agree wholeheartedly with point #1, ski.
it's a target-rich environment and cramer's just easy.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
If you voted for OBAMA
- Thread starter Sarge
- Start date
it's a target-rich environment and cramer's just easy.
The rich liberals don't care. He "was" the richest man in the world, and now, he is still pertty darn rich.
I'm waiting for his response regarding the down grade of credit of his company.
Oh yeah, didn't Obama said he will seek Warren for economic advice during the campaign season?
Another lie?
Yes he did. It seems they don't see eye to eye on how to help the economy anymore. If people took the time to analyze what was really said they would conclude that Buffet does not agree with the Obama approach to fixing every problem Obama sees at once.
When you try to do too much at one time you'll fail. Checking CNN today I noticed that now they're bringing up gays in the military.
Deja vu? Or more like, look over here while the economy continues to fail.
I guess time will tell. I didn't take any side here. Someone asked why Buffett had been silent since the inaugural. I merely wrote what he said on CNBC a couple of days ago. As far as the economy continuing to fail; I think the Dow was up the past few days. Personally, I like it when it goes up, no matter what caused it. Don't be so negative fellas. Give the man a chance. Ron
By Dick Morris
Senior Bill Clinton's advisor during the 1990's economic boom.
Conservatives are so aghast at the huge spending going on in Washington and the $1.75 trillion deficit (13 percent of our gross domestic product) it is causing them to overlook an even more basic question about the president: Is he competent? Does he know what he is doing?
To be specific: Does he know how to do anything other than spend money? His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability. He left the details of the projects up to the House Democrats, who are more than willing to fill in the blanks. But his two other major initiatives -- his banking and mortgage relief plans -- are both flawed and highly unlikely to solve their respective problems. Indeed, they are so wide of the mark that one has to ask if Obama is not only a radical but also an incompetent.
The bank bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if they are offered the right incentives, the treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning. To date, no massive infusion of private sector capital seems in view, and Washington is doing little more than writing checks on its overdrawn account to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
But conservatives can dismiss the utter failure of Obama's bank rescue plan, saying that he doesn't really want it to succeed. He probably wants to nationalize the banks -- and never let them go. But he can't say that, yet, and has to make a good show of doing all he can to rescue them before swallowing them whole.
But then came Obama's mortgage rescue plan, an equally flawed proposal. Clearly, Obama, liberal that he is, wants his rescue plan to work. He is anxious to bail out homeowners facing foreclosure. Those are his constituents, after all. But the mortgage rescue plan he has proposed will fall far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments, even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a hopefully temporary loss of employment, forget about it. Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now fall into this category. Obviously, the fall in property values occasioned by the depression will put more and more homeowners in this category. Certainly, a great many of those who need relief to keep their homes find that the amount of their loan exceeds the value of the underlying house and land. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that Obama simply lacks the competence to figure out how to help these folks? Could it be that he cannot devise a counter to his financial advisors who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
And ... who induced these poor folks to buy homes they couldn't afford, anyway? It was the Clinton administration's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie portfolio. After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they cannot afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic recovery planning and credit rescue efforts. We are not only stuck with a radical and a socialist, but possibly an incompetent one at that!
Senior Bill Clinton's advisor during the 1990's economic boom.
Conservatives are so aghast at the huge spending going on in Washington and the $1.75 trillion deficit (13 percent of our gross domestic product) it is causing them to overlook an even more basic question about the president: Is he competent? Does he know what he is doing?
To be specific: Does he know how to do anything other than spend money? His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability. He left the details of the projects up to the House Democrats, who are more than willing to fill in the blanks. But his two other major initiatives -- his banking and mortgage relief plans -- are both flawed and highly unlikely to solve their respective problems. Indeed, they are so wide of the mark that one has to ask if Obama is not only a radical but also an incompetent.
The bank bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if they are offered the right incentives, the treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning. To date, no massive infusion of private sector capital seems in view, and Washington is doing little more than writing checks on its overdrawn account to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
But conservatives can dismiss the utter failure of Obama's bank rescue plan, saying that he doesn't really want it to succeed. He probably wants to nationalize the banks -- and never let them go. But he can't say that, yet, and has to make a good show of doing all he can to rescue them before swallowing them whole.
