Reply....and some advice. sm
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-03-24
In Reply to: Silence of the Lambs aka Pubs - Clarice
First, the advice. You never want to put yourself out on a limb like this by crowing over a one-day move in the stock market.
Now, the reply. It's odd to me that the very people who have discounted the idea that there is any "meaning" to stock market movements when the market is crashing would turn around and now propose that we garner some significance from the fact that it has recently had a rally.
Second, there are always rallies during bear markets, just like there are always down moves in bull markets. No market moves straight up or straight down.
Third, I see the markets are back down today.
Fourth, the problems that Obama's budget and bank bailout proposals will cause won't show up today or tomorrow. They'll be a long time coming...but mark my words, they're coming.
Fifth, a small percentage uptick in existing home sales from its previous disastrous levels means virtually nothing.
Sixth, it's very common these days to see even so-called sophisticated financial analysts wax poetic every time there is the slightest bit of "positive" news. They are, after all, in the investment industry and their jobs and incomes depend - even more so than yours or mine - on "things getting better". It's been rather funny, although pathetic, to watch them throughout this whole mess, grasping at every straw. You should pay less attention to them - they have an axe to grind.
It is possible that in time Obama will grow into this job. Every American has reason to hope so. To date, however, he has shown very little leadership, has stumbled badly on both the domestic and world diplomatic stage, and has shown himself to be impulsive and rather inept. So far, the American people aren't sure whether they have a man or a boy (and please, no "PC" comments) in the White House.
In my personal opinion, the President of this country is actually Nancy Pelosi, and Obama is little more than her obedient puppet.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thanks for the advice.
I would suggest you do the same. It's important.
Again, some advice.
I haven't seen postings here every day that the market has gone down, nor when it has gone up. You're imagining things.
We would have absolutely no problem criticizing Obama's insane fiscal policy at any time, even on a day that the market went up 1000 points, or if it went up a million points, because the criticism isn't based on what the market does. It's based on the terrible bill that's coming due!
I know, it is ADVICE, I don't even know why I am
replying to your nonsense.
Okay, took your advice. None of the "scripts"
I saw were anything different than I have seen in ads or heard on the stump. So I suppose I don't understand the big deal. If people don't like the call...hang up. It's not like Obama doesn't do robocalls...he does. I guess people are just hanging up and not complaining about them?
Excellent advice! - nm
x
Good advice
I really would love to see the political board split in two. They can have the love fest on the liberal side and happy happy joy joy each other all day long while the spin around. They wouldn't have to worry or address any serious conversations because they would all be swept away in euphoria, and the rest of us could have some serious discussions on the conservative side. I think that would really be a good balance.
I like the advice of counting to 10 before replying. Will save a lot in frustratioins.
My advice to your party if you want to win elections
start preparing for the future instead of living in the past.
Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
Need advice from Dems and Repubs sm
I am a swing voter. I am one who is on the fence about who to vote for. Here is my problem. I am finding that this year's presidential election is separating people. Republicans seem to be a little angrier lately since Obama leads in the pools. Dems are not as angry BUT they are very firm in their political choice. I am finding that I cannot have a discussion with anyone about this election. If I say anything about Palin, repubs jump all over me. If I question Biden, dems are horrified. I do want to vote. I will figure it all out through my own research. My question for everyone today is how do I stay friends with people during all this? Any words of advice will be appreciated as I found my self in tears this morning.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice (last line)
nm
Advice for Obama --- Put a Sock In It (sm)
I'd go for a little hope right now myself from Obama. But we don't seem to be getting it from him, do we.
FOX News Blogs » FOX Forum » Liz Peek
Liz Peek
January 8th, 2009 11:55 AM Eastern
Advice for Obama: Put a Sock In It
You can thank our incoming president for extinguishing the faint glimmers of optimism that had driven markets higher in recent sessions. Did you happen to notice yesterday’s market sell-off?
The media blamed Wednesday’s market setback on gloomy job loss projections and downbeat profit warnings from Time Warner, Alcoa and Intel. I disagree.
I think investors were put off by Obama’s warnings of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come” -– an unwelcome reality check from our cheerleader-in-chief
I think investors were put off by Obama’s warnings of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come” -– an unwelcome reality check from our cheerleader-in-chief who is laying the groundwork for massive spending programs and ultimately for an A+ report card for his administration.
