Who has been in charge of the economy for the
Posted By: last 8 years? DEMOCRATS!!!! sm on 2008-10-16
In Reply to:
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.
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
Who put you in charge?
Just because you decided to commemorate 9/11 by not posting on the forum today does not mean that we all have to follow your orders. Maybe some of us have more pertinent ways to commemorate this day. We are all free to choose whether we want to post on the forum today or not. Apparently, you felt free to post a message chastising others.
he is not in charge right now ....looks like it is up to us to help each other
And I am sure that those people will be counting on the charities that are already in place to get through the winter and holidays.
Exactly! O wants to be in charge, yet be
nm
Is Ted Kennedy in charge..
of how many evacuees his state takes in? I guess I didn't realize that! Could you explain that further?
Ted Kenney in charge
we'd all end up dead in a watery grave!
What I want to know is who left you in charge?
nm
Who put you in charge of sway?
nm
We are not in charge of the world, sam.
nm
Has Obama ever been in charge of anything that
nm
Who put you in charge of focus, Sam?
x
I am glad you are not in charge of that
right where it should. You are admitting to being a smoker now. You really should look back over your posts for the past few months and see what a profile you have painted of yourself!
Looks like Rush is still in charge...LOL
Rush Limbaugh critic Kevin Stevenson ousted as Marathon County Republican Party spokesman
By Robert Mentzer • Wausau Daily Herald • June 2, 2009
The Republican Party of Marathon County has stripped its spokesman of his title less than three months after he wrote a column critical of conservative talk radio star Rush Limbaugh.
Kevin Stevenson said he believes his March guest column in the Wausau Daily Herald criticizing Limbaugh turned local party members against him.
"They felt I was too moderate in what I was speaking and printing," he said.
Stevenson, who characterizes himself as a "John McCain-type of Republican," said the conflict was a microcosm of a national debate about what political message to put forward. A debate at a local Republican meeting on Thursday "got hostile and it got personal," he said.
When Stevenson criticized Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, other local Republicans wrote to the newspaper, arguing that conservatives ought to want Obama's policies to fail.
"This is just part of what you're seeing nationwide," he said. "(Party members) know that I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is hurting us more than helping us."
Kevin Hermening, the local Republican Party treasurer and a past president, said although Stevenson's columns were circulated among the party's executive committee, they did not always represent the views of most members.
“He was sharing a moderate view in his columns, which I think is terrific,” Hermening said. "If the leadership had wanted a more moderate position, we would have let him (continue)."
Stevenson, who lives in Lincoln County, was removed when the party adopted a new interpretation of residency -- but he said he considered that an excuse. Stevenson had previously been included because he owns land in neighboring Marathon County.
Party Chairman Joe Wachtel said he disagreed with the decision to remove Stevenson as spokesman, but that he also disagreed with a moderate position.
"I don't think the Republican Party and the conservative movement is going to be served by being Democrat-lite," Wachtel said.
___________________________
Side note: I wonder if Rush is going to kick Nancy Reagan out of the party since she said nice things about Pelosi......ROFL.
Pretty weak charge if you ask me.
It'll probably be dropped in a few days but not until the media is allowed to have their way with them, and the liberal bloggers tar and feather him. Does anyone remember travelgate and the Clinton land deal scandals. I'm sure you dems/liberals don't recall that at all....
Before you start condemning one Republican politician to hell you better take a look into your own party's closet.
JM is totally innocent of this same charge?
publically stepped up and appealed to his supporters to rein it in. O at least tries to do this when he sees tings getting out of hand.
False charge exposed
RE: Obama filed lawsuit that "bullied" banks into giving risky loans.
Buycks-Roberson vs CitiBank Federal Savings Bank 1994. This was a class action lawuit which sought to challenge the practice of redlining, based on the 14th Amendment requirement of "fair and equal treatment for all citizens." The lawsuit charged that CitiBank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. This was settled out of court. Some class members received cash payments and CitiBank revised its discriminatory lending practice policies.
