quote:

Originally posted by delobbo you're right, that article is irrelevant. we should not care who these new jobs are going to.

Your sarcasm is fucking boring.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Your sarcasm is fucking boring.

nice comeback

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo nice comeback

It's not a comeback it's an observation.

If you don't want to debate issues then stop posting in a forum where all we do is exactly that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis It's not a comeback it's an observation. If you don't want to debate issues then stop posting in a forum where all we do is exactly that.

I was debating the "illegal immigrants getting stimulus jobs" issue with sarcasm, you said my sarcasm was fucking boring. I made a valid point, albeit through sarcasm, and you batted it aside with a personal attackish type of comment. What say you?

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo jobs like this? http://www.usatoday.com/money/econo...rant-jobs_N.htm

the fact that mexicans can do certain jobs at the same quality as certain americans, and for significantly less money tells me that a certain segment of employees (cough cough - construction workers - cough cough) in our economy are too highly paid to begin with.

If people want better job security choose a skill that is more difficult to acquire (higher barrier of entry) and become a more dynamic job candidate. Taking the easy way out early in life usually results in (i) poor job security, and (ii) low wages.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I went to business school (specializing in finance) before law school. I spent a good part of a year reading milton friedman. Generally, I believe free markets will always have the right answer (with the caveat that there is sufficient transparency in the market); the relevant question is whether we, as a society, are willing to go through the pain that free markets can impose during a period of correction. It's probably the healthiest in the long term to allow free market corrections, however, people are very short-sighted and considering many people live pay-check to pay-check it can be quite difficult to expect the general population to by into the idea that free market corrections are better than government intervention. As a human being, I am sypathetic to the general welfare needs of people who aren't as fortunate as myself. So, I am willing to accept government intervention (if for no other reason than to prevent people from resorting to crime to feed their families).

What's your take on the news of another stimulus already in the works, before this first one even has time to work (or fail)? Check this out dude:

quote:

“We are going to need more taxpayer money,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com and a key economic advisor to Congressional Democrats, said after the meeting. “I think another stimulus package is a reasonable assumption because of the way things are going.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), standing with members of her leadership team by Zandi’s side, said she agreed that another stimulus bill is being considered as an option. “We have to keep the door open,” Pelosi said. “The word of the day is confidence. Confidence in our markets, confidence in lending, confidence in our financial institutions.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...2009-03-10.html

We were assured the one that just passed will "create or save" 3 million jobs. Do we need to create or save those jobs again so soon or will this new bill be creating or saving more? WTF? Nothing says confidence like an endless string of multi billion dollar emergency bailouts.

Then there's this- David Smick's op-ed this morning calculating that banks may need another $2 TRILLION in TARP before they're safely solvent again. That money would be on top of whatever other stimulus is to come, not part of it:

quote:

I suspect Obama's advisers would like nothing more than to dismantle an irresponsible firm such as Citigroup. They are afraid to do so, for one reason: All the big banks are connected to a potentially lethal web of paper insurance instruments called credit default swaps. These paper derivatives have become our financial system's new master. The Obama team needs to remember that we got into this mess because of a lack of financial transparency. It's time to tell the American people what the stock market already knows: that the path to recovery will probably be expensive and politically unpopular, perhaps explosively so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...id=opinionsbox1

Are they just going to keep coming back for more? Where is the bottom? Do you think they already know the true cost, and it's so high that they are trying to do it in incremental amounts? THis is some seriously scary shit.

love your sig 17sss... LMAO.

Forgot... about that "create or save 3 million jobs" thing, there is new data out today that it's already failing. Fuckin' sweet! (<--- sarcasm). What was projected at about $200,000 cost per job is now at $500,000 after the 2nd Stimulus passes (if it does)

quote:

The report by a group of economists including Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, says the recently enacted $787 billion stimulus package will fall far short of the Obama administration’s goal of saving or creating 3.5-million jobs. Zandi said only 2.5 million jobs will be saved or created over the next two years, and told House Democrats that a second stimulus is needed as well as more money for banking stabilization and housing.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/200...t-first-st.html

The water is rising a lot faster than we can stop it. ANd for the record, I can't stand this whole "saved or created" term. It's so gay. Obama "saved" 25 police jobs in Colombus, OH last week... but forgot to mention there is actually a 1 year time line on those "saved" jobs before they city won't pay for them anymore. How do you measure a "saved" job anyway? Stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo love your sig 17sss... LMAO.

haha... it's pretty accurate in it's description I would say

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Forgot... about that "create or save 3 million jobs" thing, there is new data out today that it's already failing. Fuckin' sweet! (<--- sarcasm). What was projected at about $200,000 cost per job is now at $500,000 after the 2nd Stimulus passes (if it does) http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/200...t-first-st.html The water is rising a lot faster than we can stop it. ANd for the record, I can't stand this whole "saved or created" term. It's so gay. Obama "saved" 25 police jobs in Colombus, OH last week... but forgot to mention there is actually a 1 year time line on those "saved" jobs before they city won't pay for them anymore. How do you measure a "saved" job anyway? Stupid.