For weeks companies around the globe have had to reduce investor expectations. Any management that has not fessed up to just how ghastly business prospects are has simply been putting off the inevitable –- or else out of touch with field operations. (Beware of those long lines of reporting!) That a Time Warner or Alcoa should be seeing a drop in revenues cannot possibly be construed as a surprise. We’re in a recession for heaven’s sake!
The market came to grips with this reality a couple of months ago. Indeed, more recently such announcements have not jarred investor sensibilities a whit. In other words, bad economic news is not news at all.
There is an irrational but tangible feeling in the air that Obama can deliver miracles… It is singularly deflating, then, when Obama talks trash about the economy.
What is different is the ominous message from our president-elect. The country is ready for a change in tone, for a message of –- dare I say it –- hope. Everyone, including those who didn’t vote for the man, is hoping that Mr. Obama can bring peace and prosperity to this country. There is an irrational but tangible feeling in the air that Obama can deliver miracles, that he is uncorrupted, that he is smart and has solutions to the nation’s ills in his pocket.
It is singularly deflating, then, when Obama talks trash about the economy. His purpose, I imagine, is two-fold: First, he needs to get Americans on board with a gigantic spending program that he feels is necessary to put people to work and breathe some life into the economy. Second, if he prepares people to expect truly dreadful times ahead, anything less horrendous will be added to the plus side of the Obama ledger. Just like corporate managements, Mr. Obama can only win by outperforming expectations.
The problem is that the economy and the markets are fragile beyond imagining right now. We don’t need a dose of gloom and doom. We need a Ronald Reagan–type “morning in America” optimism. Consumer sentiment is in the basement-– is that a leading or lagging indicator? We need people who have money to go out and spend it –- they need to feel confident to do so. We need bankers to approve loans, and companies to invest in new plant and equipment.
None of these things will happen if everyone is focused on how dreadful the next few years will be.
My advice, Mr. Obama, is this: stop scaring Americans to death by telling them how bad things will be if your programs are not enacted. Henry Paulson adopted that approach to the point that every time he came on television the market cratered. With a Congress firmly in the hands of your political compatriots, you will get your stimulus package passed. If Americans see enough tough oversight put in place, they will be supportive, especially if the investments appear to generate jobs. Americans are smart –- they know we’re in trouble and that the times call for unusual measures.
But, they need you to lead, and to be positive. Do not spend the enthusiasm of the electorate with scare-tactics. We need, after all, that ridiculous message of hope that got you elected.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/08/peek_obama_market/
It is at the advice of the office of the attorney general...
of the state of Alaska. It has turned into a political hatchet job. Just a scant few months ago, Hollis French (running the "investigative" committee) said that the governor's office was cooperating and no subpoenas were necessary. Then, when she was picked as the VP candidate and Obama folks descended on Alaska...all of a sudden the "investigation" grew (and the pictures of Obama and Hollis French and the other key democrat on this committee yucking it up surfaced). It has come to light that the investigator they hired is a personal friend of the man he is investigating. No bias there, right? Now that the attorney general is involved, politics can be removed from this and it can be brought to a result, whatever that result is.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Flew right past that basic right, eh?
Now son of a Democratic congressman being investigated for hacking her personal email. Wondering how THAT will turn out.
Let's talk again if (and when) he takes cons. advice
I don't require the advice of a popeyed pestilential poop such as yourself, thanks..
x
Some educational advice. Go to your local hospital and city hall....sm
Ask them how births are recorded. I think you will be surprised. EVERYTHING is now computerized. Even old birth records.
Reply
Any so-called knowledge can later prove to be wrong. There are very few absolutes in this world. I do know that the 1990s saw a dessimation in our human intelligence gathering. We need to get back to being good at that. If a threat is there, I'm not willing to wait until people die to do something about it. If you are, then I hope it's not one of my loved ones in the next airplane or subway or building. As for Al-Qaeda, there has been much damage done to that organization. Of course the news doesn't play that up very much, but it's happening. We're still looking for Bin Laden, we're still chasing Al-Qaeda, and we're planting a seed in the middle east that will hopefully someday (and it may take longer than your of my lifetime to accomplish) make a change in the middle east that will hopefully keep the horror of terrorism at least under control. We fought the Japanese, we fought the Nazis... I think we can handle Iraq and Al-Qaeda. As for N. Korea, you can't do anything there because they already HAVE the nukes. At least we can cross Iraq off the list for sure in the nuke department.
