The Markets up today....where's the Obama haters?

[brooks85]

ok so quick vote, lil opinion why if you feel need be. But who thinks we should have let the Big 3(auto companies) fail? (Risky to let them fail, 1 in 10 jobs directly related to the auto-business, but even if the big 3 failed, we are already in a employment problem accross this country we need fixed.)

My vote, on sheer princple, would have been to let them fail.

[Dbldown11]

No....I'm saying the tax cuts to the middle class will help the economy....which are the tax cuts Obama has been proposing....The tax cuts to large corporations and the wealthiest americans are what will not stimulate the economy.

And the "spending" will stimulate the economy because of the people it will put to work, and keep at work

[ryanXL977]

Ya its sad, According to experts( definitely not me) roughly billion people in the world do not have direct access to fresh water.(meaning they cant just turn on a sink or go to a well outside their house.) It would cost 10 dollars a head to provide a well for everyone. Make it 11 for good faith. Thats 11 billion dollars. We spend that much in one month in Iraq.

i agree with you there, but who cares about helping people when you can just kill them for more money! provide jobs and hope for afghanis and iraqis? nope, kill them at 1 million per head and bribe the gang leaders. its so ****ing stupid.

[curious]

Ya its sad, According to experts( definitely not me) roughly billion people in the world do not have direct access to fresh water.(meaning they cant just turn on a sink or go to a well outside their house.) It would cost 10 dollars a head to provide a well for everyone. Make it 11 for good faith. Thats 11 billion dollars. We spend that much in one month in Iraq.

Yep. I have been preaching this for years.

The thing that is saddest is that a guy in California developed a lagoon system that takes household waste water in and produces very clean water out. The final lagoon is so beautiful that people come there to picnic and swim and fish.

His lagoon system can be built with picks and shovels and does not require chemicals.

It also provides a series of commercial enterprises, aquaculture, fish farming, irrigation, etc. So, it creates jobs and more revenue than it costs.

Pretty much any village could be taught to build this lagoon system and a few engineers could give the needed advise and guidance on how to do it.

And, it would cost about what you said.

And NO ONE in Congress cares about this.

[Dbldown11]

So, was it the fact that I used to teach reading and writing to high school graduates who graduated not knowing how to read and write, or was it the fact that my wife used to teach in one of the worst ghettos in Connecticut that makes me an ignorant prick?

I'm confused I guess.

Your an ingorant prick for turning a debate we were having that involved differeing opinions into calling me uneducated and unable to make up my own opinions...

You think all your opinions are CURIOUS ORIGINALS? Just because I happen to agree with others doesnt mean I'm uneducated and cant think for myself.

So everytime you make an argument that the Republicans have been making for years and years and years I should say your uneducated and can't think for yourself?

[ryanXL977]

we had the 1980s
1990s and 2000s to debate all these policies

which decades were good for america
and which were bad

the case is closed

[curious]

No....I'm saying the tax cuts to the middle class will help the economy....which are the tax cuts Obama has been proposing....The tax cuts to large corporations and the wealthiest americans are what will not stimulate the economy.

And the "spending" will stimulate the economy because of the people it will put to work, and keep at work

And what happens to those new jobs when the spending dries up?

Okay, so give the tax cuts to the ones you feel are deserving and don't give any tax cuts to the "wealthy".

But, I wonder, who are the "wealthy"? What is the cut off point? $100,000 a year? $1,000,000 a year? Whatever figure you pick I can find people who will view a much lower figure as "wealthy". Go ask the people that work at McDonald's how much someone has to earn to be "wealthy". I guarantee you they will say "$50,000" a year or something like that.

So, who is deserving of tax cuts and who is not? And why does it stimulate the economy for the ones that you feel are deserving to have more of their own money to spend but it does not stimulate the economy for the ones you feel are not deserving to have more of their own money to spend?

[Dbldown11]

I've already stated why giving Millionares tax cuts wont stimulate the economy.....They wont go spend it to buy new fridges, or washing machines, or tv's, or cars because they've already got that shit. Any money theyd get in a tax cut would go towards their own investements which wont help the economy

[ryanXL977]

ahh trickle down
lets try that again!
amazing how poor people support trickle down bc someone told them its good

[curious]

Your an ingorant prick for turning a debate we were having that involved differeing opinions into calling me uneducated and unable to make up my own opinions...

