Ski_Banker
Suspended
Post comments below. Be sure that they meet the requisite standards for gov't criticism, and please double check that no one will be offended before posting.
Thanks kindly.
ski
Thanks kindly.
ski
Poll: How do you prefer your Socialist America?
- Thread starter Ski_Banker
- Start date
My Dad likes grits so I wasn't sure how to vote. 40 years at Boeing. A brother of the Yellowjackets. My Godfather was an OPEC Rep/Investor.
Most of his retirement is in CD's right now (stable (?)). About a 75/25 split (stocks/MF's filling the other part).
I trust my GF'er but want to make sure my Dad is good.
I...I'm in the wrong thread....aren't I?
Most of his retirement is in CD's right now (stable (?)). About a 75/25 split (stocks/MF's filling the other part).
I trust my GF'er but want to make sure my Dad is good.
I...I'm in the wrong thread....aren't I?
Ski_Banker
Suspended
My Dad likes grits so I wasn't sure how to vote. 40 years at Boeing. A brother of the Yellowjackets. My Godfather was an OPEC Rep/Investor.
Most of his retirement is in CD's right now (stable (?)). About a 75/25 split (stocks/MF's filling the other part).
I trust my GF'er but want to make sure my Dad is good.
I...I'm in the wrong thread....aren't I?
Huh???
You signature seems very applicable.
Huh???
You signature seems very applicable.
Like I said, I was sure I was in the wrong thread. A little buzzed on StP Day.
I thought you had investment knowledge, is why I was asking. That's why I said, maybe another thread.
Sorry, man. Just trying anything to correct a situation. My bad.
I like it better than Bush's Fascist America.
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
Give me all the greed and red meat you can muster.
Still going at it with your delusional view on GWB?
Hey, why don't you move to Canada or France if you treasure the socialism more than the good old USA trademarked capitalism? I'm sure the Canadians and the French will welcome you with open arms.
I didn't see a spot for my socialist "You f*cked us so we're going to f*ck you tax"?
Ski_Banker
Suspended
I really respect your views since most of your posts are quite thoughtful.
I should have put a N/A option in the poll. I guess I just didn't think there was much question about us moving towards socialism, so my satire took it as a given... :wink:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Me too! Nothing tastes better than retroactive punitive tax legislation, unless of course it's topped with a healthy portion of mexican trade protectionist salsa! Mmm spicy! :tongue:
Only 2%? You must have ordered the light version.
The funny thing is that I made the same tax comment to someone else about two weeks ago. And here today we find ourselves with just such a tax. Some context helps. :biggrin:
Given the financial sector's complete lack of concern for their shareholders and inflated costs for doing business, I'd say that socialist legislation is more reactionary than ideological at this point. But your tongue-in-cheek interpretations are duly noted. I hope mine was as well.
When do we get our free state-issued car??? (I think we get a choice between the Chevy Volt or the Chevy Impala E85 Flex Fuel) :biggrin:
I'm 99% sure we get our cars BEFORE we get out state-issued jobs.
Has anyone heard if we're going to have more than one color?
Ski_Banker
Suspended
:frown:
________________________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29866924/
Obama to meet bank CEOs about ‘obligations’
Will remind corporate leaders they must look beyond their own interests
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will meet with about a dozen top bank chief executives on Friday, including executives from JPMorgan & Co, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
The meeting will come just days after the U.S. Treasury Department provided details on a government plan to cleanse banks’ balance sheets of up to $1 trillion of distressed loans and securities.
The sources did not speak on the record because the White House has not yet announced the meeting.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
“President Obama will ... reiterate his belief that getting the economy back on track will require an understanding that each of us must look beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other in order for America to succeed,” a White House official said.
Obama was scheduled to hold a news conference on Tuesday evening to explain his economic strategy to a recession-weary public angry over executive bonuses and concerned about the government’s direction.
JPMorgan declined to comment. Spokespersons for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup were not immediately available for comment.
It was not immediately clear what Obama plans to discuss with the top executives, but financial firms have been raising concerns about the restrictions attached to government aid.
Goldman Sachs is prepared to pay back the U.S. government’s $10 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program investment as soon as allowed by regulators, a person familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.
A growing number of financial firms that have received aid from the $700 billion TARP have said they plan to repay the money after lawmakers tagged on extra restrictions involving executive pay and dividend policies.