Thanks for the reply. (nm)
nm
Reply....
You missed my point also, because you are still harping on abortion "against God's will." No matter how many times I say it, you will not hear it, because it does not further your agenda to hear it.
I am not against abortion because it is against God's will. I am against abortion because it is murder, and it is murder of the most innocent life that exists. That is a deeply moral issue, and it does not stem from what or what is not God's will. You said you and God parted company a long time ago, but I am willing to bet your morality did not part and go with God...you kept it, right? Of course you did. Because we all have basic morality, whether or not you choose to believe in God. Belief in God validates and enhances that morality, but even those of you who do not believe in God have morals...right? Of COURSE you do. There are people who are NOT religious who oppose abortion on a strictly moral level. As that article said that I posted, if I lost my faith today, I would still morally oppose abortion. Yet it is more comfortable for you to claim that I am against abortion "in the name of God." I am against abortion because it is morally wrong. PERIOD.
Being pro choice does mean being pro abortion. If you vote for the right to choose, you are putting the okay stamp on it. You can spin it however you like, but the truth remains. It is your choice to do so, yes, but at least have the guts say so.
I have already said that I work toward supporting women who decide to make a choice for life. If they decide to go ahead with the abortion, they do not get condemnation from me, but they certainly know were I stand, and they also respect what I am doing and understand why I am doing it. Much unlike you ladies.
Again....try to let this sink into your closed mind. I am trying to give the CHILD a choice. The CHILD has no voice. You are taking that away from them. They have no recourse, no place to run, no place to hide. All they can do is endure being sliced and diced to have their brain sucked out. You want the MOTHER to have the choice, the voice, the power. I am merely saying that the CHILD deserves SOMETHING here, doesn't it? Doesn't something in your moral structure scream out to you that the CHILD deserves SOME consideration in all this?? That is where I and others like me come in. Because we believe the child DOES deserve consideration, DOES deserve to have a voice.
You say "I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down." Is that not EXACTLY what all your posts do to my opinions and perceptions? Including completely ignoring what I am actually saying and trying to put words in my mouth to suit your anti-God agenda.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
my reply
was meant in a humorous, light tone. Sorry you are so unhappy with current events.
reply
As far as who can accomplish all these goals -- a journey begins with a single step. Barack is willing to start the journey. McCain stubbornly refuses to change course. If he does not live up to his hopes - another election in 4 years.
Experience -- time and time again current events have proven Barack's thoughtfulness and judgment have proven true. Even the current administration is following the course for a time-table that Barack proposed so long ago.
I do not see Barack as a savior -- I see a fine man with a vision for our country that matches my own.
Reply...
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both of these claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MORE FACTS: She is responsible for negotiating any drilling of those resources. "Primary power" may be taxation, but she also has to oversee environmental issues, etc. She cracked the monopoly and forced oil companies to bid again, and she made a necessary portion of the bid that they address environmental issues. That was left out of the FACTS. While the population of the state may not be in proportion to the size of the state, her latest approval rating is 86%. That is unheard of. None of the other candidates enjoy that as senators from their respective states. That was also left out of the FACTS.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MORE FACTS: When the National Guard is called up within a state, the governor does have the primary responsibility of mobilization and oversight. Since she is 50 miles from Russia, having control of the National Guard in that state is certainly central to our national security. And the operative word is AFTER the unit is deployed. Making the decision to call them up and send them to war IS her decision, and DOES affect national security.
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January of 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
MORE FACTS: This is true. But if Democrats truly believe in hope and change, they have had since January to actually do it. Have seen zip, zilch, nada. Got news for you...Bush is not a true conservative, especially fiscally obviously. McCain is.
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span in Springfield. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
MORE FACTS: Nice spin. He still voted "present." If he can't make a decision on those bills, he is going to be able to make the big ones to run the country? You can't vote present in the oval office. However, he did show up to vote NO to the Infants Born Alive act...twice.
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MORE FACTS: Look at this and digest it. First paragraph...Obama's plan will raise income for middle income taxpayers by 5% by 2012...he does not define "middle class." McCain's plan is going to CUT taxes across all levels and still raise the "middle income" by 3%. I think I will take the tax cut and the 3%. No brainer.
