Some GOP Gov's don't want the money! Damn it!!

[Don Allen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090219/ap_on_bi_ge/bucking_the_stimulus

GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money.


This is why I have at least for the foreseeable future have given up on the Republican Party, they're assholes!!!

I'm sorry if you still belong but these guys are just assholes and that's all that can be said.

You can hate the stimulus all you want, you can ride Rush Limbaughs line of Bullshit from here to eternity, more power to you... But, you really are going to turn down money for your State that the people of your State will have to pay back, regardless, because you're a conservative.....


I'm sorry, you're just dumb, and you need to be called dumb to you're face... You're so dumb as a matter of fact that this kind of thinking is exactly why life long republicans like myself, HAVE LEFT THE FREAKING party, because you say dumb things, you pout when things don't go your way, and you put party first before country, shame on you... Go ahead turn down the money, and let the relatively few who might benefit in your State starve or go homeless, or whatever, cause you guys are just dumb!!!!!

Hey, anybody wants to defend these guys,,, be my guest............... thanks for the rant.

I so miss the old republican party, God I wish i knew where it went......

[Don Allen]

I just thought of something.. Do you know when the last time the Republican part was worth a damn, 1994...I'm really starting to believe that if you take Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, almost all of Fox news out of the equation, you get the Grand Old Party back.. Because even though these guys claim Reagan has thier hero Reagan was not the republican moron of today. He was passionate, he believed in smaller government but he wasn't stupid beyond belief and so hardcore right that he would cut off his nose to spite his face.... I want to start a movement to oust the morons and get the repiublicans back.....

[maestrowork]

Thank goodness Pennsylvania has a Democrat for governor, then. Screw 'em. More money for us.

Meanwhile, CA is going for broke...

[rugcat]

Posturing. I don't see anyone turning down the money.

[BenPanced]

There is this, however:
In fact, governors who reject some of the stimulus aid may find themselves overridden by their own legislatures because of language (Rep. James) Clyburn included in the bill that allows lawmakers to accept the federal money even if their governors object.

He inserted the provision based on the early and vocal opposition to the stimulus plan by South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford. But it also means governors like Sanford and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal — a GOP up-and-comer often mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate — can burnish their conservative credentials, knowing all the while that their legislatures can accept the money anyway.

[Don]

I just thought of something.. Do you know when the last time the Republican part was worth a damn, 1994...I'm really starting to believe that if you take Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, almost all of Fox news out of the equation, you get the Grand Old Party back.. Because even though these guys claim Reagan has thier hero Reagan was not the republican moron of today. He was passionate, he believed in smaller government but he wasn't stupid beyond belief and so hardcore right that he would cut off his nose to spite his face.... I want to start a movement to oust the morons and get the repiublicans back.....
One word - neocons.

[cethklein]

As asinine as this is, I'll give them credit for at least not being hypocrites.

This brings to mind an interesting article by Paul Begala (A man I abhor as he's an obnoxious partisan hack, and this may well be the first and only time I've ever agreed with him.)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids.

He makes a valid point though. I think it also should ring true for individuals who oppose the stimulus. I wonder how many of the people on this forum who trash talk the stimulus will turn down the tax breaks. That wold be an interesting survey. (albeit one you'd never get honest answers to).

So I'm torn here. Part of me can at least respect that some of these guys are not being hypocrites. But at the same time, they're going to cause mroe suffering all because they want to stick to their ideologies.

I'm registered Republican, and I am so disgusted with the party that it makes me sick.

Most people agree with you right now, i think. The party shot itself in the foot the way the Democrats did back in 2000. And they're doing nothing but dig an even deeper hole for themselves now. (The Dems never did either and only got out of that hole when the GOP managed to fuck up even worse. I suspect that's what the GOP is hoping for, that the Dems will do the work for them. Rush Limbaugh sure as hell won't win them any new friends. )

Oddly enough, I've not seen anyone sick of how many democratic leaders don't pay their freaking taxes.

You obviously aren't paying much attention then. I've seen questioning and calling-out about the tax issues (including here) for weeks. Open your eyes.

[James81]

I'm registered Republican, and I am so disgusted with the party that it makes me sick.

[Captshady]

Oddly enough, I've not seen anyone sick of how many democratic leaders don't pay their freaking taxes.

[James81]

Oddly enough, I've not seen anyone sick of how many democratic leaders don't pay their freaking taxes.

I'm sick of democratic leaders too.

My problem is with authority I guess.

[Don]

If a state's going to refuse the handout, they should refutiate the debt as well, and tell FedGov to go take a hike, and take their 1040 forms, their national debt, and their grandious schemes for world domination with them. I'd hitch up and move there to help man the barricades.

Of course, there hasn't been a complete set of balls in any statehouse in the country since ol' Abe performed his castration.

[cethklein]

It would be an interesting change but like you said, it's not going to happen. Begala brought up a good point though. The governor of SC claims he hates big spending, yet he's had no problem asking FedGove to send billions his way. See the quote I posted above.

I think this is the problem with most so-called "fiscal conservatives". Very few of them "walk the walk". If more of them actually did, we'd be a lot better off. I believe at least some of the ideals of fiscal conservatism are the right ideals (not all, some spending HAS to be done.) so far I've yet to see many people adhere to any of said ideals though.

[James81]

If a state's going to refuse the handout, they should refutiate the debt as well, and tell FedGov to go take a hike, and take their 1040 forms, their national debt, and their grandious schemes for world domination with them. I'd hitch up and move there to help man the barricades.

