Obama... JFWY!

[mach_u]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93CFATG0 :rolleyes:

Cliff Notes:

Most all of his social program going by the way side - instead plans to drop 700 Billion $$$ of our money on bailouts
Biden & Obama can't get their act together to agree on the issue.


Most politicians wait to get in office before they renege on all they promises... at least he was nice enough to do so before the election! :lol:

[cobrajoe]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93CFATG0 :rolleyes:

Cliff Notes:

Most all of his social program going by the way side - instead plans to drop 700 Billion $$$ of our money on bailouts
Biden & Obama can't get their act together to agree on the issue.


Most politicians wait to get in office before they renege on all they promises... at least he was nice enough to do so before the election! :lol:

That's Bush and company's JACKASS move! Just another way to make sure the CEO's get their GOLDEN Parachute and the working stiff's get ram rodded AGAIN!
Just remember if he's saying he might not be able to do the stuff he wanted, what makes McCain think he's gonna have any money to do anything?:eek:

[mach_u]

That's Bush and company's JACKASS move! Just another way to make sure the CEO's get their GOLDEN Parachute and the working stiff's get ram rodded AGAIN!
Just remember if he's saying he might not be able to do the stuff he wanted, what makes McCain think he's gonna have any money to do anything?:eek:
Did you even read the article? :rolleyes: "McCain said taxpayers shouldn't be "on the hook" for AIG or any other corporation." Biden wholeheartedly agreed, then retracted his statement when he realized his running mate didn't share the same sentiment. Basically Obama is supporting Bush's plan to poor Billions of our hard earned dollars into businesses who have had poor management, in a hope that it will revive them and Obama is all for it AND at a cost to all of his bloated social programs he had suggested. :rolleyes:

[04 Venom]

With discretionary spending representing only about 21% of the federal budget, the promises of any candidate concerning new programs should always be viewed with scepticism at best and more likely incredulity. This is the first election cycle that I can remember that neither major party candidate promises to balance the budget. The massive budget deficits and growth in spending during the 8 years of the Bush administration pretty much demolishes the Republican Party claim, erroneous as that may be in fact, as the party of fiscal restraint. Even prior to whatever bailout is agreed to be Congress, each family's share of the national debt is now $80,000. Will that be cash or credit card sir/madam?

[mach_u]

The massive budget deficits and growth in spending during the 8 years of the Bush administration pretty much demolishes the Republican Party claim, erroneous as that may be in fact, as the party of fiscal restraint. Even prior to whatever bailout is agreed to be Congress, each family's share of the national debt is now $80,000. Will that be cash or credit card sir/madam?
I agree 100%. My absolute biggest complaint about Bush, has been his utter lack of fiscal responsibility(followed up by his inability to secure our damn borders)! We are so far in the hole, it's ridiculous. The worse thing is, most of our debtors can't stand us! :mad: I've said it once, I'll say it again - we need to cut the size of our government and it's fat drastically!

[04 Venom]

Did you even read the article? :rolleyes: "McCain said taxpayers shouldn't be "on the hook" for AIG or any other corporation." Biden wholeheartedly agreed, then retracted his statement when he realized his running mate didn't share the same sentiment. Basically Obama is supporting Bush's plan to poor Billions of our hard earned dollars into businesses who have had poor management, in a hope that it will revive them and Obama is all for it AND at a cost to all of his bloated social programs he had suggested. :rolleyes:

Do you really believe that McCain will not support it? He is posturing and playing the "maverick"; he knows damn well that there is no choice now. The time for alternative action came and went long ago. There will be restrictions on CEO pay for any company that is subject to the bailout and everyone will claim a moral victory and pass the bill. Why? Because the prospect of of a several thousand point drop in the Dow in a very short period of time will cause more panic among the public than the outrage that currently exists over the bailout. Think of your 401(k) dropping to half its value over the next 12-18 months and what do you think the public will find more objectionable? Remember, McCain was for financial deregulation before he was against it (to paraphrase the soundbite the Republicans used effectively against Kerry in 2004).

[04 Venom]

My absolute biggest complaint about Bush, has been his utter lack of fiscal responsibility(followed up by his inability to secure our damn borders)! drastically!