Obama wants to provide 80 billion in tax breaks to people who already pay almost 0 taxes. Where, pray tell, is that $80 billion going to come from?? Taxing the "rich" which will trickle down to loss of jobs and depression of the economy. Won't work. Never works. Case in point..small businesses that make more than $250,000 would see taxes rise. That is about every small family business in this country, who employ a lot of people. Just throw them all under the bus in order to cut taxes for people who pay the least taxes of all of us ANYWAY.
NO THANKS.
Reply
You know what truly amazes me? EVERYONE srcutinizes Obama for EVERY LITTLE THING from the b/c issue to his education, whether he is muslim, is he a terrorist, does he believe in this or that,etc but while GWB did pretty much whatever he wanted especially outside of the law whether it be national/international and the level of scrutiny bestowed upon him when he was first elected to office up until now has been been pretty much nonexistent.. or people saying 'i don't trust him', ' he frightens me' 'he is scary'. Should have been afraid of Bush and truly fear what you MAY NEVER know regarding the true state of this country of the last eight years..truly amazing
reply
Throw that hood in the wash, its getting dingy. 12 year olds, we know what you are saying there.
I made no "moral judgment" on SP's premarital pregnancy - merely pointing out the historical precedent she set.
I did reply, it is below....but I will reply again here...
I cannot find anything where Republicans voted for this issue before they voted against it. If you can, present it. I looked. In the case when McCain co-sponsored the bill that I have posted information about, where he predicted this exact thing happening, it never made it out of the committee. All the Republicans on the comittee voted for it, all of the Democrats on the comittee voted against it.
This is what the bill would have done:
1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Sounds like the bailout bill doesn't it? Would have been nice if they had not blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem and not stuck us with it?
I did not reply to it because I have not seen it -
I have not been on the news or TV today so am not aware of what you are talking about. Will, however, before I go to bed, find out what is going on so that I can discuss it later...
reply
poster says duh? Exactly. Overwrought rhetoric destroys the validity of any discussion.
In reply...
Let me just address a couple of points:
Science isn't a "numbers" game where if you line up 1000 scientists on your side and I line up 1500 on my side, I win. The history of science is rife with examples of the majority of scientists being wrong. It might even be argued that at the moment any scientific discovery is made, the person who makes the discovery is, DE facto, a minority of one. The majority of scientists once thought the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that human disease was caused by invisible gases or by imbalance of the "four elements", and scoffed at the notion of "germs". If we left science up to a vote and counted heads to determine what is true, we'd have never moved one inch beyond the stone age.
The real problem, though, is that it really doesn't take much information about the methods used by the "global warmists" (my term) for even a layman to recognize that they are far from conclusive, and in many cases their methods are highly questionable. And since there is an enormous cost to all of us (or, enormous flow of money to the "warmists") to do battle with this "problem" - if it is one - it only makes sense to get the science right rather than jumping off the deep end and starting a lot of things in process that might very well be entirely unnecessary. Before we get the villagers all up in arms with torches and pitchforks, let's bother to find out if there really is a dragon in the cave. So far, I'm afraid that the best we can say is that all we have is rumors and that no one has actually seen the dragon.
Let's not conflate global warming with alternative energy, though. Although there is some connection, they are really separate issues. If there is global warming, it seems now that some scientists think that worm flatulence causes more warming than hydrocarbons, so on that basis we should be attacking worms, not fossil fuels.
Certainly, we should be pursuing every realistic form of alternative energy, but for one simple reason which you have correctly stated: There is only so much fossil fuel of any kind in the ground. We're going to run out of it. This means that even if oil were clean and cheap as water, we must seek alternatives.
However, oil isn't as cheap as water, and we don't own most of it even if it were, so the second reason we must seek alternatives is that we cannot continue to send $billions to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us very much and who are using our own dollars to finance the operations of our enemies. It's simply madness to finance our own destruction.
Not even worth a reply -
Above was in reply to Hmmm (nm)
z
Thanks for your reply, Lurker
Thought I'd switch back over to this board.
Thanks for your reply to my question about your leaving Florida. It sounds like a big transition in many ways, both geographically and emotionally. I had inquired because I have similar thoughts myself and so far I keep moving farther and farther north and away from civilization. Anyway, good luck and it would be good to hear when you're settled in.
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking that the more...
moderate and even conservative leaning Independents might be swayed. Enough of them swayed to vote him back in as an Independent as a senator. I realize that is only one state, but there are others of like mind across the country who are pretty sick of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party...and McCain is more moderate, as is Lieberman...not hard right or hard left. That is very appealing to some people right now who are tired of the infighting and the extremes. I think Lieberman is VERY astute and realizes this.
