Obama is simply clueless about the economy

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) corporate profits are at an all time high. Spence, first of all, I thought liberals would think that's a BAD thing? Second of all, look at the chart in the link you provided. If corporate profits had been droppping for 20 years before Obama got in, and then he turned things around, that's one thing. But Spence, look at the chart. The upward trend in corporate profits has been steady for 50 years. TELL ME WHAT OBAMA DID, SPECIFICALLY, to help increase profits, or admit that it just happened on his watch.

Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression. If that had happened corporate profits would not have recovered like they have.

As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand.

(2) the market has grown gaster than ever in hostory
Again, I could have sworn that liberals would think that's bad, as it only increases the wealth gap between rich and poor, it keeps poor people down, or some other such Bolshevik nonsense. Second, the sharp increase is largely due to the horrible crash that happened right before he got sworn in (and guess which party controlled the legislature for 2 years leading up to that crash?). Third, again, what has Obama done to help Wall Street? All he does is demonize Wall Street!

You're missing the point. The dramatic increase in corporate profits is matched by the widening wealth gap. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

What we've witnessed is that this isn't sustainable and has resulted in increased debt and financial instability.

As a lover of facts I'd think you would have appreciated those. I put them in BOLD so you'd notice.

Spence, annswer my questions, or please go outside and play so the adults can talk.

Okkkkay

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.


-spence

yes, the top continues to create wealth, it's what they do and Obama is fortunate to have them to deamonize as he creates more debt

the s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g sound that you hear is from the growing permanent dependent class and according to USA Today last June " That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for." (Federally) or $535,000 per household

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

plus 5.2 Trillion for State and Local unfunded obligations

Obamanomics will continue to shrink the middle, deamonize the top and massively expand the permanent dependent "s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g" class as it expands the scope and role of government which is the ultimate objective.....

it won't be "greedy corporations" that cause the downfall of American Society, it will be government unable to control itself or pay it's way....corporations are just a convenient target for those who see private business as nothing more than a source of greater funding for their lunacy

[striperman36]

Sounds again like Roman history

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Sounds again like Roman history

there's an awful lot of history being repeated currently and, well....you know the quote...

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by scottw

there's an awful lot of history being repeated currently and, well....you know the quote...

yes we all do. Several quotes

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

yes we all do. Several quotes

and odd coincidences too

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes, the top continues to create wealth, it's what they do and Obama is fortunate to have them to deamonize as he creates more debt

Seems like they like it

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- Democratic President Barack Obama is blowing away his Republican challengers when it comes to soliciting donations on Wall Street, fundraising figures show.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday its analysis of contribution data reveals Obama has raised more from the financial and banking sector this year than all of the GOP presidential hopefuls combined.

Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?

Read more: Obama pulling in Wall Street donations - UPI.com

the s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g sound that you hear is from the growing permanent dependent class and according to USA Today last June " That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for." (Federally) or $535,000 per household

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

plus 5.2 Trillion for State and Local unfunded obligations

Obamanomics will continue to shrink the middle, deamonize the top and massively expand the permanent dependent "s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g" class as it expands the scope and role of government which is the ultimate objective.....
If you read Jim's post you'll see that the shrinking of the middle is much bigger than Obama...as is the debt and dependence.

Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...

it won't be "greedy corporations" that cause the downfall of American Society, it will be government unable to control itself or pay it's way....corporations are just a convenient target for those who see private business as nothing more than a source of greater funding for their lunacy

The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. You should read his speech again.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Seems like they like it



Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?

Read more: Obama pulling in Wall Street donations - UPI.com




Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...


The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. You should read his speech again.

-spence

Spence, what about that USA Today article that says we have unfunded liabilities of $62 trillion? Spence, HOW WOULD YOU go about fixing that? Obama says all we need to do is get another $90n billion a year from the billionaires. Do the math. If we get that $90billion a year (a big if) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on the $62 trillion (and we do) it will take 667 years to pay down that debt.

