quote:

ORIGINAL: TheUtopian
Most of all......I'd stop sucking corporate cock and get into the corner of the American people.

That's just for starters.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Finally something worth bailing out - the misogynous humor of Howard Stern.

quote:

Sirius XM Radio Inc has been working with its advisers to prepare for a possible bankruptcy filing, the New York Times reported on its website on Tuesday, citing people close to the company.
Sirius, whose radio stars include the popular shock jock Howard Stern, has also been working with the investment bank Evercore Partners. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/technology/companies/11radio.html?ref=technology 

Good news - he'll be back on over the air radio!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

In this case "stimulous" and "bailout" are the same thing, MASSIVE amounts of pork, "make-work" jobs that will dry up as soon as the funds that are stolen from the people to pay for this garbage dry up.

Perhaps with your MA in Political Science you can explain where pork and "make work" jobs were in the banking bailout.

And perhaps your three degrees on your wall can show us how you know Timothy Geithner to be a "tax cheat".  And can show us which two quarters had a falling GDP (definition of recession for those without such advanced degrees) for the recession you allege existed in January 2001.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Judging by the stock market reaction to the Obama plan, stimulus isn't necessarily synonymous with "stimulus" is it.

I think the market reaction is partially in response to the administration talking about how bad the economy is. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sissy4Mistress61

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

In this case "stimulous" and "bailout" are the same thing, MASSIVE amounts of pork, "make-work" jobs that will dry up as soon as the funds that are stolen from the people to pay for this garbage dry up.

Perhaps with your MA in Political Science you can explain where pork and "make work" jobs were in the banking bailout.

And perhaps your three degrees on your wall can show us how you know Timothy Geithner to be a "tax cheat".  And can show us which two quarters had a falling GDP (definition of recession for those without such advanced degrees) for the recession you allege existed in January 2001.

I'm not an economist, as you can tell from my degrees (and no, I'm not trying to brag, just telling you what my credutentials are), but if you look at hard data you'll discover that in the 3rd quarter of 2000 we had a negative GDP of 0.5%, the 4th quarter was negative as well.  That's a recession.  The one that we have now is worse than the one that we had 8 years ago, but it's still a recession. 

quote:

I do not believe that you understand what I'm talking about.  My reference to "make work" had nothing to do with the 1st boondoggle. 

quote:

The first "bail out" and that's exactly what it was and is, is nothing short of a mess.  It doesn't create jobs

quote:

And in case anyone wants to defend Obama on this one, he stopped his campaign, as did McCain, so that they could run to DC and vote for it. 

quote:

As for Geithner being a tax cheat, IRS records show that he failed to pay just a bit over $34,000 in taxes and was magically forgiven in regards to all interest and penalties.  That's a tax cheat. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
What I need to avail myself of is not dictionary meanings or concepts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

What makes you think they aren't working?

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BAC

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/02/sen_warner_taxpayers_could_see.html?hpid=topnews

a million more links at request......

The first one is a link to a stock chart. I don't see the relevance.

The second is an article stating that the prices paid for assets were too high. It doesn't seem to be anything about whether it's working or not.

Well, the first was to illustrate that the stock market is still tanking hard. BAC was above twenty dollars, when the first bailout package went through. Now it's in the 5.00 dollar range. I hardly call that a success, as the whole reason for the bailout was to keep the financial deck of cards from collapsing. 20 to 5.00 dollars, seems like a collapse to me, and that indicates there is little confidence in financials still, or else the money would be gushing in at these prices.  Thus indicating another disaster "lockup" is a breath away.

The second was to illustrate the waste, unless you consider overpaying outrageous amounts, helpful to the taxpayer.

I consider the government overpaying for assets a failure to protect the taxpayer. I also consider a free fall in confidence in banks, and financials in general, as reflected in the stock prices a failure of the stated objective. "restore confidence in the financial market".  As if people were even remotely confident many of these financials would be triple there current value at least.

If you are satisfied with those results, at least you won't be disappointed with anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sissy4Mistress61

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

In this case "stimulous" and "bailout" are the same thing, MASSIVE amounts of pork, "make-work" jobs that will dry up as soon as the funds that are stolen from the people to pay for this garbage dry up.

Perhaps with your MA in Political Science you can explain where pork and "make work" jobs were in the banking bailout.

And perhaps your three degrees on your wall can show us how you know Timothy Geithner to be a "tax cheat".  And can show us which two quarters had a falling GDP (definition of recession for those without such advanced degrees) for the recession you allege existed in January 2001.

I'm not an economist, as you can tell from my degrees (and no, I'm not trying to brag, just telling you what my credutentials are), but if you look at hard data you'll discover that in the 3rd quarter of 2000 we had a negative GDP of 0.5%, the 4th quarter was negative as well.  That's a recession.  The one that we have now is worse than the one that we had 8 years ago, but it's still a recession. 

Funny how you looked up 3Q 2000 to be -0.5%, but not 4Q 2000, which was +2.1%.  Even a triply-degreed political scientist such as yourself would know that's positive, not negative (around here we call that "making shit up").  Hence, no recession in Jan 2001 as you claim.  Thanks for playing.

quote:

I do not believe that you understand what I'm talking about.  My reference to "make work" had nothing to do with the 1st boondoggle. 