As to the war in Iraq...both Clinton and Obama have said they would not be for immediate withdrawal of troops. The only candidate I have heard who said they would end the war immediately is Ron Paul. Which, I know is an unpopular stance you. The only thing I can say at this point is that for whatever reason we went...which we cannot change...we are there. And you can't unscramble eggs. We need to do the best fix we can in the shortest time possible, and Petraeus is doing that. Amazing strides have been made. Hopefully they will continue and we are able to get most of our forces out of there in a year or two. Which is better than the 5-6 years they used to talk about. And to me, that is an amazing stride.
At any rate, thanks for your answer. I won't hold my breath to hear you, DW, being criticized as a one-issue voter (you said that you would not vote for McCain because of his stand on the war). lol.
Have a great day!
short reply
So the success in Iraq apparently means nothing. Wow.
See me reply to your post.
nm
Typical lib reply
The name-calling. You wear it so well.... Classy, honey.
How many times are you going to reply
about my name, does it bother you this much? You really got too much time on your hands!
LOL! Good reply!!!
*
Just got a generic reply
lol go figure.
I got generic reply, too... sm
When I sent him an email of condolence on his grandmother's passing. Might not have been the proper place to send such an email, but I certainly didn't think I would get an email that told me where to go for answers about the "false and malicious emails" that were circulating about him. It even gave me a helpful link that revealed the "hidden attacks" of the McCain campaign. Very appropriate...NOT!
Thank you - just read your reply
Oh my gosh - I get so exacerbated trying to explain the same thing over and over. I can't understand what is so difficult to understand. Even my children who are in the 6th grade understand the situation and why it is important to defend and obey the Constitution. They said they like Obama(they think he's cute), but they said "Mom just cos your cute doesn't mean you can break the law". I guess the country is getting pretty bad when 6th graders understand right from wrong but adults do not.
P.S. - I don't have the patience to write anything more than what I do on this site.
Should be posted in reply to jm.
x
You should know a stupid reply...
How can Clinton by accused of something that didn't happen on his watch? I don't think being psychic is a job requirement to be president. Though I could be wrong...
What a witless reply. sm
You post, you're asking for replies. Don't post, you won't get replies. I can have my 5-year-old neighbor explain it to you in simple terms if you'd like.
Reply to ok, Trying to figure this out...
... I know we don't want to digress, but please stop blaming the fact that we have to resort to these measures on the current administration
Here’s what a lot of us believe: We don't 'have' to print or borrow money to buy our way out of this mess. That is the thing most people will not acknowledge. The mortgage crisis and the housing ‘bubble’ were caused by government meddling with Fannie/Freddie loan standards. That sent the whole house of cards tumbling and the cascade of threatened failures that resulted. More government meddling will not fix this. You cannot shore up a house of cards. It's still cards. It should have been allowed to fall and be rebuilt, even if that meant starting from the ground up. Sucks to be us.
Foolish people who bought too much house for their means must be allowed to lose them. Bad companies have to be allowed to fail. Bad politicians with worse ideas also should to be allowed to fail; I'm doing my part not to get in their way.
I don't think anyone can name three things government does as efficiently and/or cheaply as private industry. Now government will part owners in AIG, banks, and other failing concerns. Now government wants to control health care? And all of this - plus much more - was put in an 1100-page document nobody who voted on it could even read?
Even though this is all mostly a done deal, I still cannot go along with the can't-we-all-get-along; wait-and-see crowd. Of course we’ll all just have to ‘sweat it out’ now, what choice? This is so reminiscent of the FDR New Deal 70 years ago that I cannot believe we have learned nothing from history. What am I saying? Of course I can believe it. We’re still idiots!
Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:
‘We seldom know six weeks in advance, what we are going to do.’ ‘It is common sense, to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.’ FDR
Some of the things he tried:
National Recovery Act (fixed prices and wages). Forced smaller companies out of business, since lower wages and prices where the only way they could compete with big companies.
A law in Washington, DC, mandating a minimum monthly wage for women (only), resulting in women losing their jobs to men who were willing to work for much less than that guaranteed wage.
