Worldwide ramifications of Economic mismanagement?

Well maybe if this crash continues a few more weeks it will get your attention,,,,,

I assume you have some money at risk.

Some on here don't seem to realize we are talking about real money that people are losing.

Not some abstract "paper loss".

Whatever that is.

I thought the great bi-partisan bailout was supposed to save us all from this, Sherm. I mean, that's what you were applauding Bush for....working with the Democrats to save Wall Street. Some of us told you it wouldn't work. You critcized Capito for voting against it, a pox upon her house and all that.

Now granted, things are going down the hopper a lot more quickly than I had anticipated, but that doesn't change the fact it isn't working. I really thought it might stall things a bit, and I suppose it is still possible it may, but it's not looking too promising.

As far as that "real money" you're talking about, my 63 y/o mother who has been investing almost every cent she earns for the past 15 years has watched her 401k shrink to practically nothing. She has fallen arches and works on her feet as the photo lab manager of a CVS back in RI. I'm not sure she can make it to 65, much less work beyond that. My father was actually granted disability at 64. He certainly can't return to lugging ladders and all the other physically demanding tasks of the profession he worked in for over 50 years. (My dad began working part-time for his father at the ripe old age of 12.)

My parents are screwed. Fortunately they own their home but they still have to pay taxes and upkeep and heat it and pay insurance and eat, you know. I'm seriously concerned about them.

ziggy wrote:Well, Sherm tried to tell us a year ago that the stock market was headed down and that that did not bode well. But you all insisted that the was crying wolfe.

An economy based on the hype of confidence men is bound to take a tailspin some time.

Who in hell do you think you will confuse with that feces, Zigster?

Sherm has been telling us that the stock market was headed down ever since Bush was elected in 02'.

So, he was telling us that 8 years ago, ....... and 7 years ago, ....... and 6 years ago, ....... and 5 years ago, ....... and 4 years ago, ....... and 3 years ago, ....... and 2 years ago, ....... and 1 years ago, ....... and now you are trying to tell us some lying BULLSHIT about Sherman's ability to predict an economic meltdown ....... when he won't even admit it was the primary fault of the Congressional Democrats.

sodbuster wrote:Well maybe if this crash continues a few more weeks it will get your attention,,,,,

I assume you have some money at risk.

Some on here don't seem to realize we are talking about real money that people are losing.

Not some abstract "paper loss".

Whatever that is.

Well Shermmy, your last sentence proves you have no frigging idea whatsoever about what you stated in the above.

A housing price drop or a drop in the Stock Market is an abstract "paper loss" which doesn't mean shidt ....... unless the owner of said house or stock decides to and does ..... sell his property for less than what he paid for it.

Then and only then can he/she claim they lost "real money".

Likewise, a housing price increase or an increase in stock prices is only an abstract "paper gain" which doesn't mean shidt ....... unless the owner of said house or stock decides to and does ..... sell his property for more than what he paid for it.

Then and only then can he/she claim they earned "real money".

Sherm, why do you persist in posting such stupid crap even after you have been told better several times?

No need to answer that question, ...... we all know why you do it.



.

"It's just paper - all I own is a pickup truck and a little Wal-Mart stock."
- Sam Walton

ohio county wrote:No, we did not insist he was crying "wolfe" just that he was citing economics for political points, his standard modus operandi. Many of us "naysayers" see no point in enabling him.

Duhh. Politics and high finance. Can we really keep them separate in this country?

Seems to be a whole lot of "citing economics for politics points" going on here these past few weeks. So suddenly that is in vogue where it formerly wasn't?

ziggy wrote:Seems to be a whole lot of "citing economics for politics points" going on here these past few weeks. So suddenly that is in vogue where it formerly wasn't?

Jimmy said it was both parties fault.

Stephanie said it was both parties fault.

Mike said it was both parties fault.

Aaron said it was both parties fault.

Hell, even Sam in his way spread the blame.

Even Sherm, while affixing most of the blame to the right, has acknowledged that a few dems may share in some of the blame.

Seems to me that leaved you as the only one "citing economics for politics points" Frank.

Hmmmm.

Seems to me that leaved you as the only one "citing economics for politics points" Frank.

So is Jimmy wrong, or has Sherm reformed his sin of mixing economics and politics?

Well to clarify let me say I do believe economic policy and politics are inextricably joined.

Likewise with education policy.

And health care policy.

Etc.

Politics permeates every issue, imo.

Some of us believe government has a significant role to play in such issues. In other words you could call us activists.

Others believe in just letting things work themselves out or let the strong survive or law of the jungle, etc. They are commonly referred to as conservatives. Or free market.

So our approaches will differ on all these issues.

We could call you a lot of things Sherm.



And I'm not arguing that governement shouldn't play a role in the policies you mention.

I agree the government should play a role and I think others who share my view would to.

The role they should play is what would be debatable though.

IMO, you base your beliefs on your own personal feelings and that is how you approach government and policy.

I base mine on the constitution and that's how I approach government and policy.

There is a difference between having a role to play and a socialist take over. There is a difference between governing and dominating. You refer to yourself as an "activist", but what you really are is a socialist and what you seem to desire is a socializing everything including, but not limited to, our healthcare system, our financial institutions, and pretty much everything else I can think of.