Actually it is you that doesn't understand what you're talking about.  You clearly said stimulus and bailout are the same thing, and used jobs to tie them together.  This entire thread has been about bailouts and the stimulus plan.  Despite claims they are the same thing, they are not.

quote:

The first "bail out" and that's exactly what it was and is, is nothing short of a mess.  It doesn't create jobs

Nor was it designed to. 

quote:

And in case anyone wants to defend Obama on this one, he stopped his campaign, as did McCain, so that they could run to DC and vote for it. 

Flat wrong.  A political scientist such as yourself would know that Obama did not suspend his campaign "as did McCain".  McCain made a huge point of suspending his campaign, pointlessly flying to Washington (where he was shut out of the closed-door Senate banking committee meetings, since he wasn't even a member), and pretended he might not attend the debate with Obama that was planned several months in advance. 

Obama, on the other hand, demonstrating an ability to do three things at once that McCain apparently lacked, continued to make campaign appearances, planned for the debate (which took place as scheduled), and still managed to vote on the bill.

quote:

As for Geithner being a tax cheat, IRS records show that he failed to pay just a bit over $34,000 in taxes and was magically forgiven in regards to all interest and penalties.  That's a tax cheat. 

Uh, no, a tax cheat is someone who deliberately cheats on their taxes.  I'm still waiting on your proof that he did so.  As has been discussed in this forum several times as well as in the media, over half the people in Geithner's situation (as per the IRS) made the same mistake.  Doesn't make them all "tax cheats".

Oh, and in addition to the $34,000 in taxes, he also paid $15,000 in interest, despite your claim that it was "magically forgiven".  Try looking stuff up next time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sissy4Mistress61
I've tried to be polite, even to someone as obviously ignorant as yourself, but I give up.  You've apparently drank the kool-aid, so go play in Jonestown and have a good time.  When, and if, you ever decide to look something up or do any research get back with me or someone else that has done the research, holds the degrees to prove it and unlike yourself (and in your own words) doesn't "make shit up."   It would be a novel idea if perhaps you would take the time to look up facts and not simply tow the party line and cite warm fuzzy "koombaya" opinions straight off of the Obama talking points. 

I give up; ignorance can be corrected, but you just can't fix stupid and you, by all appearances you are utterly broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm truly curious about this. It seems there are many that still are for more government bailouts, stimulus etc... For the record I have been against everyone so far, and will be against all of them no matter what,  but that is not the question. The question is for those that are supportive of such measures, let's say the current round comes and goes, and its another failure, and proven to be ineffective or wasteful like the first one was. So, will you again, support it, if they propose that the sky will fall yet again without it.

The essential question, is how many times, will it take before you lose faith that the government can fix this mess. Or is there essentially no limit, as in an answer such as "it will depend on the circumstances", as there will always be a circumstance they can use to try to justify it, so that is effectively saying no limit.

Personally, I would think more would be against government spending now, than the first but it appears that many have decided to give it another chance since the president changed. So, I'm just wondering, what the tolerance is here for what in my mind, is the outright theft of money, which by the way, is adding to the debt.

Thanks.

We have a dysfunctional, unpopular Congress, and only an idiot would contemplate giving them the responsibility to determine the best way to use a "trillions of dollars" of money we don't have..or an anarchist who would love the see the decline and fall of the American capitalistic system.
I thought "The Biggest loser" was a TV reality show...but NO....it's the sucker American taxpayer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm truly curious about this. It seems there are many that still are for more government bailouts, stimulus etc... For the record I have been against everyone so far, and will be against all of them no matter what,  but that is not the question. The question is for those that are supportive of such measures, let's say the current round comes and goes, and its another failure, and proven to be ineffective or wasteful like the first one was. So, will you again, support it, if they propose that the sky will fall yet again without it.

The essential question, is how many times, will it take before you lose faith that the government can fix this mess. Or is there essentially no limit, as in an answer such as "it will depend on the circumstances", as there will always be a circumstance they can use to try to justify it, so that is effectively saying no limit.

Personally, I would think more would be against government spending now, than the first but it appears that many have decided to give it another chance since the president changed. So, I'm just wondering, what the tolerance is here for what in my mind, is the outright theft of money, which by the way, is adding to the debt.

Thanks.

We have a dysfunctional, unpopular Congress, and only an idiot would contemplate giving them the responsibility to determine the best way to use a "trillions of dollars" of money we don't have..or an anarchist who would love the see the decline and fall of the American capitalistic system.
I thought "The Biggest loser" was a TV reality show...but NO....it's the sucker American taxpayer.

LOL
Great line there cory!
and NO shit over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Judging by the stock market reaction to the Obama plan, stimulus isn't necessarily synonymous with "stimulus" is it.

I think the market reaction is partially in response to the administration talking about how bad the economy is. 

I think that we need to stop worrying so much about Wall Street's reaction.  The stock market is not an accurate indicator of the wisdom or soundness of a particular course of action, as should be bloody obvious.  These are the folks who thought the stuff that got us where we are today was a great idea and asked for more.  All a drop in the stock market shows us is that the people who are out there looking for a quick buck are feeling nervous.  Who cares?  If it went up, all that would mean is that these folks were seeing an opportunity for a fast profit for themselves.