You think all your opinions are CURIOUS ORIGINALS? Just because I happen to agree with others doesnt mean I'm uneducated and cant think for myself.

So everytime you make an argument that the Republicans have been making for years and years and years I should say your uneducated and can't think for yourself?

I'm not a Republican so I don't give shit what they say.

You just parrot ideologue which cannot be supported by any evidence, therefore I have to assume you cannot think for yourself but only parrot what you have heard.

I don't parrot anything. I give facts to back up what I say.

You say that the government creating 1 Trillion $$ out of thin air and giving it to the groups they feel are deserving will stimulate the economy. And rest assured that the "deserving" ones will not be people who create sustainable enterprises. Okay, let's assume that what you say is true. How long will it take for the money to all be spent? One year? Two years? Whatever time frame you give, at some point the money runs out. Now the money is gone and things are back the way they were before. Only now you have this $1 Trillion debt that was not there before.

And you see nothing wrong with this?

Oh, there is another things you are leaving out of your premise. The opportunity cost. See, this $1 Trillion dollars that is spent on feel good social engineering projects is now NOT available to do things that are sustainable that really would benefit the economy.

There is a long laundry list of INVESTMENTS in America that could be made that would be extremely beneficial to the economy. Not a single one of these things is in the plan. Ask yourself why that is.

[Data]

OMG, this is outrageous, Curious is a closet bleeding heart!

Which housing plan? The one that should have been implemented two years ago to help people who were defrauded into NINJA loans keep their houses?

I heard about nice inner-city folks defrauded by devious bankers. This always comes from minority support leftists advocates. People who against that, myself included, keep saying that one must be responsible for his actions and if somebody is ignorant it is nobody's else problem.

True, saving people from foreclosure would help the economy,

No, it would not. And you even hinted why is that so in a message you posted earlier in this thread. See below:

So, tell me how giving people money that they did not earn stimulates the economy but allowing people to keep more of the money that they did earn does not stimulate the economy?

Now, here is the plan.

but the DemoCong plan won't do that. It is too little too late and what they want to do won't save anyone. To save a homeowner what you have to do is:
1. Establish the homeowners true income.
2. Calculate a monthly payment based on 25% of that income.
3. Calculate the amount of money that can be amortized by that monthly payment.
4. Give the homeowner a new loan for the amount calculated in #3.
5. Someone then has to write off the difference. The mortgage holder is not going to do that. So then the government has to pay the difference.

That is the only plan that will work and that is NOT the plan the DemoCong passed.

No it is NOT the plan the DemoCong passed but it is precisely one part of Obama's 2 parts foreclosure plan. The only difference is that it is not 25% but 31%. The banks must write off everything above 38% and then the plan will pay for the rest 7%.

The bullshit part of this is that Obama calls those people, whose payments are above 38% of their income, "responsible homeowners". They cannot be held responsible for their actions (and must be bailed out) but at the same time they are "responsible" per Obama's definition of who is going to get help with their mortgages. Putting lipstick on a pig...

So, who will get help according to this plan to save subprime mortgage holders from foreclosures? Minorities outnumber whites in the number of subprime mortgages and in the number of defaults on those mortgages 4:1.

[curious]

No it is NOT the plan the DemoCong passed but it is precisely one part of Obama's 2 parts foreclosure plan. The only difference is that it is not 25% but 31%. The banks must write off everything above 38% and then the plan will pay for the rest 7%.

Yes, but the banks are not required to do this and the government does not make up the difference in the write down. So, no mortgage holder is going to apply to be in this plan.

[Dbldown11]

Curious do you have any idea how much money those mortgage holders lose when they have to foreclose on the homes....between legal fees and the drastic reduction in sale price. Their losses will be much higher doing it that way.

[curious]

OMG, this is outrageous, Curious is a closet bleeding heart!

No, I'm not a bleeding heart. I just like policies that work.

