- This topic has 1 reply, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How does one know, how you’ll know, if you’ve waited to long to act in your own best economic interest?
Answer: When the US government exercises its majority control of the US financial institutions it has invested in and puts all US citizens on an allowance with the funds that were in the accounts of conservative depositors who were smart enough not to listen to the stock brokers and economists, but trusted their savings in USA government guaranteed institutions.
Additionally, according to Uncle Barack, nobody should be listening to anyone except his new gang of tax dodging democrats. President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
The writing is in CAP’S on the walls.
Did not Castro and Chaves remove freedom of speech in their personalized forms of governing?Where and when has “Uncle Barak” started to remove free speach? I didn’t see any reference in your post about that?
Also, I have a pretty good imagination and I don’t trust my government to do the right thing usually. But even I can’t imagine all savings being frozen until we reach the point where we see 25% unemplyment, rioting in the major cities and a massive flight of regular american citizens to safer countries. By that time, your dollars in the banks will be nearly useless anyway as will most printed and minted currencies. So it is a non issue. At that point in time, you need to be counting your canned goods for a measure of your wealth….
When the President of the USA tells Americans to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh, he is suggesting to stop supporting free speech, debate, capitalism and the free market.
According to Napolean Bonaparte, “HISTORY IS A SET OF LIES AGREED UPON”
Politicians must create new lies in order to flourish and for those folks who believe their lies and are not able to see the writing on the wall, there may still be affordable opportunities in Nicaragua.Sorry. My references were deleted during the posting process. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
and
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-thingsFrom your reference, the President said “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”. The President went to the hill to invite the GOP to assist in crafting a recovery package and what he got in return was a proposal from house republicans comprised entirely of tax cuts. It was not a serious proposal, but one meant to obstruct and try and make political points during a time of national crisis. That’s what he was referring to and you go off the deep end suggesting the President wants to eliminate free speech. It’s hard to believe one could take that comment and end up where you did.
Yes. I heard the same report of what Obama said and I did not hear any threat of freedom of speech..and I am usually sensitive to that sort of thing. I believe Chromebuilder may have only heard what he wanted to hear which is indicative of a pre set opinion of Obama and the concept of change.
I have friends who voted for Bush and the politics of the rich over the middle class and the poor. These friends are not rich yet they continue to follow the politics of the far right which go against their best interests. I have never understood how ingtelligent, well meaning people could be so far off the path of their own self interests but apparently there are many of them. Bush, after all, was elected twice.
We all have the right to read and hear what we prefer and every person has their own unique interpretations. The New York Post and Fox News headlines detailed what Obama said and the White House confirmed his statements. Unfortunately, the average reader believes that what is written in the headlines is factual. FOX NEWS – Obama: “Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done” Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Others may be reading between the lines, however, I read exactly what Obama said and he warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats. Apparently Obama thinks he has the right to warn opposing politicians and the American public via the media, as to what they should and should not read and listen to. Furthermore, Sprite feels the right to post that “Chromebuilder may have only heard what he wanted to hear which is indicative of a pre set opinion of Obama.” Public statements via the internet and the media can be dangerous when one person’s words offend others. I’m personally offended by Sprites posting that I heard only what I wanted to hear. I respect the opinions of all WLCR members and refrain from criticizing anyone. Additionally, I’m of the opinion that none of us, including President Obama have the right to assume what other individuals should hear and think.I was not questioning your rights. I was pointing out your bias against Obama which was then further confirmed in your last post by your refernece to Fox news as some kind of authoritative unbiased source of valid information. It is not. If you have no bias against Obama, I am hard pressed to understand how you could have interpreted his remark as an attack on free speech.
I am personally NOT offended by misinformation. I am not even offended when misinformation is presented as fact. You are allowed to misinterpret all you want. You are even allowed to represent your misinterpretations as facts, which is what you did here even though it is more accurate to say “I believe that Obama is trying to quell free speech” rather than to say that he is definitely doing that. But do not expect to go unchallenged when you do this. It is no more disprectful to you when I express my ideas than it is disprespectful to me when you to express yours.
By the way, do you support Obama? Was I wrong in my assessment?Edited on Feb 10, 2009 12:27
I think Obama’s plan to create new money out of thin air is brilliant.
