Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:47 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
I certainly don't think that Bush was solely responsible for our current recession, but he certainly did nothing to prevent it. On the contrary, his policies exacerbated it.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:30 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Maybe in four years you'll be able to convince(?) enough Americans that we need a change for our benefit. But that will require a change in attitude and approach. The same old song and dance won't do. Neither will this no voice without a proposed solution.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
I certainly don't think that Bush was solely responsible for our current recession, but he certainly did nothing to prevent it. On the contrary, his policies exacerbated it.


And those would be ... what? Lower taxes? I'm not sure how low taxes cause a recession. Never have before.

Oh, maybe you mean runaway spending on medicare drug plans? Or ridiculous spending? Or, bailouts of the banks?

Oh, oh, maybe it was in 2004 and 2005 when his staff went in front of congressional banking committees and told them that we were facing a banking meltdown if FM and FM were not reigned in, and laughed out of the room by Dodd and Frank and other on the committee.

Face it. The current POTUS has been a seamless transition from the last POTUS. Bailouts, spending, and more debt are the common themes.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6210
Location: Keystone State
Maybe Willton was talking about the billion dollar a day war.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6281
Thank you buccoboy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
bucco boy wrote:
Maybe Willton was talking about the billion dollar a day war.

Or the lax regulation enforcement of the securities markets, or the total mismanagement of the Federal Reserve. Maybe those things too.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Oh, oh, maybe it was in 2004 and 2005 when his staff went in front of congressional banking committees and told them that we were facing a banking meltdown if FM and FM were not reigned in, and laughed out of the room by Dodd and Frank and other on the committee.

When the hell was this? Because if I recall correctly, in 2003 the Bush Administration objected to a proposal to have the Treasury house an independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie, much like financial regulators that oversee banks and thrifts. So what happened?

Quote:
Face it. The current POTUS has been a seamless transition from the last POTUS. Bailouts, spending, and more debt are the common themes.

ZM

So assuming this is true, that exonerates Bush? If Bush is just like the guy that you can't stand (Obama), why does Bush then get a pass from you? Or is there a double-standard?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Exhonerating Bush is not the objective. There is much blame to go around on either side of the aisle. The important thing is that we fix the original problem without creating new ones for the next President in 4 years.

Wilton, you get all pissy with me because you feel like I am giving you an attitude, so in my argument here, I am not exhibiting any attitutude, just opinion.

I don't think that quality leadership consistantly uses the excuse that "previous management left me with this problem," do you agree? I believe it has been in virtually every speech since his election. Being a leader of a nation means, taking on all the responsibilities, whether they are passed down, or generated by oneself, and standing up as a man and dealing with them. Telling us everday that its not your fault is weakness and a lack of responsiblity.

I cannot say that I am a financial expert, but when I am in debt and faced with hard times(like right now), I DO NOT spend, I save my money and spend it very frugally. With the types of entities that received money from the stimulus package, Americans have an extreme right to question the necessity of many of them.

We had this argument before, but taxing the businesses more would force them to cut costs in various ways, one of which would be by laying off workers. How does this strengthen the economy? These large American businesses are going to be forced to look for foreign labor to balance their budgets, and they may just move their operations overseas all-together. Maybe a spending freeze by the government coupled with some nice tax cuts and relief would have been far better medicine. Frankly, at this point in the economy, I cannot do my American duty and spend money. I have shut down all spending activities. If thousands, or millions of others begin to do the same things that I do, wouldn't that create an even deeper recession?

Taking over banks, car companies, insurance companies, etc. is a pretty good indication that there are fragments of Socialism taking control of the government. You have to agree at least on principle. I would bet that McCarthy would freaking have an anurism if he were alive.

The most concerning for me is the perceived weakness that the President is exhibiting by sending videos to Iran practically pleading with them for peace. As a Veteran, I become very concerned when a leader of our country places appeasment before our safety. Regardless of whether you support the war in Iraq or not, the US has been a safe place to reside, and we have taken the fight across the ocean and conducted it there. If we are to bring everyone home, offer concessions, and become a protectionist nation, the war will reach us here. It doesn't matter if America calls it the "War on Terror", or the "Rumble in the Jungle," terrorists will NEVER stop trying to kill Americans, whether it be here or there. When will people in leadership positions here in the US understand, people in the world hate us, they want to kill us, they have always wanted to kill us and will forever want to kill us.