Spence, please please please tell me how we solve this, without huge cuts to those programs? Yet when Paul Ryan offers a way to do this, YOUR SIDE makes a commercial of Ryan pushing old ladies off a cliff. Is that honest debate? Is that honestly trying to solve the problems at hand? No. All that is, is deminizing the opposition because conservatives are the ones being courageous and honest. All you can do, ALL YOU CAN DO, is shriek that we hate poor people. Pathetic.

Let's hear it Spence. How do we get $62 trillion just from the wealthy. Because even if we took every penny from them, even if we taxed them at 100%, it wouldn't add up to anywhere near that number. But I'm sure you must have a valid plan, right??????? Let's hear it. Either offer up a plan that addresses that problem, or keep quiet and learn something. I'm all ears...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. -spence

Our premise is that $62 trillion debt can never be paid off in our lifetime. Do you disagree?

And if we can't pay it off in our lifetime, that means we have 2 choices. We either (1) make cuts to reduce that hole, or (2) we do nothing and leaved it ti future generations to worry about.

Irrefutably, conservatives want to make the difficult, but necessary, cuts. Liberals want to punt. Go ahead Spence, you tell me where I'm wrong please.

I hate the idea of having to cut these programs. If we could raise $62 trillion without destroying everything, I'd be all for it. But we can't raise that much $$, and it's not fair to leave this problem for our grandkids. But that's precisely, exactly what this coward Obama wants to do. He's been voting "present" his whole life, and he's doing it again.

Spence, I'm almost done making my pile, I have most of my nest egg free and clear. When the house of cards collapses, I'll have a nice nest-egg with taxes already paid. I'll be out of the IRS' reach. When the IRS comes to you and tells you "sorry, you're now in the 85% income tax bracket", you remember Obama, and remember to thank him.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Seems like they like it

more like paying homage to the Don of the Chicago Way...I thought you and he had a problem with corporations buying influence through big contributions?


Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?



Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...he's offered no solutions for the "underlying structural" problems to date


The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. it has everything to do with ideaology, you couldn't name a Constitutionalist from the democrat side of the aisle and you can't name a democrat who is serious about reigning in spending in any serious way, particularly the entitlement spending that constitututes the majority of that nearly 70 Trillion dollars


You should read his speech again.I read it, it is recycled garbage, a call to raise taxes and expand the role of government to ensure fairness of outcomes because government could infact do that if only it were properly funded, problem is all of it's previous promises to do so are massively unfunded already...all wrapped up in a divisive theme that would be worthty of a Third World Dictator.....I hear there's a possibility of an opening in Venezuala that would be perfect for him

-spence

there was nothing in that speech that would cure the ills that he described, he was making a case for giving him more money to "invest" for us though his expansion of the Nanny State....no thanks

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression. If that had happened corporate profits would not have recovered like they have.

As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand.


You're missing the point. The dramatic increase in corporate profits is matched by the widening wealth gap. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

What we've witnessed is that this isn't sustainable and has resulted in increased debt and financial instability.

As a lover of facts I'd think you would have appreciated those. I put them in BOLD so you'd notice.


Okkkkay

-spence

"]Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression"

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

"As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand. "

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

"As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.


Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.


This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence

"I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made"

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".



Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

"Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".


He said that after bashing the surge forever. Obama only admitted the surge was a success when he knew that there was no way he could claim otherwise. He criticized the surge for YEARS. But why would you let that fact get in your way?

HJere's what he said in 2007..."We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...rge_won_t_work

Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess. Obama was wrong about what the impact of the surge would be, and he was wrong about what the impact of the stimulus would be. Those are 2 serious issues (macroeconomics and military strategy) to be clueless about, if you want to be president.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

"a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ma-promised-s/

Is it fair to hold Obama accountable for the actions of the economic advisors he appoints? I see no reason why not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He said that after bashing the surge forever. Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.

As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess.

Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.

And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

-spence

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...8-unemployment



http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
Blogs - TheHill.com

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

If you read your article you'd see that Frank was stating that to discuss the number at all was bad politically, not that he disagreed with the projection.