Yeah, I feel similarly about the saved job thing. I also wonder about the created. So, give a man a shovel and put him on the street, tell him to dig. Is this the kind of job creation we need? Don't we need to assess and try to remedy why jobs - I mean like corporate jobs - are being lost in the first place? Isn't that dependent on markets, confidence levels, general supply and demand, and other concepts such as that? They are approaching the job creation issue from the wrong angle. They are proposing all of these construction jobs - woop-de-fucking-doo that's just fucking great, let's do that, except the problem is that they then stab the markets repeatedly with a chain of bad decisions indirectly causing them to dive. Yes, I do believe actions made by this administration negatively affected the DOW. Create the jobs, that's fine, that's good, but don't create the jobs and then make foolish decisions in other MONUMENTALLY IMPORTANT and PIVOTAL areas which *CAN* instantly affect and influence consumer and business confidence levels.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy First, I'm getting tired of the inability to read/understand what's being said about this topic. No one is saying that Obama destroyed the market. They're saying that the he's taking a crippled market and either a) is not making it better or b) making a bad situation worse.

Well unfortunately I have to disagree with you slightly. The Right Wing Noise Machine is in full swing in it's apparent blame game based on what's being said by their various authors, not to mention what I hear on Hannity and Rush. Hell even a local talk show here in KC is running rampant with Obama supposedly destroying the market all on his own.

quote:

That Kos article is a prime example of why I can't go onto that blog (and it's been spreading to HuffPo). It's full of completely incorrect information, like saying that the only people saying these things are right-wing cheerleaders during the 2000s. I'm saying it, and I was hardly a right-wing cheerleader a few years back. Also, it is a factual statement that Obama has its own bear market. We are down over 20% from inauguration, which is the technical definition of a bear market. Everyone knew Bush had a bear market, because he'd been there from the top. It's a rather obvious statement and was made constantly last year when we were headed down. Look at policy announcements and the hourly or daily charts. Particularly the lack of a bank plan when Geithner came out in early February and gave no details after Obama touted how he didn't want to steal the thunder by providing details. The market tanked (and didn't let up) after that announcement.

I think a relevant question is, given the data that I posted on how things were certainly tumbling downward at an accelerated rate prior to Obama being inaugurated, what do you think he could have done, hell what could anyone (even a Republican) really have done to slow things down?

More tax cuts for the wealthy?

Say "enough" with the handouts to the giant banks and allow them to fail? Allow Lehman-like situations to occur over and over again so we can have a nice "correction" occur?

These are not easy answers, and I don't presume to have them. I freely admit that Geithner is a tool and needs to go, but my contention that I share with the author Bonddad in my original article is that a large percentage of folks are trying very hard to blame Obama for the current mess we're in while having massive brain farts on how we got here in the first place.

Is there a bit of fault that needs to go to Obama? Absolutely. Does the majority of that fault, however, lie not in his administration barely 50 days in, but in an Administration prior to his that allowed these bastards to regulate themselves? You better fucking believe it.

quote:

I mean, it works both ways. When Bernanke said it was possible for us to be seeing improvement in 2009, we rallied a little, until everyone realized it was a ridiculous notion.

Bernanke is another guy I'm not a terribly big fan of. But I will say that in many respects I'm glad people are not listening to folks like Bernanke trying to sugarcoat a piece of shit - good for the people wanting a bit more of the reality. One of the biggest problems I have with what Obama and Geithner are doing is failing to actually lay out the reality to the people with just how shitty the current situation is. Oh sure, that may tank the market even more if and when they do (and likely ineviteably setting up nationalizing the banks), so I guess they can't win with that either.

Like I said, this is a fucking mess.

quote:

For me, the big thing was the budget. It took wavering confidence in the administration and added doubt about the administration's pragmatism. It's not the change from 36 to 39% in the top rate, it's cutting the deductions to charities and, most importantly for this crisis, mortgage deductions for the top earners. It just doesn't send a good message to investors who already want to hoard their money for the worst when we need them to be spending and investing it.

And on the flip-side of things, Obama has actually decided to include the full costs of all things, including both wars, in his budget. Again, a nice breath of reality that was completely gone for the past 8 years with Bush, but your point is well taken nonetheless.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

The market shot up 5+% today. Obama boosting the economy and stock market? Huh?

___________________