Well Steph I suppose you could argue I favor a sort of socialized medicine.

As to financial institutions not so much.

But regulated a lot more than now to avoid a repeat of our current situation.

And as to your "pretty much everything else" I assume that is just political rhetoric or hyperbole.


So you are batting either .500 or .333 depending if you want to count the "everything else" as a serious statement.

Is re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor (not because the poor earned it but because the rich have it and they do not regardless of he rich got rich or why the poor remain poor) included in everything else?

I am correct in stating you favor re-distiribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, correct Sherm!!!

Well again that is at least partly true.

And would you admit the opposite is at least partly true with you and the republicans?

i.e. the rich getting richer at the expense of the less blessed?

I cannot speak for Aaron (although I suspect I'm not far off). The idea is not for the rich to get richer at the expense of anyone. We don't want the poor to stay poor. In fact, you will find that republicans are surprisingly generous in terms of charity. We just don't consider paying our taxes to be acts of charity. We believe (among other things) that if the government gets out of the way wealth can be created exponentially, i.e., in a way that doesn't mean there are winners AND losers. Everybody can win. You folks think in a linear fashion and that every time there is a winner in life, there must be a loser. Not so. That's what creates jealousy and makes you covet the rewards others get through dint of hard work.

Well OC I suspect you probably know more republicans better than I do so I cant contest your statement about how much republicans love poor people.

Let me just say that, based on comments posted here, they have nothing but disgust and disdain for poor people.

"That's what creates jealousy and makes you covet the rewards others get through dint of hard work."

I sure as hell dont covet anything they have.

You think I want your treasure?

And you think you have worked harder than I have?

Jimmy pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't think either of us are naive enough to believe that there aren't rich out there trying to get everything they can but I don't believe they're inherently evil and looking to squash the poor man what seems to be implied here.

Take Don Blankenship for example. I'm not saying he's an angel but in spite of all the bad you could say about him, how many people are in the middle class making $50K+ becasue of him and his company?

Same thing for the evil corporations that Frank loves to hate. How many people wouldn't have a job were it not for evil corporations investing their capital to provide well paying jobs?

And concerning chairty, I don't think many can compare to the generosity of the Art Model's, Bill Gates and Ted Turner's of the world.

"That's what creates jealousy and makes you covet the rewards others get through dint of hard work."

Well I have to say I think that is the first thing OC has posted that seemed out of order or offensive.

But to say I covet what you have is offensive to me.

tO SAY THAT i DONT WORK AND THAT i COVET ANYTHING republicans have is b.s.

And to imply that republicans work and democrats dont is b.s. as well.

But maybe OC is just having a bad day so I wont get on my hi-horse.over it. I can tell the republican high command is turning up the rhetoric and I hope reasonable republicans will take it with a grain of salt as they say.

I think that is the first thing OC has posted that seemed out of order or offensive.

I'm as partisan as anybody here and most of what you say keeps me that way. I'd really like not to be.

sodbuster wrote:Well OC I suspect you probably know more republicans better than I do so I cant contest your statement about how much republicans love poor people.

Let me just say that, based on comments posted here, they have nothing but disgust and disdain for poor people.

"That's what creates jealousy and makes you covet the rewards others get through dint of hard work."

I sure as hell dont covet anything they have.

You think I want your treasure?

And you think you have worked harder than I have?

Sherm,

My husband is a chef by trade. He currently is not employed as a chef, and hasn't been since he quit his job at Blue's over a year ago. He took a lower level job for a lot less money in order to secure a particular benefit his current employer provides. It is a choice we made for our family because we believe in the long run it will be worth it.

Another choice we made for our family is for me to be home full time with our young son. This is a decision we made based upon our belief he is better off to go without trips to Disney and the latest video game than to be raised by other people. As a result, I drive a 17 year old car and my daughter doesn't have a cell phone like most of her peers.

What on Earth ever gave you the impression that I am, or have ever been, wealthy is beyond me. We are a single income family just getting by the best we can.

Hating poor people would pretty much be an act of self-loathing for me at this point.

Did I ever say you were wealthy?

ohio county wrote:

I think that is the first thing OC has posted that seemed out of order or offensive.

I'm as partisan as anybody here and most of what you say keeps me that way. I'd really like not to be.

Well just for the record you dont have anything I covet or even want that bad.

Far as I know....

sodbuster wrote:Did I ever say you were wealthy?

ack! I highlighted the wrong part of that quote. What you said was this:

Well OC I suspect you probably know more republicans better than I do so I cant contest your statement about how much republicans love poor people.

Let me just say that, based on comments posted here, they have nothing but disgust and disdain for poor people.

Even the guests know I'm a Republican. So you either think I'm wealthy, or that I "have nothing but disgust and disdain" for my own family.

Well, good then. That means I can work hard and keep most of what I earn...

ohio county wrote:Well, good then. That means I can work hard and keep most of what I earn...

That would be slightly more then half Jimmy. We work until May to pay the government and they want more. Will it ever end?

And what's worse, the harder you work to make more, the more the government wants. And the audacity of us to think we should be able to keep the fruits of our very own labor.