The Obama Administration Economic Plan

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I guess that's you admitting you were wrong. Thanks for playing!

Yawn. I guess someone missed Obama's mostrous $634 billion socialized program. Guess there's a new king in town, and the truth stings a little.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I guess that's you admitting you were wrong. Thanks for playing!

Yawn. I guess someone missed Obama's mostrous $634 billion socialized program. Guess there's a new king in town, and the truth stings a little.

Winnar, I know you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about, but it's all saved for posterity above your post.

Seriously though, at this point your posts aren't even coherent replies to what I am writing. You keep desperately trying to deflect the discussion into a different direction by mixing up your trolling macros, but it's not working. Better run away from this thread now, don't you think?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I guess that's you admitting you were wrong. Thanks for playing!

Yawn. I guess someone missed Obama's mostrous $634 billion socialized program. Guess there's a new king in town, and the truth stings a little.

Winnar, I know you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about, but it's all saved for posterity above your post.

Seriously though, at this point your posts aren't even coherent replies to what I am writing. You keep desperately trying to deflect the discussion into a different direction by mixing up your trolling macros, but it's not working. Better run away from this thread now, don't you think?

The only thing that you've written is that your hero wants to be a bigger socialist than his predecessor. Congrats?

 

[scruffypup]

Also,... there is another stimulus package already built in,.... the cenusus count, that should be a nice bandaid to provide temp jobs at the beginning of next year!!!

In all seriousness though the economy will and would have started recovery signs by early 2010 either with or without the stimulus package, most of the toxic assets held by banks would have taken their toll by then, businesses would have trimmed fat by then, banks would have self imposed different lending standards, etc, etc

The thing the stimulus does is give some temporary work to leviate pain for anywhere from a few hundred thousand to a million people and give us a lot of debt we have to then deal with down the road, and possibly cause more inflation, slower growth in long run.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Winnar, I know you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about, but it's all saved for posterity above your post.

Seriously though, at this point your posts aren't even coherent replies to what I am writing. You keep desperately trying to deflect the discussion into a different direction by mixing up your trolling macros, but it's not working. Better run away from this thread now, don't you think?

The only thing that you've written is that your hero wants to be a bigger socialist than his predecessor. Congrats?

I can't really reply to you if you are making incoherent responses. Did you skip your medication today?

Anyways, that's enough about this I think. I'm sure you have other threads to troll anyway, don't you? You're probably way behind schedule.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: scruffypup
Also,... there is another stimulus package already built in,.... the cenusus count, that should be a nice bandaid to provide temp jobs at the beginning of next year!!!

In all seriousness though the economy will and would have started recovery signs by early 2010 either with or without the stimulus package, most of the toxic assets held by banks would have taken their toll by then, businesses would have trimmed fat by then, banks would have self imposed different lending standards, etc, etc

The thing the stimulus does is give some temporary work to leviate pain for anywhere from a few hundred thousand to a million people and give us a lot of debt we have to then deal with down the road, and possibly cause more inflation, slower growth in long run.

What are you basing this on?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I guess that's you admitting you were wrong. Thanks for playing!

Yawn. I guess someone missed Obama's mostrous $634 billion socialized program. Guess there's a new king in town, and the truth stings a little.

Winnar, I know you're trying really hard to avoid admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about, but it's all saved for posterity above your post.

Seriously though, at this point your posts aren't even coherent replies to what I am writing. You keep desperately trying to deflect the discussion into a different direction by mixing up your trolling macros, but it's not working. Better run away from this thread now, don't you think?

Yup... Sounds like you've figured out his standard MO.

1. Point out how libs are bad and reps are good.
2. When others point out that your points are wrong, deflect with a different attack on libs, or ignore the post and keep on with the same attack
3. When others carefully lay out clear, unarguable points that prove you are totally wrong, and lack foresight - stop posting in this thread (this way, you need not admit you are wrong)
4. Repeat step 1 in a different thread.

 

[sandorski]

Bush left the Economy in awesome shape, Obama gets in and everything goes to shit. He should have just let everything ride and we'd all be smiling and stuff! No, he had to Change us to the Poor House!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
They set this up so if the economy rebounds, even if on its own regardless of the stimulus bill, they can point and say it worked. If nothing happens and we remain stagnant then we didnt spend enough and need more.