Are there those out there that belive that this is how we are going to fix America? All Obama bashing aside... Is there anyone in the US Government, Democrat or Republican, that actually has a clue as to fix this great nation?
Can Obama pull it off? Or is he in way over his head? I sure hope he can do it because the alternative is very scary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
I don't think that quality leadership consistantly uses the excuse that "previous management left me with this problem," do you agree? I believe it has been in virtually every speech since his election. Being a leader of a nation means, taking on all the responsibilities, whether they are passed down, or generated by oneself, and standing up as a man and dealing with them. Telling us everday that its not your fault is weakness and a lack of responsiblity.

Okay, but it is the truth, is it not? Isn't it fair to say that the current economic situation is not Obama's doing? And I certainly don't think he's been in office long enough to determine whether Obama's policies have actually helped or worsened the current economic situation, theory notwithstanding.

Further, I dispute the idea that he's using the Bush Administration as an excuse. I've never heard him say anything tantamount to "Don't blame me; blame Bush," and I've certainly never heard him say anything that's tantamount to an abdication of responsibility for his job as the President. If anything, I've heard Obama call attention to the failures of the Bush Administration as a way to temper expectations regarding the correction of those mistakes. But that's not abdicating responsibility; that's attempting to force the public to see the gravity of the situation and how difficult it will be to fix it.

Quote:
I cannot say that I am a financial expert, but when I am in debt and faced with hard times(like right now), I DO NOT spend, I save my money and spend it very frugally. With the types of entities that received money from the stimulus package, Americans have an extreme right to question the necessity of many of them.

I sympathize. I personally don't like the fact that we're propping up these companies that have been deemed "too big to fail," even though I'm sure that the failure of these companies would have dire consequences upon society. What I hope for is that while we are propping up the financial house of cards so that it does not all come crashing down on our heads, we in turn take steps to systematically dismantle the house of cards while we build a sturdier home next door. I certainly don't know how to do that, and I am anything but certain that Tim Geithner knows how to either, but what I would really like from the dissenters are solution proposals that don't cause total economic collapse in the interim between now and our eventual recovery. I'm not sure if I've heard any such proposals.

Quote:
We had this argument before, but taxing the businesses more would force them to cut costs in various ways, one of which would be by laying off workers. How does this strengthen the economy? These large American businesses are going to be forced to look for foreign labor to balance their budgets, and they may just move their operations overseas all-together. Maybe a spending freeze by the government coupled with some nice tax cuts and relief would have been far better medicine. Frankly, at this point in the economy, I cannot do my American duty and spend money. I have shut down all spending activities. If thousands, or millions of others begin to do the same things that I do, wouldn't that create an even deeper recession?

Where are the businesses being taxed more? I'm serious: if it's happening, I'd like you to point me toward that information.

I don't see how a tax cut for businesses would prevent businesses from moving their labor force off-shore. If the labor off-shore is cheaper than the domestic labor, businesses are going to be encouraged economically to make that move regardless of the amount of money they will pay in taxes.

I don't believe in some "American duty" to spend money; it doesn't exist morally, and it certainly does not exist legally. At some point you have to spend money, but there is no requirement to spend more than you want to spend. And yes, if more people feel the way you do, then our recession will deepen. That's why am for a tax cut, just not for those who do not need it, like the upper-class. A tax-cut should go to those who would spend that money the most readily, and that is the middle and lower class, not big-business. In a recession, the former spends its cash while the latter sits on it. Rational businesses only hire workers when there is an economic incentive to do so, and a tax break does not provide that incentive.

Quote:
Taking over banks, car companies, insurance companies, etc. is a pretty good indication that there are fragments of Socialism taking control of the government. You have to agree at least on principle. I would bet that McCarthy would freaking have an anurism if he were alive.

I could care less what a demagogue like Joseph McCarthy would think. The reality is that these "fragments of Socialism" are not suddenly "taking control of the government"; they've always been there, often in the form of administrative regulation, and I think they serve an important role in making sure the inequalities created by a capitalistic society do not become too great. However, nationalizing a number of players in a few business sectors is a far cry from the Soviet Union, and those calling it such are falling down a logically fallacious slippery slope.

Quote:
The most concerning for me is the perceived weakness that the President is exhibiting by sending videos to Iran practically pleading with them for peace. As a Veteran, I become very concerned when a leader of our country places appeasment before our safety.

As do I, which is why I opposed the Iraq war, as I believe it was done to appease the private interests of members of the Bush Administration (see Dick Chaney and Haliburton). However, engaging in peace talks, in my view, is done for the sake of the country's safety, not contrary thereto, as it leads to an agreement that both countries will stop sacrificing the lives of their soldiers or putting their respective populaces at risk. Otherwise we'd be at war with everybody.