Wells Fargo & Co Chairman Richard Kovacevich said earlier this month that had the bank not been forced to take $25 billion in government aid, it would have been able to raise private capital and perhaps avoid a later dividend cut.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp Chairman Sheila Bair said on Tuesday that banks should be allowed to repay TARP funds, saying that Treasury needs the resources and the government needs an exit strategy from the assistance it has provided to financial firms.
Bair said that banks who sell distressed assets as part of the government’s public-private partnership plan will not be subjected to TARP’s restrictions on executive compensation, dividends, and share repurchases.
Treasury officials also were careful to note that private investors who buy banks’ assets will not be subjected to executive compensation restrictions.
________________________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29866924/
Obama to meet bank CEOs about ‘obligations’
Will remind corporate leaders they must look beyond their own interests
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will meet with about a dozen top bank chief executives on Friday, including executives from JPMorgan & Co, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
The meeting will come just days after the U.S. Treasury Department provided details on a government plan to cleanse banks’ balance sheets of up to $1 trillion of distressed loans and securities.
The sources did not speak on the record because the White House has not yet announced the meeting.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
“President Obama will ... reiterate his belief that getting the economy back on track will require an understanding that each of us must look beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other in order for America to succeed,” a White House official said.
Obama was scheduled to hold a news conference on Tuesday evening to explain his economic strategy to a recession-weary public angry over executive bonuses and concerned about the government’s direction.
JPMorgan declined to comment. Spokespersons for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup were not immediately available for comment.
It was not immediately clear what Obama plans to discuss with the top executives, but financial firms have been raising concerns about the restrictions attached to government aid.
Goldman Sachs is prepared to pay back the U.S. government’s $10 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program investment as soon as allowed by regulators, a person familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.
A growing number of financial firms that have received aid from the $700 billion TARP have said they plan to repay the money after lawmakers tagged on extra restrictions involving executive pay and dividend policies.
Wells Fargo & Co Chairman Richard Kovacevich said earlier this month that had the bank not been forced to take $25 billion in government aid, it would have been able to raise private capital and perhaps avoid a later dividend cut.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp Chairman Sheila Bair said on Tuesday that banks should be allowed to repay TARP funds, saying that Treasury needs the resources and the government needs an exit strategy from the assistance it has provided to financial firms.
Bair said that banks who sell distressed assets as part of the government’s public-private partnership plan will not be subjected to TARP’s restrictions on executive compensation, dividends, and share repurchases.
Treasury officials also were careful to note that private investors who buy banks’ assets will not be subjected to executive compensation restrictions.
Good.
Dear President Obama,
Thank you for helping my neighbors with their mortgage payments.
You know, the ones who live down the street who in the good times
refinanced their house several times and bought SUV's, ATV's, RV's,
a pool, three HDTV's, an X-Box, two Wave Runners, new flooring for
their home, an enlarged patio, and a Harley.
Also, I was wondering, since I am paying my mortgage and theirs, could you
arrange for me to borrow the Harley now and then?
Richard Ford,
Queen Creek , AZ
P.S. They also need help with their credit cards, when do you want
me to start making those payments?
P.P.S. I almost forgot - they didn't file their income tax returnthis year.
Should I go ahead and file for them or will you be appointing them to
cabinet posts?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
Thank you for helping my neighbors with their mortgage payments.
You know, the ones who live down the street who in the good times
refinanced their house several times and bought SUV's, ATV's, RV's,
a pool, three HDTV's, an X-Box, two Wave Runners, new flooring for
their home, an enlarged patio, and a Harley.
Also, I was wondering, since I am paying my mortgage and theirs, could you
arrange for me to borrow the Harley now and then?
Richard Ford,
Queen Creek , AZ
P.S. They also need help with their credit cards, when do you want
me to start making those payments?
P.P.S. I almost forgot - they didn't file their income tax returnthis year.
Should I go ahead and file for them or will you be appointing them to
cabinet posts?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
Dear President Obama,
Thank you for helping my neighbors with their mortgage payments.
You know, the ones who live down the street who in the good times
refinanced their house several times and bought SUV's, ATV's, RV's,
a pool, three HDTV's, an X-Box, two Wave Runners, new flooring for
their home, an enlarged patio, and a Harley.
Also, I was wondering, since I am paying my mortgage and theirs, could you
arrange for me to borrow the Harley now and then?
Richard Ford,
Queen Creek , AZ
P.S. They also need help with their credit cards, when do you want
me to start making those payments?
P.P.S. I almost forgot - they didn't file their income tax returnthis year.
Should I go ahead and file for them or will you be appointing them to
cabinet posts?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ROTFLocopter
Budget Smoke and Mirrors: Where's the Outrage?