That's awfully pessimistic considering there are many people employed right this very second who wouldn't be if it weren't for the stimulus.

Tell them it's just a dog and pony show, I'm sure they'll listen.

"this very second"?

IDK about that.

The only people I can think you're referring too are those on state/local gov payrolls. Much of the stim money went to states etc because of their huge budget shortfalls.

However, the money has not yet been received, at least not here in NC.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Since last night, I've been hearing the MSM talk quite a bit about a 'new' additional stim package.

WTH?

Already?

Recently I have agreed that we should be fair and wait to see how the stim package played out before denouncing it as a failure.

Looks like the admin (and Dems, maybe Repubs too) are already judging it?

Why don't they wait?

Because of this, I think it no longer fair to ask others to wait until they judge it. H3ll, if Washington can judge it now, we can too.

And I'm intensely curious to see where they throw these new billions. Who got 'left out' on the 1st go-around?

As I said above, I think these actions are nothing more than bandaids to help us get along until the economy turnes itself around. At this pace, I'm afraid we're gonna run out of bandaids way too soon.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Since last night, I've been hearing the MSM talk quite a bit about a 'new' additional stim package.

WTH?

Already?

Recently I have agreed that we should be fair and wait to see how the stim package played out before denouncing it as a failure.

Looks like the admin (and Dems, maybe Repubs too) are already judging it?

Why don't they wait?

Because of this, I think it no longer fair to ask others to wait until they judge it. H3ll, if Washington can judge it now, we can too.

And I'm intensely curious to see where they throw these new billions. Who got 'left out' on the 1st go-around?

As I said above, I think these actions are nothing more than bandaids to help us get along until the economy turnes itself around. At this pace, I'm afraid we're gonna run out of bandaids way too soon.

Fern

No, the administration is not judging it at all. The administration has made absolutely no statements about a second stimulus that I am aware of.

You are probably referring to Nancy Pelosi saying she would 'leave the door open' to the idea of a second stimulus. The article specifically states that she, like you, is adopting a 'wait and see' approach to the first one.

So how is Washington judging it again?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern
Since last night, I've been hearing the MSM talk quite a bit about a 'new' additional stim package.

WTH?

Already?

Recently I have agreed that we should be fair and wait to see how the stim package played out before denouncing it as a failure.

Looks like the admin (and Dems, maybe Repubs too) are already judging it?

Why don't they wait?

Because of this, I think it no longer fair to ask others to wait until they judge it. H3ll, if Washington can judge it now, we can too.

And I'm intensely curious to see where they throw these new billions. Who got 'left out' on the 1st go-around?

As I said above, I think these actions are nothing more than bandaids to help us get along until the economy turnes itself around. At this pace, I'm afraid we're gonna run out of bandaids way too soon.

Fern

Yes already. $2+Trillions is needed, not quite halfway there yet. You really should spend some time getting informed on the Economy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
You are probably referring to Nancy Pelosi saying she would 'leave the door open' to the idea of a second stimulus. The article specifically states that she, like you, is adopting a 'wait and see' approach to the first one.

So how is Washington judging it again?

I haven't heard Pelosi speak about. I'll try to see where this all coming from.

As far as judging, if Washington thinks they another, it axiomatically says the 1st ain't cutting it.

Edit: BTW, for a change I agree with what Pelosi said in that article.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
You are probably referring to Nancy Pelosi saying she would 'leave the door open' to the idea of a second stimulus. The article specifically states that she, like you, is adopting a 'wait and see' approach to the first one.

So how is Washington judging it again?

I haven't heard Pelosi speak about. I'll try to see where this all coming from.

As far as judging, if Washington thinks they another, it axiomatically says the 1st ain't cutting it.

Fern

But Washington didn't say they think we need another, only that another was not categorically ruled out. There has been no statement from any leadership in any way to that effect. Saying that you are open to more measures if your first one happens not to work is the rational, measured, adult approach.

It seems to me you're trying to cherry pick.