Spending an additional $1 trillion of newly created taxpayer money to further support the troubled banks is a creative method of paying back Obama constituents for their stellar political support. Additionally, their new economic stimulus bill will enable the government to become involved in the management of markets and banks in ways not seen since the great depression. That means more jobs for more Obama supporters. The writing is on the wall in bold CAPS. The Obama administration will have a far greater role in markets and banks than at any time since the 1930s. The concept of the US government exercising its majority control of US financial institutions and putting all US citizens on an allowance is becoming more credible. Additionally, I think the Costa Rican government’s new residency requirements are an intelligent preemptive measure to prevent impoverished Americans from moving to Costa Rica with insufficient means of support.Perhaps we should start thinking about the fact that these new faces in Costa Rica will not be expats… they’ll be American refugees.
It has been callculated that if all the money used for these bailouts were applied to pay off U.S. mortgages, it would pay off 100% of them. No American would owe mortgage on a home. Imagine what that would do for the economy. But the fat cats are keeping all the dough. Working people will see only a smidgeon of relief, I think. The captain and crew, along with the rats, are jumping ship with all the life jackets and life boats. We are left on board and sinking. It is every man for himself.
I don’t know if printing and borrowing money and injecting it into the economy will save us. My sense is it will probably not work. I am no expert, of course. I am just going on what I hear from politicians and so called experts. They are mostly scared sh**less. You can hear it in their words. Obama is walking a thin line trying to tell the American people how bad things are without sounding like an alarmsist. Not possible.
Edited on Feb 11, 2009 06:37
With all due respect, it’s hard to sound like an alarmist when you are yelling fire from a burning building. There is plenty of blame to go around and US has to install a new measure of accountability as part of a rapid recovery. I think what would be revealing would be the net resultant impact internationally in the event that foreign interests in the asset bases of US banks were to founder like they did at Lehman.
The idea of paying off or even reducing someone’s mortgage without caveats is absurd. Just like no regulator stopped a bank from over leveraging its assets, no bank stopped a borrower from accepting a loan that was based on untruths, especially so where the false statements were at the complicity of the borrower. Sure many were preyed upon, but a lot of homeowners chose to roll the dice. The amount of outstanding mortgages far outweighs the aggregate of the bailouts. Not even close. So the person who paid their mortgage should get the same treatment as the one next door in the same type house who lied about his income his assets and when he hit a wall stopped paying altogether? It is a very difficult problem.
We are only half way through this. There are plenty of people that want to buy RE in the US, just not at the price the banks want. That is the shadow stat of all shadow stats. The amount of REO is massive and growing, extending into asset classes that used to be fairly impervious. The banks need to have a yard sale. As long as we prop them up the economy goes nowhere. They need to sell the “family jewels” Think about when working people are going broke they sell off their best stuff to stay afloat. That’s what needs to happen with the banks.
Every new administration blames the previous for inherited problems, but the hollywood cowboy turned politician, Ronald Reagan is the real culprit. He and his star studded gang of politicians opened up a whole new can of worms by allowing the savings and loans to spread their conservative depositor’s savings across a whole new playing field of politically controlled versus conservative banking lending practices. I was building homes and developing lots when the interest rates were 21% and know first hand how construction and land development loans were put on hold for new businesses and approved very conservatively to experienced businessmen until the banks officers felt the market was feasible to add more inventory. Before Reaganism, you could count on the local banking officers to monitor and control their respective markets. Even though the housing market was tight, we were able to slowly move forward and make a little money because the banks didn’t cut off the supply of loans, they just cut back. That was before lawyers took out full page ads in the yellow book offering chapter 11 relief to the unknowing who were led to believe that they could protect their own personal assets without having to cut back if they paid the new breed of greedy lawyers instead of tightening their own belts. Since then, the housing market has been raped by greedy politicians and their special interest groups who removed the conservative banking guidelines of the past so they could have their way with the unknowing consumers who were bred through marketing and advertising to buy all they can afford and spend until the end. And the end is now upon them. Traditional real estate investors have never had the luxury of buying and selling at will like those big-time speculators on Wall Street. However, conservative real estate investors that have stuck to the old conservative investment methods are still able to enjoy the benefits of their modest and comfortable lifestyles. A wise man once told me to not let your greed exceed your need. Those have turned out to be very wise words to live by as the free-spending Wall Street yuppies have fallen like leaves off dead trees. So let’s blame Ronald Reagan who can no longer stand up for himself and leave Bush Jr. alone to write his million dollar memoirs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