And he used the word "predict" not "promise".

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

-spence

Read your own quote, Spence. You said wealth is "created" at the top. If new wealth is being created, that means it wasn't necessarily stolen from somkeone else.

Spence, I will give you a chance at growth here. Real, adult, growth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Oprah Winfrey all made tons of money today. In my opinion, they didn't "steal" anything from the middle class. In my opinion, they made money because they make middle class customers want to buy their products VOLUNTARILY. These wealthy people are not confiscating anyone else's money. These wealthy people only get wealthier by making people want to freely choose to buy their products.

You tell me why I'm wrong, Spence. You tell all of us why every nickel those folks make, necessarily hurts someone else.

Either support that ridiculous statement, or admit that it's pure liberal bullsh*t.

Are there crooks out there that need to be watched? Obviously. But that's not what you said, nor is it what Obama is saying. You're saying that the wealth gap is "caused" by those at the top, and that is demonstrably false. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman, and if I was that gullable, I'd be upset about it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I will give you a chance at growth here.

Please, just to make me happy can you from now on call me "little sprout" instead of "spence"?

Real, adult, growth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Oprah Winfrey all made tons of money today. In my opinion, they didn't "steal" anything from the middle class. In my opinion, they made money because they make middle class customers want to buy their products VOLUNTARILY. These wealthy people are not confiscating anyone else's money. These wealthy people only get wealthier by making people want to freely choose to buy their products.

You tell me why I'm wrong, Spence. You tell all of us why every nickel those folks make, necessarily hurts someone else.

Our economy has shifted from more of a manufacturing base to more of a speculative base. On this alone the investor class has the upper hand.

It doesn't mean that the individual investor be it you, me or Oprah is necessarily a bad person. The issue is what the system appears to be doing long-term to the demographic and what this tells of the future of the American Dream.

Either support that ridiculous statement, or admit that it's pure liberal bullsh*t.

Changed my mind. I'd actually like you to call me "Pyle" instead of "little sprout".

Are there crooks out there that need to be watched? Obviously. But that's not what you said, nor is it what Obama is saying. You're saying that the wealth gap is "caused" by those at the top, and that is demonstrably false. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman, and if I was that gullable, I'd be upset about it.

Fortunately for both of us I'm a pretty smart guy and have done a lot of homework. What you think is "snake oil" is really just one of two major forces on our economy. They both keep us in balance.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Fortunately for both of us I'm a pretty smart guy and have done a lot of homework. What you think is "snake oil" is really just one of two major forces on our economy. They both keep us in balance.

-spence

you have a strange need to constantly remind others, and probably yourself, that you are really, really smart and informed....do you stuff a salami in your jeans before you leave the house too? some weird compensation thing going on?


we are not "in balance", we are teetering on the edge and you, Obama and the democrats seem cynically determined to push us over...."snake oil"..is a false remedy is it not? A concoction sold by a smooth talking huckster pandering to the masses who fall trancelike at his words, hand over their money..but in the end, receive no actual benefit....no improvement of what ails them...it is snake oil and people like you have been selling it for a long time, it's promises are empty and it's effects are mostly misery but it sounds great when you are pitching it from the wagon....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you have a strange need to constantly remind others, and probably yourself, that you are really, really smart and informed....do you stuff a salami in your jeans before you leave the house too? some weird compensation thing going on?

If anyone has a strange and constant need I'd say it's your obsession with making things up.

we are not "in balance", we are teetering on the edge and you, Obama and the democrats seem cynically determined to push us over...."snake oil"..is a false remedy is it not? A concoction sold by a smooth talking huckster pandering to the masses who fall trancelike at his words, hand over their money..but in the end, receive no actual benefit....no improvement of what ails them...it is snake oil and people like you have been selling it for a long time, it's promises are empty and it's effects are mostly misery but it sounds great when you are pitching it from the wagon....

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

-spence