It is too late to debate how or why the people in trouble got into trouble, I don't care at this point. I just want to get them AND US out of the mess. If they don't get out of trouble, neither do we.

And I know that the plan I propose will do that, get us out of the mess.

Now, it is going to be a HUGE number. The estimates are that the average "in trouble" homeowner is upside down $100 to $150 thousand. I don't know how true that is. I think that number is low. But, without other evidence let's just say we accept that number.

Estimates are that 2 million people a year are going to be in this trouble for the next several years. So, let's say 4 years.

2 million x 4 x $150,000 = $1,200,000,000,000. For those of us who ran out of fingers and toes trying to count this number it is $1.2 Trillion.

And, I think this number is low for several reasons.

First, I think the $150,000 number is low.

Second, I think that if this plan works and if large numbers of people start getting their loans marked down like this, then large numbers of other people who normally would have paid their mortgages on time are suddenly going to be "in trouble".

Third, this won't be the end of the "bailout" because a % of these reworked loans are going to be in trouble again because a lot of these homeowners simply are not credit worthy at ANY monthly payment amount.

So, I think the real number is probably $2.5 TRILLION dollars. And that is just for the next 4 years. But, now we have set a TERRIBLE precedent. Instead of foreclosure, banks now do a government funded workout. How do you stop that once it starts? When do you cut them off? How do you deal with the couple who with tears running down their face say to their Congressman "Why don't we get a bailout, Susie down the street got one last week"? So, whatever date you pick for the cutoff date, Congress is going to be inundated with the kinds of phone calls that Congress people just can't deal with. Constituents in trouble because of the government.

The sad thing is unless the federal government owns up to this number and owns up to the fact that it is going to take highly dedicated, altruistic people who know finance and know mortgages and have absolute power to do what it takes to rework the loan, then the plan won't work no matter how much money you throw at it.

It's going to take a Marshall plan attitude and I don't think there are any General Marshalls in the current administration.

Another consideration is that there can be none of this "You are worthy because you are at 38%, but you are not worthy because you are at 37%" bullshit. It has to apply to everyone. The liberal elitists don't get to pick and choose.

I just don't see that the Obama nation has anyone with the kind of backbone it will take to really fix this mess.

I wish they did have someone like that, I really do.

[curious]

Curious do you have any idea how much money those mortgage holders lose when they have to foreclose on the homes....between legal fees and the drastic reduction in sale price. Their losses will be much higher doing it that way.

Yes, I do have an idea.

But you see there is a problem. The mortgages for the most part are held indirectly by "investors". Investors who have no experience with foreclosure. They won't believe how much the markdown will be if they foreclose until it happens to them. There are millions of these investors. These investors don't service the loans, they just own the loans. It is a horrible, screwed up mess. The people servicing the loans don't get paid if there is a workout, they only get paid if there is a foreclosure or if the payments are made on time.

The mortgage holders are not going to willingly just mark the loans down. if the government wants to bail people out they have to put up the cash to pay the markdown. Sorry, that is the way it has to work and the DemoCong don't have the backbone to step up with a plan like that.

The liberal elitists would also call a plan like that a "bailout of the rich" so they would discredit it before it even got started.

[Dbldown11]

I deffinately agree with that curious....the servicers are forced to do what the investors tell them. At this point however I think the investors are starting to learn, because more and more servicers are working with borrowers......I am a housing counselor and I know from experience dealing with these clients in foreclosure and their servicers that they are starting to work with us much more than they would in the past

[Data]

I've already stated why giving Millionares tax cuts wont stimulate the economy.....They wont go spend it to buy new fridges, or washing machines, or tv's, or cars because they've already got that shit. Any money theyd get in a tax cut would go towards their own investements which wont help the economy

There are two reasons rich people are good for economy and, in turn, good for the poor.

First, they spend on luxury items and art, something that may cost millions of dollars. The art cannot flourish without rich people willing to pay for it and/or support the artists. The manufacturing of luxury items (e.g. yachts) creates more paying jobs then two TVs you may have bought.