Quote:
Regardless of whether you support the war in Iraq or not, the US has been a safe place to reside, and we have taken the fight across the ocean and conducted it there. If we are to bring everyone home, offer concessions, and become a protectionist nation, the war will reach us here.

Why? We started the fight over there. If we had not done that in Iraq, there likely would have been no fight with Iraq, or at least not the kind that would have put our citizens or soldiers at risk. While you may be a veteran, you seem to forget that soldiers are people too, not just expendable resources that the government may use to pick fights with other nations.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if America calls it the "War on Terror", or the "Rumble in the Jungle," terrorists will NEVER stop trying to kill Americans, whether it be here or there. When will people in leadership positions here in the US understand, people in the world hate us, they want to kill us, they have always wanted to kill us and will forever want to kill us.

Just like everyone else, terrorists do not do what they do unless they have an underlying reason for their actions. They attack us because they feel that we've wronged them in some way. Once you figure out what those reasons are and are able to convince them that those reasons are no longer justified, either by correcting your own activities or showing them that they are wrong (through diplomacy or force), they stop becoming terrorists. That is the only possible solution to this problem, and if it can be done without sacrificing the lives of our troops, then that is best.

I'm not saying that we can wipe out terrorism through diplomacy, or even that we can wipe it out at all. But we have to attempt to resolve our differences with our enemies through the least dangerous way possible, and in many cases, that's through diplomacy. What you are proposing is perpetual war or genocide, and that is irrational and untenable for a civilized society. At some point there must be peace talks, even if it's with a nation that you don't like.

By the way, all this talk about war is way off-topic.

Quote:
Are there those out there that belive that this is how we are going to fix America? All Obama bashing aside... Is there anyone in the US Government, Democrat or Republican, that actually has a clue as to fix this great nation?
Can Obama pull it off? Or is he in way over his head? I sure hope he can do it because the alternative is very scary.

People like me voted for Obama because we think he can do it. Whether he does or not is a question that won't be answered for some time. But he won't be alone, and nor should he. Congress has to shoulder some of the burden of this mess, and if there is any governmental body that deserves criticism and ridicule, its them.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Steelers-Yankees to lose trophies
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Firts of all, Obama has been in office all of two months. No actions, policies or anything else could possibly move our country out of the mess we are in. To blame him is the stuff of haters not people who want to improve our country. I realize that there are different opinions of the causes and solutions of our present economic situation but instant change is not a possibility for any human.

Now let us all understand the cause of much of the problem. There was a huge bubble in housing caused by stupid buyers, and speculators who hoped to flip properties for profit quickly. Neither group could possibly afford to pay the monthly mortgage in the beginning and certainly not as the payment escalated in the future. The market responded to all this artificial purchasing by rapidly increasing the price of housing causing the spiral to continue and increase. How could this have happened?

Answer is that greed of bankers and other mortgage companies made it possible to borrow without the ability to repay. Loans were made and then sold several times over at a profit each time for the sellers to bigger finamcial companies and many of them were insured against losing by AIG.When the bubble burst, the big banks and mortgage companies and giant insurer, AIG, which insures many other things as well, were all about to fold.

Many Americans think that the solution was and is to just let them go under. That would be justice for their greed driven decisions that had gained much in the past, but now need billions of tax payer dollars to servive. Had the government allowed that to happen, all the experts (DEM/REP alike) have decreed the the country was in complete chaos if we allowed that to happen. I'm no expert, but I know enough to accept the ideas of the majority of those who do understand it.

The government's saving them is probably saving our country. I like to gamble but not on this. The worst part of all this is the bonus issue with the very people who caused this to happen and cost us so much money.

How could all this happen?

Deny it forever but the seeds of this came in 1980. Yes, the man who believed in "The Shinning City On A Hill" is responsible. How? By preaching and demanding that we de-regulate business. How many times did we hear that the government was the cause of business not being profitable. We began a long 30 year period of de-regulation. Anyone who studies capitalism knows that business functions best when the government stays out of their affairs. But we also know that the tendency for greed and shelfishness at the expense of everyone is also the result of business unchecked by government. Remember the Robber Barons of the 1880's who got filthy rich on the backs and abuse of their fellow men. Rockerfeller. Melon, Carneige, Vanderbuilt, and countless others. Government action by TR began Trust busting and forcing competition back into business. It was government regulation which saved our country from what surely would have been a revolution before to many more years of abuse continued.

So, now government involvement is a bad thing? I say not, lack of involvement will cause our glorious country to be treatened from within more than by enemies from abroad.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits