In four years, Obama will be heralded as the guy that saved the US economy.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by walter4, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. Imho, it will take longer then 4 years to recover from this carnage. I would say more like 10-15 to return to where we were 2 years ago. People have been so badly burned by corporate fraud (and now by obamanomics) that they will never return to the stock markets and who can blame them.

    Obama is doing what everyone knew he would do, redistribution. Completely at the expense of everyones retirement savings so that welfare moms with four kids can have shiny, new health care facilities and kids that are to lazy to learn can have new schools. Obama is a friendly socialist plain and simple, someone please explain to me how the f$#! that is going to help save the US economy?! :mad:
     
    #31     Mar 2, 2009
  2. back around 1972 I was on a greyhound bus headed from toronto, canada to n.y.c and a woman (american, i guessed), said she did not like canada because of the socialism they have there. i thought, 'what socialism, canada is a regular capitalist country'. i didn't see any fundamental difference between being in toronto and being in the u.s.
    if america does socialized health care, at least you know where some of your tax money is going - back into your pocket.
     
    #32     Mar 2, 2009
  3. TGregg

    TGregg

    If we could tax and spend our way to prosperity, wouldn't we have done so by now? Wouldn't we see one example after another in the rest of the world? Giant governments busy taxing and spending are very common, but they only produce misery. If we look to history and to the rest of the world, we see that economic conditions are directly proportional to things like property rights and limited government. Big government, big budgets and high taxes do not lead to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - they lead to low productivity, unemployment and a worse economy.

    This is glaringly obvious.

    If people persist in their desire for these ideals that make the economy worse, then one must conclude that a better economy is not what they desire most.
     
    #33     Mar 2, 2009
  4. Agreed. I think once all the baby boomers die off we be prosperous.
     
    #34     Mar 2, 2009
  5. Agreed. I think once all the baby boomers die off we will be prosperous.
     
    #35     Mar 2, 2009
  6. soks86

    soks86

    Who said America was socializing health care? Where is that coming from?

    Past that, the ignorance displayed here regarding the value of basic welfare, access to health, and a good education for a majority of the population is astonishing. There are major health, social, and environmental issues that need be faced by the world as a whole in a very short time frame. The sad fact is globalism was built around the major banking industries and this is not the time for that to change, Obama's administration has selected a strategy that allows some form of "Free Market" behavior while minimizing asset value losses. I don't like the fact we're helping the banks but it has to be done and providing people with mortgage assistance instead of just handing the banks money while mortgages foreclose is the socially responsible choice. However I do trust that nationalization will occur and perhaps those who do take ownership of the new banks will understand risk and money a little better.

    The government has made policy decisions based on economic factors as well as social responsibility (albeit a lack of global responsibility). Sure there were other ways to do it but there are many reasons for the decisions that have been made. It's the job of traders and investors to look for opportunity in all this mess and exploit all possibilities.
     
    #36     Mar 2, 2009
  7. TGregg

    TGregg

    This was so stooopid I thought it would be fun to quote it so it stays. Apparently, the GOP has been running the federal government for the past 20 years.

    LMAO.
     
    #37     Mar 2, 2009
  8. skylr33

    skylr33


    Yeah, it was that "Republican" Bill Clinton that instituted that "affirmative action" lending program in the 90's called "sub prime" lending. This "Demo"crap" lending policy is what started this whole economic mess with the banks going under, and foreclosures in the millions. O'l slick Willie pressured the banks, and demanded that the guy with that 500 fico credit score, who makes $8.00 an hour, could get that dream house with the 400k mortgage associated with it, and all without having to show any sort of documentation to prove they could qualify/afford such a mortgage.
    At least Bush saw the warning signs with this ridiculously stupid policy and actually attempted to create legislation to stop it, but the numb nut, douche bag demo"craps" in congress wouldn't support it, which was necessary for it's passage.
    You gotta love these idiots who want to blame this all on Bush, when it's the douche bag demo"crap" party that created this crisis by their irresponsible economic policies, starting with O'l slick Willie himself!!! He was too busy fucking anything that moved, getting caught lying under oath, worrying about his impeachment and going to prison, not to mention all the civil lawsuits that were filed against this clown. But what would you expect, as that's typical demo"crap" leadership for you.
     
    #38     Mar 2, 2009
  9. Yeah, since 1932.
     
    #39     Mar 2, 2009