As much as I dislike George the Conqueror, I can't blame him for the amount of illegal immigration that crosses the border. I believe the blame rests first with employers and secondly with local,state and federal governments who look the other way. Why do emplyers want illegal immigrants working for them? They can pay them minimum wage (sometimes less) and the employers know that they will not file complaints with government agencies over their working conditions or job safety; they won't join unions; they will not file workers compensation claims if they are injured on the job; and, the don't file unemployment claims. So, in many respects there is a financial incentive to employ illegal immigrants.

Well what about laws that require documentation before you hire someone and the civil and criminal penalties employers are subject to if they are caught with undocumented immigrants on their payroll? Fine in theory, but it doesn't happen in reality. Here's how employers insulate themselves from liability--they sign a contract with a temp agency or labor broker and they become the legal employer of the undocumented workers and they are responsible for "checking" the documentation. If the employer gets raided by INS, they express "shock and surprise" that undocumented workers are on the premises and they fire the labor broker. If the INS goes after the labor broker, they go out of business (and start up a new company under a different name and with a relative listed as the owner). This is what happened with ABX a few years ago when they were raided and several hundred workers were arrested and deported. The legal employer was a labor broker in Tennessee and his "office" was a P.O box. Does anyone believe that companies don't know what they are getting? Sure there are a few highly publicized prosecutions to make it appear that the law is being enforced, but do you think the practice would stop, if the CEOs and high level managers were routinely fined and incarcerated? Hell yeah, it would.

Why would government not go after employers? They get the payroll taxes the same as if the are legal employees and they generally don't use public services as much as legal residents. Also, let's not overlook the political contributions that are affected if law enforcement officers start arresting the real persons responsible. Finally, there is the fact that undocumented workers pay about $15 billion dollars annually into Social Security, which they will never collect.

So illegal immigration is injected in a variety of political campaigns, but not much ever happens does it? Sort of like promises to balance the budget. Stange isn't it?

[02mingryGT]

With discretionary spending representing only about 21% of the federal budget, the promises of any candidate concerning new programs should always be viewed with scepticism at best and more likely incredulity. This is the first election cycle that I can remember that neither major party candidate promises to balance the budget. The massive budget deficits and growth in spending during the 8 years of the Bush administration pretty much demolishes the Republican Party claim, erroneous as that may be in fact, as the party of fiscal restraint. Even prior to whatever bailout is agreed to be Congress, each family's share of the national debt is now $80,000. Will that be cash or credit card sir/madam?


I agree 100%. My absolute biggest complaint about Bush, has been his utter lack of fiscal responsibility(followed up by his inability to secure our damn borders)! We are so far in the hole, it's ridiculous. The worse thing is, most of our debtors can't stand us! :mad: I've said it once, I'll say it again - we need to cut the size of our government and it's fat drastically!

Both of you need to read this commentary. the only thing Bush or ANY President is responsible for in a budget is signing it. He doesn't MAKE it. The DEMOCRAT led Congress is responsible for the budget for the last two years.


Stubborn Ignorance



Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people -- who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit -- ignorant, stupid or deceptive?



Did President Clinton create more jobs, or did President Bush? Let's look at it. In 1996, I landed a job at Grove City College team teaching a course with one of its faculty members, Professor Dirk Mateer. I would like someone to tell me how President Clinton created that job for me. Did he call the college president and say, "Hire Williams"? Did he give Grove City College, a private college, resources to hire me? He surely didn't call me up and say, "Williams, there's a job waiting for you at Grove City College." So what precisely do people mean when they say this president or that president created jobs? You might argue, "You're right when it comes to a president creating jobs, but Congress can create jobs through appropriating money for infrastructure such as highways and bridges."



That's true in one sense and false in another. You can see this by asking, "Where does Congress get the money to create the jobs?" They won't get it from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus; they must get the money from taxpayers. That means if Congress collects $100 from a taxpayer for highway construction, he cannot use that $100 for some other expenditure that would have created a job. If Congress borrows the money for highway construction, it causes interest rates to be higher and therefore less job-creating investment. The bottom line is that Congress can only shift employment or unemployment but cannot create net new jobs.



Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk "no doc" and "liar loans," in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble.



The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future. English philosopher Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."



Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

[02mingryGT]

As much as I dislike George the Conqueror, I can't blame him for the amount of illegal immigration that crosses the border. I believe the blame rests first with employers and secondly with local,state and federal governments who look the other way. Why do emplyers want illegal immigrants working for them? They can pay them minimum wage (sometimes less) and the employers know that they will not file complaints with government agencies over their working conditions or job safety; they won't join unions; they will not file workers compensation claims if they are injured on the job; and, the don't file unemployment claims. So, in many respects there is a financial incentive to employ illegal immigrants.

Totally agree with the above. I work for Lund International who is moving my division, Nifty Products to ATL to be absorbed by Auto VentShade. Out of AVS's 400+ employees my guess is 350 are illegals. These illegals however are from Vietnam not Mexico. These guys can't speak English at all. So remember that the next time you buy Lund International products. They are are made by an illegal workforce that forced legal Americans out of a job. And in case anyone is wondering, we made 25.7% profit from our location in Hamilton. The move was done for pure greed by the holding company who bought Lund in Dec 07.

[cstreu1026]

Do you really believe that McCain will not support it? He is posturing and playing the "maverick"; he knows damn well that there is no choice now. The time for alternative action came and went long ago. There will be restrictions on CEO pay for any company that is subject to the bailout and everyone will claim a moral victory and pass the bill. Why? Because the prospect of of a several thousand point drop in the Dow in a very short period of time will cause more panic among the public than the outrage that currently exists over the bailout. Think of your 401(k) dropping to half its value over the next 12-18 months and what do you think the public will find more objectionable? Remember, McCain was for financial deregulation before he was against it (to paraphrase the soundbite the Republicans used effectively against Kerry in 2004).

Have you listened to anything that has been said on the subject by McCain or the other republicans who were in the meetings yesterday? The video I saw sure doesn't make it look likely to pass. This is also the perfect oppurtuniuty for McCcain and the other republicans in Congress to distance themselves from Bush without siding with the Democrats.

[04 Venom]

Have you listened to anything that has been said on the subject by McCain or the other republicans who were in the meetings yesterday? The video I saw sure doesn't make it look likely to pass. This is also the perfect oppurtuniuty for McCcain and the other republicans in Congress to distance themselves from Bush without siding with the Democrats.

I have. It seems to me that it is designed for public consumption and not an indication of what really is happening.

If there is no bailout, what is likely to happen is what occurred in Japan in the early 90s. Japanese real estae went through an even bigger speculative cycle than here. The value of real estate in Tokoyo in 1990 was higher than the entire state of California! Banks in Japan lent heavily with real estate as collateral. The real estate market collapsed and banks were held with huge number of non-performaing loans that they couldn't collect. The banks began to fail and the Japanese Nikkei average crashed from 39,000 to 13,000 in short order. It took over a decade for the Japanese economy to begin to recover and the Nikkei still trades in the 13,000 to 16,000 range 18 years later. In 1989, the Japanese stock market was 60% of the entire world market.

Voting down a "bailout" would have an even more severe efffect on the US stock market. It would collapse and take every major index with it. Like it or not, some form a bailout will happen regardless of what McCain said yesterday and he knows it.

[04 Venom]

Both of you need to read this commentary. the only thing Bush or ANY President is responsible for in a budget is signing it. He doesn't MAKE it. The DEMOCRAT led Congress is responsible for the budget for the last two years.


Stubborn Ignorance



Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people -- who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit -- ignorant, stupid or deceptive?



Did President Clinton create more jobs, or did President Bush? Let's look at it. In 1996, I landed a job at Grove City College team teaching a course with one of its faculty members, Professor Dirk Mateer. I would like someone to tell me how President Clinton created that job for me. Did he call the college president and say, "Hire Williams"? Did he give Grove City College, a private college, resources to hire me? He surely didn't call me up and say, "Williams, there's a job waiting for you at Grove City College." So what precisely do people mean when they say this president or that president created jobs? You might argue, "You're right when it comes to a president creating jobs, but Congress can create jobs through appropriating money for infrastructure such as highways and bridges."



