So, you don't equate Obama with economy?
Posted By: then what's your concern? nm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Every hour you spend trashing O is one less hour - You have to address the economy. sm
xx
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
Don't try to blame the economy on Obama.
The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the so-called "legitimate" President Bush, who continues to make sure that he and his buds on Wall Street squeeze every penny from middle-class and lower-middle-class people.
As I write this, Bush is in a frenzy, changing laws in order to make Obama's job harder and American lives LESS safe. (See article below.) So there's a LOT of harm that Bush has caused that needs to be undone by President Obama, assuming that Obama can find all of it, considering secret signing statements, etc. that Bush has used to thumb his nose at Congress for the last eight years. The economy is probably the biggest problem at the moment, and that's a gift TO Obama and the American people FROM Bush and his Wall Street BFFs.
Bush aides push for rule to hamper worker health protections
11/29/2008 @ 6:59 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
Bush administration aides are rushing to pass a safety rule which would make government regulation of workers' exposure to toxic chemicals more difficult; a rule President-elect Barack Obama opposes.
Public health officials worry the decreased protections will result in additional, unnecessary deaths.
It is just one of about 20 controversial Labor Department proposals being pushed by large business interests, according to a published report.
Other proposals would allow power plants to be built closer to parks and wildlife preserves, and further limit the role of environmental and animal experts in determining where major infrastructure projects may be carried out.
President-elect Obama has long been critical of the Bush administration's removal of workplace protections. During the campaign, Obama co-sponsored legislation which would prohibit this specific deregulation.
While presidents have the authority to unilaterally repeal their predecessor's executive orders, the process to remove or add regulations is more complicated and takes longer. Obama has already undertaken a review of President Bush's executive orders, with the stated goal being the repeal of those he deems to be unconstitutional.
"I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country," said John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team. "I think that’’s a mistake."
Obama's plan will KILL our economy. You think
nm
R. Murdock on the economy if Obama wins
This would not only affect our economy, but also the economy of other countries. I learned something new.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081101041202.azy6f08j&show_article=1
The economy crashed before Obama was sworn in..
It is Bush's fault all of this happened - it was under his watch. He tossed this bag of feces on Obama's front porch. He created this mess and walked away to his new mansion. A British economist told FDR to spend his way to prosperity to get us out of the great depression. FDR came up with the WPA, TVA, Work Project......and it put people to work and we emerged from the great depression. You are going to blame Obama when he has been in office for what? Three weeks? Get real. I don't suppose most posters on this board have any idea what can be done, but at least Obama is trying which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for Bush. HE DID NOTHING BUT DESTROY. Too bad McCain couldn't carry on his legacy, right?
Uh-oh. Obama is directy addressing rescue plan for the economy. .
In the absence of a direct response from the bankrupt McCain campaign, dems better take cover and ride out the next avalanche of hate speech that looms on the horizon.
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
More doom and gloom, and more campaign promises will not be kept.
Is it just me, or does our President Elect look less and less, with each passing day, like the man that so many put into this office....and more and more like the rest of knew him to be?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, January 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
Tackling the troubled economy is going to require Americans to sacrifice - and it means some campaign promises will have to be put on hold, President-elect Barack Obama says.
"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" set to air this morning.
Obama's comments came as the President-elect, who takes office Jan. 20, responded to a new national unemployment report by saying in his weekly address Saturday that he'll save or create 3 million to 4 million new jobs.
"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work and making things that we have more efficient," Obama said on ABC. "I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."
Obama agreed that his administration is going to involve some version of a "grand bargain" - changes in areas like tax reform, Social Security and Medicare will come at a cost.
Addressing the nation as his team released figures on the job situation, Obama said in his weekly radio and video address that 90% of the jobs will be created in the private sector. The remainder are "mainly public sector jobs" such as teachers, cops and firefighters.
The report released by Obama's team Saturday projected the creation of 678,000 new construction jobs and 408,000 manufacturing jobs by next year under an estimated $775 billion stimulus plan.
Among the sources of the new jobs Obama cited: designing more efficient cars and building solar panels, infrastructure roles such as repairing roads and bridges, and jobs in the health care and education sectors.
Obama said economists predict that if Congress doesn't agree on a large-scale stimulus plan, the U.S. will shed as many as 4 million jobs before the recession comes to an end.
Obama also vowed to procure "bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage" and a $1,000 tax cut for 95% of working families.
"Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better," Obama warned.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_some_obama_campaign_promises_are_put_on_-1.html
Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy (sm)
Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy
By MATT APUZZO – 22 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.
The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.
Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.
In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.
"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."
The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.
Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.
"That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it," said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."
Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.
"Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate," McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.
The festivities began Saturday with a speech at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street train as Obama's trip began.
Sunday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes performances by Sheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, Garth Brooks and others. Denzel Washington and Queen Latifah will read historic passages. HBO paid $2.5 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast the concert.
Monday, the inaugural committee is hosting a national day of service, followed by three "bipartisan dinners" and a concert at the Verizon Center honoring military families. The Disney Channel will broadcast the concert, which includes performances by teen stars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, as part of a $2 million deal that also gave ABC the exclusive rights to broadcast one inaugural ball.
The television deals allowed the committee to recoup about $5 million of the $15 million production costs for the televised events, Douglass said.
Security and transportation costs are being paid by taxpayers. And with millions of tourists expected to descend on Washington for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, Bush declared a state of emergency, allowing the district to recover some costs for the event.
The inauguration committee is paying for 10 stadium-style screens to broadcast the inauguration ceremony on the National Mall. It is also hiring garbage and recycling services and renting thousands of portable toilets for what one supplier called "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States."
Obama has pledged transparency in his inauguration fundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.
Many of the fundraisers are well-known moneymen and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include two of Obama's top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i3aj2L6rRy-2tP3IeVNiC5_wh8SwD95P263O0
Cannot equate the two.
How would he decide on which ones to attend?
Some families would be offended as every loss is equal.
However, the President's job is to run the country not attend funerals. Did Nixon or Johnson attend any of the funerals for Vietnam? Did Clinton for Somalia? I don't think this is an appropriate question at this time, or really any time. How do you choose?
I don't think you can equate the two. (Long - sorry)
A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency endangering the lives of both mother and embryo. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not yet provide any capacity to salvage the embryo, but the mother can be saved by removal of the blocked tube or removal of the embryo from the tube.
I've read articles describing nontubal ectopic intraabdominal pregnancies in which the embryo was able to implant near a blood-rich source such as the liver; in this rare instance, the fetus could be maintained long enough for successful delivery via laparotomy. If that were the case, I would certainly try to maintain the pregnancy for as long as possible to allow the fetus to reach viability. Interesting article here about an abdominal pregnancy not diagnosed until 38 weeks gestation - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v41/ai_8773331.
Just as a side note, the Catholic Church, which is officially staunchly anti-abortion despite the behavior of some of its members, makes an interesting distinction in terms of tubal pregnancies. It is considered morally licit - okay - to treat a tubal pregnancy with salpingectomy because the death of the embryo is considered an unfortunate side-effect but not the intent of the intervention, which is to remove the blocked section of tube to prevent rupture. The use of methotrexate to induce passage of the embryo, however, is considered illicit because this is considered to imply a direct intent to kill/abort the embryo. I've never been able to see a moral difference between the two, as the fetus cannot survive and either option saves the mother. Does anyone here believe one is more morally correct than the other?
You equate infertility with being gay?
nm
First of all, you cannot equate gun ownership with abortion. sm
It's like the analogy above about a wart and a child. It's by pidgeon holding abortion in these terms that legal abortion was passed in the first place. Abortion is not a *right* in my opinion. It is murder. Since when does anyone have the right to murder another human being? Oh, I know, life doesn't start until the first breath. Well, that's your belief. The fact that God may not have willed the way a person came into the world, does not mean He has not planned a purpose for that individual. Long before anyone is conceived, God’s purpose for that life is foreseen.
Exactly, you don't equate future president with
xx
sounds like you equate belief with fanaticism.
x
No, I equate him with a false teacher/leader
xx
Here's another one regarding the economy.
And you're right. Some people do. 
|
Falling gasoline prices have led to some improvement in consumer confidence over the past few weeks. But the public remains deeply unhappy about the state of the economy. According to the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans rate the economy as only fair or poor, and by 58 to 36 percent people say economic conditions are getting worse, not better.
Yet by some measures, the economy is doing reasonably well. In particular, gross domestic product is rising at a pretty fast clip. So why aren't people pleased with the economy's performance?
Like everything these days, this is a political as well as factual question. The Bush administration seems genuinely puzzled that it isn't getting more credit for what it thinks is a booming economy. So let me be helpful here and explain what's going on.