Agricultural Adjustment Act (subsidized farms by taking acreage out of production and fixed prices). Designed to curb overproduction and support prices. In reality production rose because farmers used their cash subsidies to buy fertilizer, and they had taken their worst acreage out of production anyway. They switched to the crops whose prices were guaranteed, hence, even more overproduction.
Works Progress Administration (to provide employment and improve infrastructure). Turned into a giant political patronage system to reward supporters with ‘shovel-leaning’ jobs and to punish detractors. To get most such jobs, you had to declare your political party, ‘vote right’ and ‘tithe’ to the D party.
Emergency Relief Act (made available to governors to assist the needy in their states). Since it was supported by huge tax increases, it all but shut off voluntary charitable contributions that traditionally went to the needy.
Excise taxes arbitrarily levied on a few luxury items of the rich such as yachts, furs and jewelry, but also on cars, gasoline, radios, cosmetics, cameras, bank checks, long-distance phone calls and movie tickets used by lower-income groups.
Tariffs on imported goods, which caused other countries to retaliate by taxing or not buying our goods and damaged our export business.
Top income tax bracket for the too-rich (only) 79% and the IRS was used as a weapon to harass and punish the wealthy, as well as critics of New Deal policies. Roosevelt was incensed that the wealthy (though he was born to wealth) used tax loopholes such as charitable deductions and business losses to legally avoid taxes, so he instructed the IRS and Congress to close them. Meanwhile, FDR himself used such loopholes to deduct the value of materials he donated for his own future presidential library. He took business losses and farm losses on his personal tax returns.
Roosevelt was one of those silver-spoon guys, subsidized by someone else’s money (his mother’s) his entire life. He failed repeatedly in businesses financed by family money. He had a solid record of picking losers; he thought the airplane was a fad. He had a lackluster academic career. Never held a ‘real’ job. His only talents were his personality and charisma.
Yes, FDR inherited the beginnings of the Great Depression from Herbert Hoover in 1933, but Roosevelt’s repeated ‘try something’ efforts to fix it kept it going until World War II.
Any of this starting to sound familiar? We’ve been at this exact pivotal point before and we are blowing it again. Elected another snake oil salesman. Way to go.
ok, please read my reply
to you closer to the top of this board this date. I personally am blaming him for using this situation as a power grab to insert himself into control over every aspect of our lives. Not like we don't have historical precident for all this, and how very badly it went.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
Reply to a Canadian
How long do you consider too long on wait times? I have alot of friends in Canada that complain all the time about how long it takes them to get in for diagnostic testing. An MRI of the knee = 6 months. An abnormal mammogram, ultrasound took = 3 months. And the stories go on and on. I worked in QA for about 8-years on one of the largest HMO's here in the US. One of our projects was a lesion tracking program for breast cancer. Our acceptable time frame which we entitled "sleepless nights" was 48 hours from time of an abnormal mammogram until the pt. had an ultrasound. I have worked in several imaging centers where an abnormality was found and additional tests were worked in that day. From everything I have heard from many of my friends in Canada, is that just doesn't happen there. A woman I know broke her leg skiing, and she spent 4 days on morphine before they could get it set, it was over a weekend and no ortho doc was available.
This is what makes me say NO to the type of healthcare system, it reminds me of our county systems here where you go and wait and wait for treatment.
my reply was for watcher', not for you.
Don't you know how to use this board?
Your reply does not seem referable to my post.
What you cite as your concerns in your post does not correlate to what I talked about in my post. Perhaps you are referring to some other posting.
just to say loved your reply...GREAT!
Then get in the mix and reply to Observers posts rather than
on the board, just as you have a right to post on the Conservative board. Moderator
Do you even read the posts you reply to?
If so, are you sure you comprehend them? You said, "I, personally, don't think it's the government's job to provide you a job you will love be it a manufacturing job or a higher level professional one." No one said anything about the government providing you with a job. She was talking about keeping a job you already have. A job that you may well love and want to do until the day you retire.
We worry about immigrants coming into our country and taking our jobs, and everyone in the government seems at least slightly concerned about this, yet the government has no problem off-shoring countless American jobs to other countries. Gee, what's wrong with that picture? It seems that our middle class is slipping into lower class, and the rich keep getting richer. Each man for himself seems to be the American way as of late, and some of us, many of us liberals, want to change that mentality. We need to look out for our working class.
Since I post in reply to other posts...
it would appear I am not the only one who has time to spend on a computer, though that has somehow escaped your attention. Monica moniker...cute. LOL.
|