That's true in one sense and false in another. You can see this by asking, "Where does Congress get the money to create the jobs?" They won't get it from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus; they must get the money from taxpayers. That means if Congress collects $100 from a taxpayer for highway construction, he cannot use that $100 for some other expenditure that would have created a job. If Congress borrows the money for highway construction, it causes interest rates to be higher and therefore less job-creating investment. The bottom line is that Congress can only shift employment or unemployment but cannot create net new jobs.



Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk "no doc" and "liar loans," in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble.



The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future. English philosopher Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."



Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

We all know that appropriation bills originate in the House. I cannot speak for AJ, but what I was referring to as Bush's lack of fiscal discipline is simple. He did not veto one appropriation bill while the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate until 2006. The mere threat of a veto on three occasions in 2008 led to Congress scaling back several appropriations that exceeded Bush's budget request. The lack of fiscal sense on Bush's part is also demonstrated by his budget requests since becoming President. HIS budgets represented the largest percentage growth increases in federal spending since Reagan was President in the early 1980s.

I read Walter Williams' column in the Enquirer regularly. His reasoning in the quoted excerpt is bizarre to say the least. To blame the government for everything bad, as he does repeatedly, is bullshit to put it mildly. Not that the federal government does not share blame for the current mess. But, the government did not cause mortgage brokers to issue loans that they knew were shaky even before the real estate market began to tank. The government did not invite appraisers to overstate the value of a property to make it qualify for a loan. The government did not tell the financial rating firms to grade mortgage loans as investment grade when they were not. The government did not force individuals to sign loans that they did not read and did not understand. The government did not invent such financial schemes as collateralized debt obligations,hedge funds, REITS or stripping mortgages and repackaging them to enhance their book value. The government did not encourage investors to "short" a company's stock and then sell the underlying stock to cover the short position. Yet all these contributed to the current crisis far more than the government's failure to see the warning signs three years ago.

Williams column is another example of simple answers for complex problems.

[04 Venom]

I work for Lund International who is moving my division, Nifty Products to ATL to be absorbed by Auto VentShade. Out of AVS's 400+ employees my guess is 350 are illegals.

The sense of frustration must be overwhelming.

[02mingryGT]

The sense of frustration must be overwhelming.

I'd say it's more annoying than anything. But i got plans for them :lol:

[Stangman]

I'd say it's more annoying than anything. But i got plans for them :lol:

Do tell! :bigthumb

[02mingryGT]

We all know that appropriation bills originate in the House. I cannot speak for AJ, but what I was referring to as Bush's lack of fiscal discipline is simple. He did not veto one appropriation bill while the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate until 2006. The mere threat of a veto on three occasions in 2008 led to Congress scaling back several appropriations that exceeded Bush's budget request. The lack of fiscal sense on Bush's part is also demonstrated by his budget requests since becoming President. HIS budgets represented the largest percentage growth increases in federal spending since Reagan was President in the early 1980s.

But, the government did not cause mortgage brokers to issue loans that they knew were shaky even before the real estate market began to tank. The government did not invite appraisers to overstate the value of a property to make it qualify for a loan. The government did not tell the financial rating firms to grade mortgage loans as investment grade when they were not. The government did not force individuals to sign loans that they did not read and did not understand. The government did not invent such financial schemes as collateralized debt obligations,hedge funds, REITS or stripping mortgages and repackaging them to enhance their book value. The government did not encourage investors to "short" a company's stock and then sell the underlying stock to cover the short position. Yet all these contributed to the current crisis far more than the government's failure to see the warning signs three years ago.

Williams column is another example of simple answers for complex problems.

I think he's closer to the mark than you give him credit for. The overlying problem is with the greed of the loan originators and on up. The way I see it no one had anything to lose because of the government backing of the loans, so everyone got greedy. And who started the process? The government, by creating a program to give those who would otherwise not have a chance to get a loan the opportunity. I don't think that the originators of the policy expected the end result but it is a perfect example why the government should not be involved in the mortgage business or any other business for that matter.

[bestracing]

The way I see it no one had anything to lose because of the government backing of the loans, so everyone got greedy. And who started the process? The government, by creating a program to give those who would otherwise not have a chance to get a loan the opportunity. I don't think that the originators of the policy expected the end result but it is a perfect example why the government should not be involved in the mortgage business or any other business for that matter.

:bigthumb Very true. My wife worked in the sub-prime industry and there were no programs out there that was not regulated by the Fed.