David Limbaugh
Friday, March 27, 2009
There has doubtlessly been great anxiety about the economy, but I think even greater anxiety exists over what President Barack Obama is doing and planning to do to this country. We've always had economic downturns, and we've always recovered, but we've never deliberately planned to spend ourselves into bankruptcy, from which we may not be able to recover.
True, our smorgasbord of entitlements has threatened our long-term solvency for some time, and reckless politicians have been negligent in refusing to reform them and, instead, have just created more. But Obama takes profligate spending to entirely new levels while pretending to be a fiscal hawk.
With all due respect to Mr. Obama, I don't recall ever seeing another president whine so much about the mess his predecessor left him, disgracing the motto of former Democratic President Harry Truman that "the buck stops here." Though childish and unpresidential, the worst part about it is that he's using it as a bogus justification to do much worse.
Seriously, how many times are we going to have to hear him say, "Republicans have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion annual deficit from them"?
Stop right there. This is grossly misleading on many levels. In the first place, President Bush's budget deficits were declining nicely each year before the subprime crisis hit in 2008 (fiscal year 2004: $412.7 billion; FY 2005: $318.3 billion; FY 2006: $248.2 billion; FY 2007: $160.7 billion; and FY 2008: $454.8 billion). Second, Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and thus share blame. Third, the 2009 budget, upward of $1.3 trillion, contained the extraordinary bailout and rescue expenditures, which Obama voted for. Fourth, eight months of this FY 2009 budget that Obama is blaming on President Bush will occur on Obama's watch (Jan. 20 through Oct. 1, 2009). Fifth, but most important, Obama is seeking to establish this atypical, artificially bloated FY 2009 as the new baseline from which his budgets should be compared, falsely implying that President Bush incrementally increased the deficit each year until it reached the annual figure of $1.3 trillion (the above numbers show the opposite) and that it will remain that high unless he -- Obama -- brings it down. Apparently smiling at our collective stupidity, he thus plans to disguise his increases in annual spending as decreases and take credit for cutting the budget in half by the end of his term.
When we cut through the smoke and mirrors, we see that Obama's plan is to ratchet up annualized spending to rates greatly exceeding President Bush's budgets. The Heritage Foundation reports that President Bush ran budget deficits that averaged $300 billion annually (see figures above), while Obama's are projected to average more than $600 billion, "even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq."
Obama also doesn't mention, and then dissembles when asked about it, that after his first term -- in the so-called out years -- his deficit numbers start rising even more precipitously, to some $1.2 trillion -- almost the level of FY 2009. All one really needs to do to understand Obama's unconscionable plan to bankrupt America is to look at a simple chart comparing his deficits with those of President Bush, prepared by The Heritage Foundation.
Obama should look at this egregious $1.3 trillion figure (some say it's substantially more than that) with horror, instantly promise never to allow it to happen again, and have extreme confidence he could fulfill that promise merely by cutting out the extraordinary items. But he's doing just the opposite, with fraud in the inducement and malice aforethought.
His ideology compels him to grow government exponentially, national deficits and debt be damned. Oh, sure, he tells us he has to spend these enormous amounts to stimulate the economy, but he knows the vast majority of his expenditures aren't even designed to stimulate the economy, and he's also aware that the economy will turn around anyway in due course, without government intermeddling on the spending side.
Adding insult to injury, he's claiming he's saving $2 trillion in spending, when the truth is that a great portion of these "savings" will result from withdrawing our troops from Iraq, which was also going to happen anyway. Another portion involves trillions of dollars in tax increases, which have never before been considered "savings." By the time he's done -- if he serves two terms -- he will have almost doubled the national debt, according to conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, and we're supposed to thank him for impoverishing and enslaving our children. This is what Obama calls "A New Era of Responsibility."
David Limbaugh
Friday, March 27, 2009
There has doubtlessly been great anxiety about the economy, but I think even greater anxiety exists over what President Barack Obama is doing and planning to do to this country. We've always had economic downturns, and we've always recovered, but we've never deliberately planned to spend ourselves into bankruptcy, from which we may not be able to recover.
True, our smorgasbord of entitlements has threatened our long-term solvency for some time, and reckless politicians have been negligent in refusing to reform them and, instead, have just created more. But Obama takes profligate spending to entirely new levels while pretending to be a fiscal hawk.