I could point out that the economic numbers, especially the job numbers, aren't as good as the Bush people imagine. President Bush made an appearance in the Rose Garden to hail the latest jobs report, yet a gain of 215,000 jobs would have been considered nothing special - in fact, a bit subpar - during the Clinton years. And because the average workweek shrank a bit, the total number of hours worked actually fell last month.
But the main explanation for economic discontent is that it's hard to convince people that the economy is booming when they themselves have yet to see any benefits from the supposed boom. Over the last few years G.D.P. growth has been reasonably good, and corporate profits have soared. But that growth has failed to trickle down to most Americans.
Back in August the Census bureau released family income data for 2004. The report, which was overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina, showed a remarkable disconnect between overall economic growth and the economic fortunes of most American families.
It should have been a good year for American families: the economy grew 4.2 percent, its best performance since 1999. Yet most families actually lost economic ground. Real median household income - the income of households in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation - fell for the fifth year in a row. And one key source of economic insecurity got worse, as the number of Americans without health insurance continued to rise.
We don't have comparable data for 2005 yet, but it's pretty clear that the results will be similar. G.D.P. growth has remained solid, but most families are probably losing ground as their earnings fail to keep up with inflation.
Behind the disconnect between economic growth and family incomes lies the extremely lopsided nature of the economic recovery that officially began in late 2001. The growth in corporate profits has, as I said, been spectacular. Even after adjusting for inflation, profits have risen more than 50 percent since the last quarter of 2001. But real wage and salary income is up less than 7 percent.
There are some wealthy Americans who derive a large share of their income from dividends and capital gains on stocks, and therefore benefit more or less directly from soaring profits. But these people constitute a small minority. For everyone else the sluggish growth in wages is the real story. And much of the wage and salary growth that did take place happened at the high end, in the form of rising payments to executives and other elite employees. Average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than when the recovery began.
So there you have it. Americans don't feel good about the economy because it hasn't been good for them. Never mind the G.D.P. numbers: most people are falling behind.
It's much harder to explain why. The disconnect between G.D.P. growth and the economic fortunes of most American families can't be dismissed as a normal occurrence. Wages and median family income often lag behind profits in the early stages of an economic expansion, but not this far behind, and not for so long. Nor, I should say, is there any easy way to place more than a small fraction of the blame on Bush administration policies. At this point the joylessness of the economic expansion for most Americans is a mystery.
What's clear, however, is that advisers who believe that Mr. Bush can repair his political standing by making speeches telling the public how well the economy is doing have misunderstood the situation. The problem isn't that people don't understand how good things are. It's that they know, from personal experience, that things really aren't that good. |
The economy. It's not going anywhere
counting.
Economy going down is right.
work for, the largest transcription company in the US, is now paying us for ASR, 60% and others will get straight 4 cents a line.
Actually, no, not the economy....(sm)
I was actually referring to Pelosi and her power grab, cutting off all GOP opposition, behind closed doors, that no one will ever hear about again, from the other day.
And did you catch Barney Frank today on the retroactive rules on the TARP?
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/tarp/2009/01/09/169663.html?utm_medium=RSS
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
What I am doing to help the economy
1. I pray for this country and the president every day.
2. I'm not constantly complaining about everything.
3. I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.
4. I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.
5. I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.
I did not vote for President Obama. I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part. No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.
Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are. So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American. I would also advise getting some debt management help.
So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive. I have found that this helps me a lot.
Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other. Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.
Please take Economy 101
Your pathetic little woe-is-me mentality is the problem with the economy.
Wake up, eejit. The 'rich' people are the ones paying all the taxes. The runts at the bottom - you know - the ones so unintelligent or unmotivated to make it in the world - pay no taxes and suck all the money out of the country.
No country ever got anywhere by taking down the successful people and raising up the ingrates. In America, you can get rich if you want to. But you have to work for it. If you don't have the guts or the self-motivation, you get to live according to your own means.
Suck it up.
The Economy
The Economy - Not the President - is Tanking the Market
by: Hale Stewart
One of the more ridiculous statements going around over the last few weeks is "this is an Obama bear market." This statement is, well, ill-informed at best and fraudulent at worst. Let's look at why.
First -- who is saying this? Such economic luminaries as John Hawkins at Right Wing News (who actually asked Is Obama Deliberately Tanking the Stock Market?), Powerline, Brit Hume along with a host of other right wing bloggers. What all of these people have in common is their incessant chearleading during the Bush years despite mounting evidence of an upcoming recession. There are the same people who argued that ... housing is a small part of the economy ... most people are paying their mortgages ... the US economy will decouple from the rest of the world .... it's the greatest story never told ..... you get the idea. Simply put, these are people who have distinguished themselves by being some of the best contrary indicators around.
