrysler might have been able to restructure to a point where they could continue operations without bailout money, but with new labor contracts. Bankruptcy does not always mean total liquidation of all assets and the laying off of all employees, it often simply means a restructuring. Did you forget that they tried to come up with a plan but the Unions were intransient in their demands?
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it works, no one said that there isn’t pain involved. Instead, you advocate for a socialist utopia that is a pipedream and forces everyone to lower their standard of living to compensate those that don’t or will not produce.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Donald
You will increasingly find that Rob excels in the “strawman”. He argues with his own internal voices, that he attributes coming from you. Debate grade: “F”. This shows a strong pre-conceived position, unable to accept new datum.
He will also attempt to diminish your posit by “position-association”. See how Glen Beck is constantly brought to the fore, no matter the topic. Debate grade: “F”. This betrays an internal methodology, in that because HE uses populist information for his posit(s), then YOU must also be doing the same. Which means bringing up Beck, or any other highly visible person to transfer his emotional hate he has for them, onto you, regardless of the facts shown, or the source cited.
Then there is the “comparator”. The old standby, in which anything seen as “bad” in the present tense, is immediately compared to past events. or persons. Debate grade: “F”. We have witnessed this weak tact countless times.
Distributed among his scatology of debate tactics, is the ever-present name-calling. Which by itself shows weakness-of-position, but can be excused when 4th-order exasperation is attained by whomever is having to deal with his inane, fact-less, and pathetic methodology.
In this light we witness Mike’s America, and almost everyone else who’s had the misfortune of attempting a serious debate with him end up cussing him out…which he remarkably sees as a net-positive for his position. (or lack there-of, because the difference is so slight.)
All this leads on to wonder why in light of the fact that not only is he here alone, and suffering along at a 1% “correct” quotient, does he continue to come back over and over and over and…?
I suspect masochistic tendencies.
Facts, data, experience, history, quotes, research…none of this matters to him, as they can all be internally re-defined so-as to trigger the external “hate-strength”, that substitutes for the lack of an internal “love-strength”. Many Progressive suffer this malady.
I recommend ridicule. One need not even feel bad about doing so, as he will actually feel better (and more loved) when you do.
You may now fart in his general direction.
@Patvann: You mean like this?
@Mike
LOL!!! EXACTLY like that!
(I knew you wouldn’t let me down!)
Military increased equipment and manpower after years of Clinton/GOP Congress decline. The nation’s technological advances did not slow, nor are they in the hands of the POTUS. Politically I agree we aren’t better off because we now have “let’s remake America into a Euro-socialist country” Obama. The economic superiority of numbers and stats under Bush… including Bush budget increases which, under Obama in just 11 months, can be considered modest… are far superior to what the Dems have done in Congress since 2007 to date. Remember it’s Congress who holds the purse strings. And the largest deficit drive up came at their hands.
As far as national security… we are far safer than we were on 912. Whether that remains to be seen with importing enemy combatants to US soil and giving them Constitutional rights is anyone’s guess. Frankly, it looks to me to convolute prosecution of war on the battlefield, and opens up mirandizing those detained… as well as risking valuable intel demanded by the bench during a trial.
Actually, we’ll know in July 2011… well before “da won’s” term’ination. As far as “enhancing”? Exactly what has Obama done to “enhance” any of the four categories mentioned? another day older and deeper in debt economy – political policies on energy and healthcare that will bankrupt this nation for decades – and hamstringing the military. Yeah, count me impressed.
But I will agree that I don’t pay much attention to polls either. I do, however, pay attention to demonstrations in the streets over the spending frenzy.
Considering it’s you and your ilk, as well as your POTUS, working actively to subvert the founding principles of the US Constitution, I suggest it is you who should be shown the door. “Remake” this country in Obama’s image while I draw breath? I’ll go down fighting…
@MataHarley:
I’m still waiting for The Smartest Guy In the RoomTM to explain to all of us mouth-breathing, bottom-dwelling dolts exactly how “we are turning in the right direction”.
Oh yeah, we’re gonna need something more than a “friend” who supposedly said that the commercial real estate has miraculously come back to life.
Well, Aye… let’s give billy bob a reminder as to who are the parties desiring to subvert the US Constitution by implementing policies and programs well outside the fundamental powers of Congress.
Can’t say as we weren’t warned all throughout his campaign. Just so many refused to believe it, using the Alinsky target and isolate those of us who would say *listen* to what he says… *look* as his “associates”, as he has invited us to do.
However the demonstrations in the streets INRE spending and an out of control Congress reveal that more than a few are now starting to finally hear… .and believe… his promises to destroy the US’s founding principles. Better late than never.
@Aye
Yeah…He needs to come back soon, because my methane-based gaseous emanations are ready for more “discussion”, and it’s starting to get uncomfortable.
@Mata
Or this one:
[Mata musing: embedded for you, Mr. Patvann]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded
MATA, HI, FROM DECEMBER 30 IN 2010, AND HE is still trying to implement change,
getting closer and more of pushing his agenda ,not waiting for THE NEW ELECTED
TO ARRIVE AND START WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AT LAST,
IT’S LIKE A FRENZIE IN THERE PASSING THOSE LAWS TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD WITH
SOVIET UNION,AND THEIR NEW PARTNER CHINA,
AND THERE IS MORE UNDERNEAT THAT WE DON’T KNOW YET,
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF 2011 FOR THE NEW CONSERVATIVES TO FOCUS ON ?
SHOULD THEY TAKLE ALL FRONTS THAT SHOULD BE REPEAL? OR TAKE IT ONE FINISH IT AND GRAB THE MORE URGENT NEXT ONE ,AND FIX IT AND SO ON. BYE
@Real American Patriot:
wow are you ever deluded, go back to rehab and stop smoking crack