With all due respect to Mr. Obama, I don't recall ever seeing another president whine so much about the mess his predecessor left him, disgracing the motto of former Democratic President Harry Truman that "the buck stops here." Though childish and unpresidential, the worst part about it is that he's using it as a bogus justification to do much worse.
Seriously, how many times are we going to have to hear him say, "Republicans have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion annual deficit from them"?
Stop right there. This is grossly misleading on many levels. In the first place, President Bush's budget deficits were declining nicely each year before the subprime crisis hit in 2008 (fiscal year 2004: $412.7 billion; FY 2005: $318.3 billion; FY 2006: $248.2 billion; FY 2007: $160.7 billion; and FY 2008: $454.8 billion). Second, Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and thus share blame. Third, the 2009 budget, upward of $1.3 trillion, contained the extraordinary bailout and rescue expenditures, which Obama voted for. Fourth, eight months of this FY 2009 budget that Obama is blaming on President Bush will occur on Obama's watch (Jan. 20 through Oct. 1, 2009). Fifth, but most important, Obama is seeking to establish this atypical, artificially bloated FY 2009 as the new baseline from which his budgets should be compared, falsely implying that President Bush incrementally increased the deficit each year until it reached the annual figure of $1.3 trillion (the above numbers show the opposite) and that it will remain that high unless he -- Obama -- brings it down. Apparently smiling at our collective stupidity, he thus plans to disguise his increases in annual spending as decreases and take credit for cutting the budget in half by the end of his term.
When we cut through the smoke and mirrors, we see that Obama's plan is to ratchet up annualized spending to rates greatly exceeding President Bush's budgets. The Heritage Foundation reports that President Bush ran budget deficits that averaged $300 billion annually (see figures above), while Obama's are projected to average more than $600 billion, "even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq."
Obama also doesn't mention, and then dissembles when asked about it, that after his first term -- in the so-called out years -- his deficit numbers start rising even more precipitously, to some $1.2 trillion -- almost the level of FY 2009. All one really needs to do to understand Obama's unconscionable plan to bankrupt America is to look at a simple chart comparing his deficits with those of President Bush, prepared by The Heritage Foundation.
Obama should look at this egregious $1.3 trillion figure (some say it's substantially more than that) with horror, instantly promise never to allow it to happen again, and have extreme confidence he could fulfill that promise merely by cutting out the extraordinary items. But he's doing just the opposite, with fraud in the inducement and malice aforethought.
His ideology compels him to grow government exponentially, national deficits and debt be damned. Oh, sure, he tells us he has to spend these enormous amounts to stimulate the economy, but he knows the vast majority of his expenditures aren't even designed to stimulate the economy, and he's also aware that the economy will turn around anyway in due course, without government intermeddling on the spending side.
Adding insult to injury, he's claiming he's saving $2 trillion in spending, when the truth is that a great portion of these "savings" will result from withdrawing our troops from Iraq, which was also going to happen anyway. Another portion involves trillions of dollars in tax increases, which have never before been considered "savings." By the time he's done -- if he serves two terms -- he will have almost doubled the national debt, according to conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, and we're supposed to thank him for impoverishing and enslaving our children. This is what Obama calls "A New Era of Responsibility."
Ski_Banker
Suspended
See story below, regarding GM CEO Rick Wagoner's immediate resignation today. Which interpretation of this event do you subscribe to?
The Socialist: Rick Wagoner was ineffective as CEO and, buckling under the pressure of a massive failure, he suddenly quit. Nothing more.
The Capitalist: Rick Wagoner met this weekend with Obama, strongly disagreed with what the President told him to do (to return his business to profitability), and was forced to quit. GM's Board of Directors did not have a say in the matter. The gov't is now managing private (non-financial) businesses, and with each new "bailout" its list of public-private enterprises grows.
I report. You decide. :biggrin:
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29946290/
GM boss to step down at White House request
Move comes day before Obama announcement on automaker restructuring
The Socialist: Rick Wagoner was ineffective as CEO and, buckling under the pressure of a massive failure, he suddenly quit. Nothing more.
The Capitalist: Rick Wagoner met this weekend with Obama, strongly disagreed with what the President told him to do (to return his business to profitability), and was forced to quit. GM's Board of Directors did not have a say in the matter. The gov't is now managing private (non-financial) businesses, and with each new "bailout" its list of public-private enterprises grows.
I report. You decide. :biggrin:
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29946290/
GM boss to step down at White House request
Move comes day before Obama announcement on automaker restructuring
I thought he was "asked" to step down if he wants the money. Obama is going to put one of his pal in charge.
Similar threads