Secondly, the SPYs -- the tracking ETF for the S&P 500 -- dropped from (roughly) 155 in the summer of 2007 to (roughly) 85 at the end of last year. Yet I don't remember any of them saying that was the Bush bear market -- even though that's a drop of roughly 43%. No -- it's the new President that's causing the problems. In addition, when Bush took office the SPYs dropped from roughly 130 at the begging of 2001 to 85 in the fourth quarter of 2002. Yet somehow I don't think any of them blamed Bush's policies for the drop. Then it was the "lasting effects of the Clinton recession" or something similar.
What all of these idiots are forgetting is the simple fact that the economy is the backdrop of the stock market. When the economy does well the stock market does well. When the economy doesn't do well, the stock market doesn't do well. And to that end, the economy isn't doing well right now. Let's look at some recent news events.
From the BEA:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008,(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by theBureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.
From the BLS:
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
From the Federal Reserve:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity; the exceptions were Philadelphia and Chicago, which reported that their regional economies "remained weak." The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various Districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010.
Consumer spending remained sluggish on net, although many Districts noted some improvement in January and February compared with a dismal holiday spending season. Travel and tourist activity fell noticeably in key destinations, as did activity for a wide range of nonfinancial services, with substantial job cuts noted in many instances. Reports on manufacturing activity suggested steep declines in activity in some sectors and pronounced declines overall. Conditions weakened somewhat for agricultural producers and substantially for extractors of natural resources, with reduced global demand cited as an underlying determinant in both cases. Markets for residential real estate remained largely stagnant, with only minimal and scattered signs of stabilization emerging in some areas, while demand for commercial real estate weakened significantly. Reports from banks and other financial institutions indicated further drops in business loan demand, a slight deterioration in credit quality for businesses and households, and continued tight credit availability.
From the FDIC:
Expenses associated with rising loan losses and declining asset values overwhelmed revenues in the fourth quarter of 2008, producing a net loss of $26.2 billion at insured commercial banks and savings institutions. This is the first time since the fourth quarter of 1990 that the industry has posted an aggregate net loss for a quarter. The ?0.77 percent quarterly return on assets (ROA) is the worst since the ?1.10 percent in the second quarter of 1987. A year ago, the industry reported $575 million in profits and an ROA of 0.02 percent. High expenses for loan-loss provisions, sizable losses in trading accounts, and large writedowns of goodwill and other assets all contributed to the industry's net loss. A few very large losses were reported during the quarter-four institutions accounted for half of the total industry loss-but earnings problems were widespread. Almost one out of every three institutions (32 percent) reported a net loss in the fourth quarter. Only 36 percent of institutions reported year-over-year increases in quarterly earnings, and only 34 percent reported higher quarterly ROAs.
I could go on, but you you get the idea. The news of the underlying economy has been terrible (at best). And that's what's causing the problems.
The economy had nothing to do with ........
his jumping to grow BIG and BIGGER government; he was going to do that regardless of the economy. Obama is for big government and was WAAAY before he was elected. The economy was a good excuse to scare people into electing him, as if this country couldn't pick itself up, get rid of the bad, new companies come in, and the economy would continue all on its own, WITHOUT Obama's interference. But, of course, he jumped at the chance to push his HUGE government agenda by taxing us to death. Please don't tell me you won't pay any taxes. How in the heck do you think trillions of dollars of debt will be repaid..... and no, it won't be those mean old "rich" people everyone loves to hate and it won't be the big businesses Obama wants you to hate, it will be YOU and me..... business will just pass their increased tax load onto us!! Way to go Obama!!
And the economy isn't already gasping its
So is theft of the economy! nm
xx
why can't the economy be first and we have the debate...
after it is fixed. Why does the debate HAVE to be on Friday?
I have learned so much about the economy over...sm
the last week but it has only made me see how much more I don't know. Pretty scary! We are all at the mercy of those in Washington and on Wall Street. Plenty of blame to go around but blame will not get us out of this mess.
The candidate who ran from the economy...
Obama voted for the bailout and that is ALL he did. That is not running from it? He still wants to spend trillions, won't say he is willing to cut spending, and wants to RAISE taxes in an economic downturn. You can't turn around the markets by raising taxes on corporations and the so-called "rich." Common sense should tell you that.
McCain has run from nothing. All Obama does is repeat the same old vagaries and NEVER gets specific about anything, but why should he? You obviously don't care. lol.
The OP is talking about the economy. nm
z
Not as compelling as the economy.
x
In a McCain economy, you will be
su
Who has been in charge of the economy for the
Democrats own congress....... they are the ones responsible for the complete mess of this economy. But because there is a republican president, the republicans get the blame.
Republican president really can't get anything done with an all democrat congress.
He is going to do that by destroying the economy...
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio...making us all pay higher utility bills? What are his proposals? He doesn't want coal. He doesn't want nuclear. We CAN'T do it with windmills, not all of it, even T. Boone Pickens will tell you that.
Nuclear energy and building plants WOULD bring thousands of new jobs.
Sorry...his energy plans make NO sense to me, nor where he is going to get the billions, in this economy, to put his ideas into action.
He is already preparing the speech where he tells his faithful he can't do a lot of what he said he would do.
Snake oil salesman.
You are for, then....destroying the economy of...
the coal producing states and skyrocketing our electric bills...THIS on top of everything else, and he still looks GOOD to you? Amazing. lol.
Yes, and the economy with still stink. O will put us
nm
how is it going right back into the economy?
and WHO is it benefiting?
and one more thing... if this was McCain's inauguration, you would have no problem with the amount being spent either?
come on, be honest now
What would you undertake to fix the economy?.
Any better idea?
If you criticize, you have to come up with a better alternative.
fixing the economy...
I hope that by the time these projects are over, the economy will be better and the companies will therefore have new projects to move on to. The money that these jobs generate in taxes and in spending will spur more movement forward and we can hopefully start getting back on track.
Would that not stimulate the economy? sm
Think about it. If a person has a mortgage payment of say $500 a month (or any figure, really) and the government wrote a check for, say, $50K to that individual and it would pay off their house, would that not free up that $500 to be spent in other ways that would stimulate the economy?
People who are struggling to make their house payment, regardless of the reason, are still consumers and those consumers would be able to put more money back into the economy if they didn't have a mortgage payment. Isn't that the whole idea? To get more people spending more money so that more jobs would be created and so that our economy would grow?
Economy notice
Economy Notice
Due to recent budget cuts and the cost of electricity,
gas and oil, as well as current market conditions and
the continued decline of the U.S. economy,
The Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
So much for fixing our economy
Mr. President. This is the biggest problem I have with Barrack Obama. He is all about implementing his personal agenda and making us all dependent on government while it grows bigger and bigger that he doesn't stop to think about the consequences that these actions will have on our already horrible economy. All he talks about are the jobs he has created or saved and I'm sorry.....but I don't see that from where I'm sitting. I see people all around me losing jobs or about to lose jobs and cap and trade will most definitely cause more job loss.
Let our economy fix itself, Mr. President, and then we can talk about your personal agenda. Any person who wants to raise taxes during a recession is a complete and utter moron. Obama is doing nothing but hurting the middle class....which is the class he professed to want to help so badly.
I have no doubt that Obama is smart or he wouldn't be where he is at. However, I think he lacks the experience to be our president. I personally feel that any person wanting to be president of the US should be required to have run or owned a business in the past.
I tell ya what....come 2012....I'm seriously going to be looking outside the box for our next president. Not only will I thoroughly check out the pub and dem candidate but I'm going to check out the indepedents a lot more than I ever have in the past. I think it is about time we show the two parties that they both suck and we have decided to go against both of them. Maybe that will wake them up because this going back and forth between pub and crat hasn't done us much good here lately.
cant have an economy without a healthy land
Frankly, you cant have an economy, if you have no livable land or healthy people. First and foremost is the land and it's people and animals. Without all of that, we will not have an economy. Funny how other industrialized countries are signing on..you know the countries who take care of their citizens with health care, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time..The caring countries..not the capitalistic class divided society of America. OMG, just in New Orleans now you can see who are the fortunate ones versus the unfortunate ones. The minorities are mostly all the unfortunate ones cause they could not afford to get out of town. They are the ones hurting and rebelling. This is the picture of America today. The *haves* and *have nots* and Bush continues to give to the *haves* and do nothing for the *have nots*.
Republican Cut and Pasate Economy
Subject: lousy economic news
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12032005.html
An Economy Driven By Debt
Don't Confuse the Jobs Hype with the Facts
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The November payrolls job report was announced Friday with the usual
misleading hype. Spinmeisters made the most out of the 215,000 jobs.
Looking
beyond the glitter at the real facts, this is what we see. 21,000 of
those
jobs were government jobs supported by taxpayers. There were only
194,000
new jobs in the private sector.
Of those new jobs, 37,000 are in construction and only 11,000 are in
manufacturing. The bulk of the new jobs--144,000--are in domestic
services.
Wholesale and retail trade account for 20,000. Food services and
drinking
places (waitresses and bar tenders) account for 38,000.
Health care and social assistance account for 27,000. Professional and
business services account for 29,000. Financial activities gained
13,000
jobs. Transportation and warehousing gained 8,000 jobs.
Very few of these jobs result in tradable services that can be exported
or
help to close the growing gap in the US balance of trade.
The 11,000 new factory jobs and the 15,000 of the previous month are a
relief from the usual loss. However, these gains are more than offset
by the
job cuts recently announced by General Motors and Ford.
Despite the gain in jobs, total hours worked declined as the average
workweek fell to 33.7 hours. The decline in the labor force
participation
rate, a consequence of the shrinkage in well-paying jobs, masks a
higher
rate of unemployment than the reported 5 percent. The ratio of
employment to
population fell again in November.
Average hourly earnings (up 3.2 percent over the last year) are not
keeping
up with the consumer price index (up 4.3 percent).
Consequently, real incomes are falling.
This is not the picture of a healthy economy in which growth in high
productivity, high value-added jobs fuel the growth in consumer demand
and
provide savings to finance Washington's red ink. What we are looking at
is
an economy that is coming unglued from the loss of jobs that provide
ladders
of upward mobility and from massive trade and budget deficits that are
resulting in unsustainable growth in indebtedness to foreigners.
The consumer price index measures inflation at 4.3 percent over the
past
year. Many people, experiencing household budgets severely impacted by
fuel
prices and grocery bills, find this figure unrealistically low. PNC
Financial Services has a Christmas price index consisting of the gifts
in
the song, The 12 Days of Christmas. The index reports that the cost
of the
collection of gifts has risen 6 percent since last Christmas. Some of
the
gifts have risen substantially in price. Gold rings are up 27.5
percent, and
pear trees are up 15.4 percent. The cost of labor (drummers drumming,
maids-a-milking) has remained the same.
Populations are hard pressed when the prices of goods rise relative to
the
price of labor, because this makes it impossible for the population to
maintain its standard of living.
The US economy has been kept alive by low interest rates, which fueled
a
real estate boom. Consumers have kept growth alive by refinancing their
home
mortgages and spending the equity in their houses. Their indebtedness
has
risen.
Debt-fueled growth is qualitatively different from economic growth that
results from an increase in high value-added jobs. Economists who look
at
the 3+ percent economic growth rate and conclude that things are fine
are
fooling themselves and the public. When the real estate boom ends, what
will
be the source of new spending power?
Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has
contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate
economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University
of
California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The
Tyranny
of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Economy 1st issue, Terrorism last sm
What is wrong with this country? What good will money do us when our country is attacked? There is nothing like one who has walked the walk to guide us. I am thinking of my family first, it won't matter how well off we are if we are not a "free" nation. McCain knows what evil is, he lived it.
Romney certainly has the background as far as the economy....
I kinda thought Obama was going to pick Biden, because Biden protested way too much...lol. But I really have NO idea where McCain is going. They have guarded it well.
With the onset of a global economy........sm
it might not be such a stretch of the imagination. Our cpl is dropping rapidly, if not for transcribed lines, then surely with ASR. With the quality of the ASR I have seen lately, I pretty much have to transcribe from scratch a good percentage of reports I get. This brings my overall cpl way below what I was hired to transcribe for.
Interesting view on the economy...
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
- Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
- Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
- The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
- The DOW JONES hit a record high — 14,000+;
- American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, and vacations overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep — we got CHANGE all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
- Consumer confidence has plummeted;
- Gasoline hovers near $4 a gallon;
- Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
- Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices are still dropping;
- 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
- As I write, the DOW is playing around 11,500. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. And we sure got it. Now Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, claims he’s really going to give us change.
How much more CHANGE do you think we can stand?
First 6 years, economy was great too. Then,
nm
Why did the economy spiral downward after the
nm
Yeah, and the economy has plummeted since
nm
You see crime being a result of economy, but I see
|