The action was brought against a single bank…CitiBank, though redlining was a widespread practice at the time. Obama DID NOT FILE this lawsuit. He was a junior member of an 8-member team that worked on the case. The lead attorney for CitiBank does not recall ever seeing Obama in the court during the proceedings. Obama charged a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes for his work on the case for reviewing some documents before a deposition and appeared ONCE before the judge to request an extension of time for filing a response to a motion in the case.
This decision did not "force banks" to do anything except to process minority loan applications the same as they were processing loans to white applicants. If this outcome in any way contributed to the mortgage crisis some 14 years later, it would be based on the fact that the banks were already handing out those "bad loans" hand-over-fist to the white applicants…a practice they agreed to extend to ALL applicants as "fair and equal treatment" under the 14th Amendment.
Once the facts get a thorough look-see, it becomes evident that the charges the McCain camp are trying to lay on Obama are (surprise, surprise) patently false.
Who do you propose should be in charge of deciding
You are not in charge of punishing Dr. Ayers...it is a legal matter that evidently was resolved 4 decades ago. Since that time he has become a contributing member of society and it would be a waste of talent to shun him and brand him with a scarlet letter.
Where is it documented that the man in charge of the bailout...
is Muslim? He's Indian-American by all I can find out. Would not matter if he was Muslim; however, I can't find anything credible saying that he is.
Palin is very intelligent and actually been in charge
nm
Whose in charge of this anti-IQ crusade?
An ineffective tactic to use to try to excuse a sitting president's white matter deficit.
Really? Then why are they all still in charge of the purse strings?
They are set to dig us into a bigger, bottomless pit of liberal pet programs and bailouts and stimulus.
It will only get much worse with Obama in charge
He promotes that divide.....he just has a sneaky way of doing it. He lets others do their talking up there, while he says nothing against their racist remarks. The NAACP for instance was formed way back when but really has no place in our society today. Now think about this......if there were a group for ONLY whites (and I don't mean the KKK) which is no doubt where many minds will go, wouldn't there be an uproar about that. They would be called racists....how dare they promote WHITE opportunities, jobs, educations, etc. You're right, forming special interest groups does nothing to promite equality, but I can guarantee you will see more and more racists things coming down the pike; just hide and watch.
So far, they have singled out white males to not give jobs to.....now if a leader sat up there and said those same words about blacks, it would hit the fan and you know it.....
Funny how the liberals just sit up and there and keep their mouths shut, most of them all the way to being without a job, as they are white males as well.
Once again, class, WHO is in charge of the military?
.
Matters not one whit....he is now in charge of
.
Just wondrin' Patty: Who put you in charge . . .
of deciding what is a "sound" law or not? LOL
As long as Obama is in charge, you better believe it
nm
Agreed 100%. If McCain can't take charge of his own campaign
!
Bush is NOT in charge of the stock market
Wall Street,. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Fife, and the others are making it worse with all their stupid ideas.
They WANT this to happen and give more stimulus checks to people so the people will think they are the greatest since apple pie.
I don't see any of them trying to figure out what to do that will help us except throw money away to the groups that are keeping the money to pay their bonuses and take trips.
I read your post and thank goodness you are not in charge sm
Do you not understand that it is not okay to imprison people who are innocent? Do you not understand that his is a human rights issue that affects each and every one of us on this planet? Do you think beyond your own fears?
Answer me!
Who put the libs on this board in charge of free speech?
Joe has the right of free speech too. He asked a simple question, which Obama freely answered outlining socialism 101, and what did Joe get for that? A background check! And you can hail free speech and be okay with that in the same breath? Your hypocrisy is showing...and showing...and showing.
And you keep trying, and unsucessfully, to deflect from the true point. Understandably, because your focus is the big "O", the truthgiver, the one who will save the world. LOL. Free speech indeed. You don't believe in free speech unless it benefits you and the big "O."
Nothing in my post said anything about free speech. It just tried (and in vain I understand)...to stay on point...Obama's ANSWER.
guess that's not as bad as 'VP is in charge of the Senate' ...Palin NM
x
my paper said highest number in 14 years - who was in charge then?
x
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
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
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.
|