But then came Obama's mortgage rescue plan, an equally flawed proposal. Clearly, Obama, liberal that he is, wants his rescue plan to work. He is anxious to bail out homeowners facing foreclosure. Those are his constituents, after all. But the mortgage rescue plan he has proposed will fall far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments, even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a hopefully temporary loss of employment, forget about it. Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now fall into this category. Obviously, the fall in property values occasioned by the depression will put more and more homeowners in this category. Certainly, a great many of those who need relief to keep their homes find that the amount of their loan exceeds the value of the underlying house and land. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that Obama simply lacks the competence to figure out how to help these folks? Could it be that he cannot devise a counter to his financial advisors who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
And ... who induced these poor folks to buy homes they couldn't afford, anyway? It was the Clinton administration's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie portfolio. After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they cannot afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic recovery planning and credit rescue efforts. We are not only stuck with a radical and a socialist, but possibly an incompetent one at that!
Dick Morris? We're reduced to quoting Dick Morris. I guess that says it all.
Did anyone read he wants to pass a bill where Veterans would have to use civilian insurance for duty-related injuries? The nerve of this guy. 
^WTF! If it starts with the veterans It would certainly move to the active duty personel shortly there-after Ok Who the F*%K is going to insure these service people? It wouldnt be beneficial to the Insurance company, so im sure any new service guy would be spending close to his entire check just in coverage. I wouldnt be suprised if their coverage was cancelled the minute they landed in Iraq under some retarded clause about being in harms way voluntairly......
The minute they stop taking care of us veterans is the day they create a whole new enemy.
The minute they stop taking care of us veterans is the day they create a whole new enemy.
Last edited:
The rumblings are already beginning to happen around the Pentagon. Obama is about to make Clinton's neutering of our military look very insignificant. Things like supplementals that many parts of the services rely upon to make it through the year are already on the chopping block.
Hmm. Here is my opinion. ANYONE who voted for OBAMA and Runs a business,ENJOYS MOTORSPORTS,LOW TAXES,CHOICE OF MEDICAL SERVICESand LOVES FREEDOM are SIMPLY STUPID AND OR A FOOL!!!! WAKE UP FOOLS!!!
sounds ominous. please direct us to your source.
everybody gets an opinion, thx for sharing yours.
Here is your source.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/vets.health.care/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/vets.health.care/
But really why do you care?
That one makes me feel uncomfortable...
I am also quite uncomfortable with the news I got from my Brother In Law last week. Apparently the funding that allows them to operate has been cut so dangerously low that his gun truck no longer carries the dye packs that they used to mark mines in the road. He mentioned that the maintenance on the convoy vehicles is getting dire as well.
This was/is my greatest fear-The pull out plan leaving the soldiers in the field under equiped, and under funded...
Pulling out- one dollar at a time.
P
Thanks for that- very eloquent explanation of the difference between responsible gun owners and criminals.
I have no understanding how or why people continue to associate legally obtained, and owned guns with the actions of a few deranged individuals, and common criminals.
With that said- I also don't have any problem with complying to testing, and ID checking to make sure that I am qualified by law to own a gun. Mostly because I am comfortable that i would "pass" and secondly because I would hope that folks like the VT Killer, and that guy who shot the preacher in Church last week would not pass.
because, like you, i am a combat vet.
because i, like you, am an american citizen who wants the best possible treatment for our gi's and vets.
thx for this.
i don't like the idea at all, either. i'm interested in learning the full details of what the administration proposes when they are actually proposed.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Very unfortunate and what a terrible way to try to save a few pennies.
I'm just speculating, but I wonder if a big reason for the military cutbacks (talk of canceling F-22 orders, missile defense, this) is because China holds most of the cards these days. If Obama wants to deficit spends trillions on stimulus, financed largely by China, he has to show that it is for "productive" purposes and not for defense [against China]. Let's hope he pulls a switcheroo -- raises the money, then buys lots of weapons and points them right at China. :tongue:
the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone.Ski good point,,how can our government not be influenced when dealing with China,since they own at least a trillion of our T-bill/bonds
Similar threads
- Sticky