Think about jewelry. From a logical standpoint the diamonds are shiny useless rocks. Yet, there are "idiots" willing to spend millions on those rocks. That creates a lot of jobs and many people can get themselves TVs and fill their fridges working on searching for and getting those rocks to the consumer. At the end, the rich bitch has her rock while hundreds of folks have jobs to feed their happy families. The chances are, in the not too distant future, the diamonds are going to be cheap as dirt and the rich bitch may end up a loser but the working folks were never losers here.

Second, the more important part is that the low taxes along with low credit rates allow venture capitalists to find more profitable opportunities all of which will, again, create paying jobs for the poor. I just talked about this extensively in this post:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk-2/obama-sending-more-troops-147027-p7.html#post1562324

[curious]

There are two reasons rich people are good for economy and, in turn, good for the poor.

First, they spend on luxury items and art, something that may cost millions of dollars. The art cannot flourish without rich people willing to pat for it and support the artist. The manufacturing of luxury items (e.g. yachts) creates more paying jobs then two TVs you may have bought.

Think about jewelry. From a logical standpoint the diamonds are shiny useless rocks. Yet, there are "idiots" willing to spend millions on those rocks. That creates a lot of jobs and many people can get themselves TVs and fill their fridges working on searching for and getting those rocks to the consumer. At the end, the rich bitch has her rock while hundreds of folks have jobs to feed their happy families. The chances are, in the not too distant future, the diamonds are going to be cheap as dirt and the rich bitch may end up a loser but the working folks were never losers here.

Second, the more important part is that the low taxes along with low credit rates allow venture capitalists to find more profitable opportunities all of which will, again, create paying jobs for the poor. I just talked about this extensively in this post:
http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...ml#post1562324

It amazes me how much evidence there is that these liberal types have never seen a history book.

During the Carter depression all of this class warfare stuff was tried. There were top tax rates that would make a 3rd world dictator blush. They had the luxury tax to "punish" the rich. Well, sorry but the luxury tax did not "punish" the rich. What it did do was devastate entire industries and cost many hard working people their jobs.

The high end boat and yacht industry was pretty much shut down by the luxury tax. And all those jobs were lost. Many of them never came back.

The reason is pretty simple. When you unfairly punish "rich" people with stupidity like this they simply stop buying things or investing. They move their money to a more favorable environment. If they are rich enough they move their money offshore. Or maybe they move themselves offshore.

These younger liberals preach their class warfare doctrine obviously completely oblivious to the truth about what happens when these idiotic policies are put into place. Carter tried them all, they all failed miserably. FDR tried them too.

I think it would do these young liberals some good to open a history book. A REAL history book, not that liberal trash they use in liberal colleges.

[curious]

I deffinately agree with that curious....the servicers are forced to do what the investors tell them. At this point however I think the investors are starting to learn, because more and more servicers are working with borrowers......I am a housing counselor and I know from experience dealing with these clients in foreclosure and their servicers that they are starting to work with us much more than they would in the past

I just don't get you liberal types. You defend a policy which is throwing huge amounts of money at quarter and half measures. And maybe if enough people suffer enough pain at some point these shortsighted policies might miraculously work.

I point out that I am opposed to Obama's "plan" because it is not a real plan, it is just throwing money at things.

I then itemize a plan that would actually work and show the failings of the current policy.

YOu then agree with my observations. But refuse to admit that the Obama "plan" is inadequate to get the job done because it is not extreme enough.

And you are okay with this "make enough people suffer enough pain and we might magically come out of this".

Unbelievable.

The mortgage crisis can only be fixed by 1) recruiting an army of dedicated, altruistic people who are experts in finance and mortgage practices and give them the power to rewrite mortgages so that the homeowner is actually able to service the payments. And, 2) providing the funding to pay for the markdown. It was government lack of oversight of the mortgage industry that led to investors buying mortgages where proper due diligence was not done in the loan origination stage, it is unfair to now tell those mortgage holders that they have to eat the loss caused by the government's incompetence.

You will need at minimum 20,000 of these experts. And you will need roughly $2.5 trillion. This is based on 2 million families in crisis a year for the next 4 years and I think this is a low number. I think it will be more than 4 years, maybe many more.

Anything less than this is just not going to fix the problem.

The problem I have with Obama is that he has a mandate to do what it takes to fix tough problems like this and he is squandering the mandate and trillions of $ on ill conceived "plans" that are not going to fix the problem. This is the true sign of an amateur. A blowhard who constantly underestimates the severity of tough problems and underestimates how drastic the measures must be to fix them.

You are in the mortgage counseling business and you don't scream at the top of your lungs everyday that you cannot do what you need to do for people because the solution is screwed up?

[Dbldown11]

The plan may not be extreme enough. But if you get too extreme it will never pass. The even bigger problem is that Americans actually are in favor of extreme actions, but politicians never persue extreme actions for the fear of hindering their future political career. It's all ****ed up, but at least this is something.

[curious]

The plan may not be extreme enough. But if you get too extreme it will never pass. The even bigger problem is that Americans actually are in favor of extreme actions, but politicians never persue extreme actions for the fear of hindering their future political career. It's all ****ed up, but at least this is something.

Amazing. A plan that throws 1 trillion dollars down the drain, has no chance of succeeding, but is supported by liberals because "at least it is something".

You are wrong though about the "...get too extreme it will never pass". Obama has a mandate right now that ANYTHING he wanted he could get it through. He promised extreme. The people voted for extreme.

If Obama went on national TV and radio and looked the American people straight in the eye and said:
"My fellow Americans, fixing the mortgage crisis is going to require these extreme steps....and is going to cost $2.5 trillion over 5 years. But at the end of that the crisis will be over. Congress is probably going to fight me on this, but I need YOUR support. It has to be done. Anything less will be a half measure that won't work..."

If he did that the entire country would call up their Congress critters and say GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THIS MAN GET THE JOB DONE.

Congress would fold under that pressure.

The fact that Obama is not doing this tells us a lot about his character and how much we can trust his promises.

Look, I'm not that smart, if I could figure out what needs to be done, someone around Obama has figured it out too. He refused to go down that pathof pushing for the extreme solution because he does not have the backbone to stand up for what is best for the country.

I voted against the man, and I detest liberals, but if he showed a backbone and asked for support to do what is BEST for the country and stop this backdoor politicking business as usual bullshit, I would support policies he put forth if they were going to actually work.

[Data]

No, I'm not a bleeding heart. I just like policies that work.

It is too late to debate how or why the people in trouble got into trouble, I don't care at this point. I just want to get them AND US out of the mess.

I agree with the most things you say but here you sound just like one of those bleeding hearts caught in an argument they cannot refute. Come on, man, that is not you. You do sound like them because you support here one of those bleeding hearts policies. I liked it much better when you said

So, tell me how giving people money that they did not earn stimulates the economy but allowing people to keep more of the money that they did earn does not stimulate the economy?

Giving those homeowners money is no better then giving the money to the banks. Neither party deserved it.

I completely disagree with your Obama-like plan of supporting housing market. The current prices are artificial and nothing else but the result of the housing bubble. Those prices must come down and the bubble must contract. Supporting the housing in attempts to revive the bubble is just throwing good money after bad.

The money must be spent on creating and supporting innovative technologies, which gives this country the edge and which made it so successfull. Only Washington can take a task on something big, something that individual companies do not have resources to do themselves. Do not go to Moon for bragging rights, do something productive. Spend a lot of money but make it an investment in your future. That would be truly American approach in my view. Obama choose to waste the money and to indebt our children even further. That is why we do not like what he does, don't we? Are you still with me?

[Dbldown11]

Amazing. A plan that throws 1 trillion dollars down the drain, has no chance of succeeding, but is supported by liberals because "at least it is something".

You are wrong though about the "...get too extreme it will never pass". Obama has a mandate right now that ANYTHING he wanted he could get it through. He promised extreme. The people voted for extreme.

If Obama went on national TV and radio and looked the American people straight in the eye and said:
"My fellow Americans, fixing the mortgage crisis is going to require these extreme steps....and is going to cost $2.5 trillion over 5 years. But at the end of that the crisis will be over. Congress is probably going to fight me on this, but I need YOUR support. It has to be done. Anything less will be a half measure that won't work..."

If he did that the entire country would call up their Congress critters and say GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THIS MAN GET THE JOB DONE.

Congress would fold under that pressure.

The fact that Obama is not doing this tells us a lot about his character and how much we can trust his promises.

Look, I'm not that smart, if I could figure out what needs to be done, someone around Obama has figured it out too. He refused to go down that pathof pushing for the extreme solution because he does not have the backbone to stand up for what is best for the country.

I voted against the man, and I detest liberals, but if he showed a backbone and asked for support to do what is BEST for the country and stop this backdoor politicking business as usual bullshit, I would support policies he put forth if they were going to actually work.

The stimulous plan cost a trillion and I think that will work

I was referring to the housing plan which he brought out last week which is seperate.

I detest you, because you refuse to speak to me in a civil/respectful manner which I have the backbone to demand if I'm in a discussion with someone. So long

[curious]

I agree with the most things you say but here you sound just like one of those bleeding hearts caught in an argument they cannot refute. Come on, man, that is not you. You do sound like them because you support here one of those bleeding hearts policies.

There is a difference though. My plan will work. Obama's plan is nonsense.

With my plan in 4 years this is what you will have:
1. The toxic mortgage paper will be off the books because it will have all been marked to market and replaced with mortgages that were actually underwritten.
2. The housing market will be at historic prices in terms of median house price ratio to median income because 8 million mortgages will have been marked down anywhere from 25 to 50%.
3. A few million families will be in their own homes who would have otherwise been on the street.
4. The charlatans will be out of the mortgage business.

You have to look at the alternative. The toxic mortgage paper has to be dealt with. So, either you give the money to the mortgage holders to buy the paper or you give it to the homeowners to markdown the paper. I would rather give it to the homeowners and markdown the paper.


Well, there is a 3rd alternative. Allow the market to correct naturally and put 8 million vacant homes on the market and immediately mark down the toxic paper by $3 to $4 trillion.

I actually prefer the 3rd alternative from an efficiency point of view. But from a not wanting to throw 8 million families in the street point of view, I have to go with my plan because I think my plan costs less than alternative 3, even though it is less "efficient".

Yes, the market would correct the crisis left to its own devices. I think my plan mitigates the cost of this correction while mitigating the human suffering cost.

Giving those homeowners money is no better then giving the money to the banks. Neither party deserved it.

Yes, but if the worthless paper is not dealt with the financial system as a whole cannot recover. I just analyzed the problem from the point of view of "what keeps the most homeowners in their homes" because anything else costs a lot more than doing that. If I have to choose between doing nothing and giving the money to the banks, then I would say do nothing.

I completely disagree with your Obama-like plan of supporting housing market. The current prices are artificial and nothing else but the result of the housing bubble. Those prices must come down and the bubble must contract. Supporting the housing in attempts to revive the bubble is just throwing good money after bad.

The difference between my plan and Obama's is that mine will work while Obama's will just throw a lot of money at the problem and not actually help anything.

Marking down 8 million mortgages anywhere from 25 to 50% is not exactly "supporting the housing market". The prices will come down due to the markdowns. I don't want the bubble revived. I want the worthless mortgage paper dealt with and I don't want 8 million vacant houses and 8 million families on the street. I would make it so that the government has a 2nd mortgage on the home for the amount of the markdown so that a homeowner cannot just get into debt again and cannot just sell the house later. I would also make it so that the house cannot be used as security for a loan unless the 1st and 2nd are paid off.

The money must be spent on creating and supporting innovative technologies, which gives this country the edge and which made it so successfull.

100% agreement.

Only Washington can take a task on something big, something that individual companies do not have resources to do themselves. Do not go to Moon for bragging rights, do something productive. Spend a lot of money but make it an investment in your future. That would be truly American approach in my view. Obama choose to waste the money and to indebt our children even further. That is why we do not like what he does, don't we? Are you still with me?

This was my point. He is throwing money away that will not then be available to do constructive things.

And he is doing nothing for long term economic success.

Liberals don't want to understand economic fundamentals because that gets in the way of their social engineering fantasies.

Innovation + Ingenuity + Creativity + Productivity = Prosperity

Liberals can do none of these things and creating an environment that nurtures them means that you put "common" people in charge of their own destinies. Then we don't need liberals to mange the social engineering programs because there aren't any social engineering programs.

There is a long laundry list of things that need to be done on a number of fronts: energy, education, automobile technology....well the list is pretty long. A large scale "manhattan project" approach to each of these would have huge benefits and put American industry back into the leadership position we had for so long.

You seem to be saying that this is an either or proposition. Either fix the housing mess or invest in innovation. I'm not sure it is. If you asked me to do triage I would vote for the innovation investments. I just think we can do both. And I think we have to do both.

[curious]

The stimulous plan cost a trillion and I think that will work

I was referring to the housing plan which he brought out last week which is seperate.

I detest you, because you refuse to speak to me in a civil/respectful manner which I have the backbone to demand if I'm in a discussion with someone. So long

You never did explain what will happen to the jobs that are created by the give away program once the money runs out. What happens then? Another trillion thrown at the problem?

[Data]

there are morons on the site that feel the need to post how Obama is going to ruin the country ... Get a clue you feeble minded idiots...

I detest you, because you refuse to speak to me in a civil/respectful manner which I have the backbone to demand if I'm in a discussion with someone.

There has not been a single thread recently where the liberals (the leader included) have not been exposed for the hypocrites they are.

[Dbldown11]

There has not been a single thread recently where the liberals (the leader included) have not been exposed for the hypocrites they are.

Actually, I wasnt speaking to any specific person when I said that. And I certainly didnt say anything like that to Curious at any point during out debate.

[curious]

I detest you, because you refuse to speak to me in a civil/respectful manner which I have the backbone to demand if I'm in a discussion with someone. So long

I notice that you did not address a single question I asked you to back up your statements. Instead you run away because I am not "respectful". The only thing I said that was remotely disrespectful was that it was a shame you did not learn how to do your own research and make your own conclusions but instead you parrot liberal ideology. Since you refuse to answer a single question I asked you to prove your points I have to assume that my assumption on that is correct. So prove me wrong and answer any of the questions I asked you.

[Data]

Actually, I wasnt speaking to any specific person when I said that. And I certainly didnt say anything like that to Curious at any point during out debate.

There are no more than half a dozen of people on this board who express their dislike of Obama's policies on a daily basis. Curious is one of those people.

[Dbldown11]

I have answered some of your questions, not all though because 1) I no longer have time for this and 2) I originally thought debating with you was interesting and somewhat educational, then realized you are like every rebulican speakin out right now.....you care only about your opinions and want people to agree with you 100%

[Dbldown11]

Curious never said they way the markets move up or down was a direct reflection of obama.......that is what i was referring to, and I know none of those people by name, only that I've seen a lot of posts regarding it

[curious]

I have answered some of your questions, not all though because 1) I no longer have time for this and 2) I originally thought debating with you was interesting and somewhat educational, then realized you are like every rebulican speakin out right now.....you care only about your opinions and want people to agree with you 100%

I'm not a Republican, so I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

I don't care about opinion. I care about facts. If you want to state some I will listen. So far I haven't seen any.

[curious]

Curious never said they way the markets move up or down was a direct reflection of obama.......that is what i was referring to, and I know none of those people by name, only that I've seen a lot of posts regarding it

Actually I did say that the market losing 2600 points and change was a direct result of the announcement of the "details", I mean the lack of any coherent details, in Obama's "stimulus" package.

[curious]

Market tanking today after Obama's "plan" unveiled

I guess I'm not the only one that thinks Obama is a loud mouthed amateur who has no clue.

[wtf]

curious, i must agree with data's last post about investing the funds into new technology. the real reason america is the worlds engine.

giving money to people who have fuked up mortgages is shortsighted.

you yourself noted a technology to build cheap water reservoirs

a litany of new energy initiatives could be funded

instead, they decide to spend the money on the under-productive portion of the economy, a mountain of pork

how about a new power grid for the nation?

this is vision, and would seal obama's legacy for generations

instead the money will be spent on welfare moms and IA's---watch, you will see the horror stories