Of course, there hasn't been a complete set of balls in any statehouse in the country since ol' Abe performed his castration.

I was thinking more along the lines of if they don't want to except the money, fine, more money for the rest of us.

[Don]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That pretty well sums it up.

[robeiae]

Okay. This really burns me up.

There's nothing that's a bigger turnoff to me, personally, than the attitude of "hey, I'm gonna get some of that, no matter what."

So, you guys think these Governors are being stupid/foolish/asinine/what-have-you?

I take it, then, that you are all gonna stop making mortgage payments and fall into a potential foreclosure so you can get some of the handouts that are coming, right?

And make no mistake, plenty are gonna do just that. And we'll all foot the bill, just as we all foot the bill when people game the system after disasters and pretty much all the time in Medicare/Medicaid.

The way I see it, if they turn down bailout money because the money IS AN ILLUSION AND THE BAILOUT IS WRONG, they're SAVING ME and everyone else money.

Really, I can't stand this idea that we should scam the government for all we can get, 'cause everyone else is gonna do it. That's not the attitude that made this country great, but it is the attitude that will sink it.

[Don]

Okay. This really burns me up.

There's nothing that's a bigger turnoff to me, personally, than the attitude of "hey, I'm gonna get some of that, no matter what."

So, you guys think these Governors are being stupid/foolish/asinine/what-have-you?

I take it, then, that you are all gonna stop making mortgage payments and fall into a potential foreclosure so you can get some of the handouts that are coming, right?

And make no mistake, plenty are gonna do just that. And we'll all foot the bill, just as we all foot the bill when people game the system after disasters and pretty much all the time in Medicare/Medicaid.

The way I see it, if they turn down bailout money because the money IS AN ILLUSION AND THE BAILOUT IS WRONG, they're SAVING ME and everyone else money.

Really, I can't stand this idea that we should scam the government for all we can get, 'cause everyone else is gonna do it. That's not the attitude that made this country great, but it is the attitude that will sink it.
Quote of the day week month.

[rugcat]

d.The way I see it, if they turn down bailout money because the money IS AN ILLUSION AND THE BAILOUT IS WRONG, they're SAVING ME and everyone else money.Far better that the cash strapped states should close schools, cut services to the impoverished elderly, and lay off workers, thus plunging their states deeper into financial meltdown. The important thing, after all, is to remain ideologically pure.

That will show those scam artists in DC that they can't get away with such behavior.

[James81]

Okay. This really burns me up.

There's nothing that's a bigger turnoff to me, personally, than the attitude of "hey, I'm gonna get some of that, no matter what."

So, you guys think these Governors are being stupid/foolish/asinine/what-have-you?

I take it, then, that you are all gonna stop making mortgage payments and fall into a potential foreclosure so you can get some of the handouts that are coming, right?

And make no mistake, plenty are gonna do just that. And we'll all foot the bill, just as we all foot the bill when people game the system after disasters and pretty much all the time in Medicare/Medicaid.

The way I see it, if they turn down bailout money because the money IS AN ILLUSION AND THE BAILOUT IS WRONG, they're SAVING ME and everyone else money.

Really, I can't stand this idea that we should scam the government for all we can get, 'cause everyone else is gonna do it. That's not the attitude that made this country great, but it is the attitude that will sink it.

1. The money is going to be spent whether they spend it or someone else does, so their antics aren't saving you a dime.

2. They are making a political statement. They really don't give a flying fuck about how the bill will affect us one way or the other. They probably haven't even read it, and they probably don't understand it even if they did.

3. The government needs to function as a whole, not as rogue parts. Not only are they breeding discontent among the citizens by making an open, public rebellion against this bill, but they are driving an even FURTHER wedge between the parties than already exists. And I didn't think that was even possible.

[cethklein]

Okay. This really burns me up.

There's nothing that's a bigger turnoff to me, personally, than the attitude of "hey, I'm gonna get some of that, no matter what."

So, you guys think these Governors are being stupid/foolish/asinine/what-have-you?

I take it, then, that you are all gonna stop making mortgage payments and fall into a potential foreclosure so you can get some of the handouts that are coming, right?
.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does saying governors shouldn't take money akin to wanting to scam the government? Shouldn't you be mad at the governors? If they said they oppose government handouts, why should they then take them?

As James said, the money will be spent whether they get it or not. So all they're donig is costing the citizens of their state valuable money just so they can make some fucking political statement. If they want to all get together and have a circle-jerk about they don't like the bailout, Fox News would surely accommodate them and give them the podium they seek. That way the people and the states still get the money they need (much of which IS needed, by the way, due at least in part to the ineptitude of these very governors.

Sorry, but doing stupid shit just to make a point is, well, stupid.

[Alpha Echo]

I take it, then, that you are all gonna stop making mortgage payments and fall into a potential foreclosure so you can get some of the handouts that are coming, right?



Is that what's happening? I mean..people that do that...just stop paying, are going to get money back from the government? THAT'S part of the bail-out, stimulous BS?

Damn. Well, good for my ex-husband then. Asshole stopped paying the mortgage 6 months before we moved out in order to fund his affair, and he's gonna get money from the government?

I hope you're wrong.

[maestrowork]

Governors govern, and that include managing budgets, upkeeping infrastructure, keeping programs running, etc. etc. and all that take money and if the state is running out of money, isn't it the governors' duty to at least consider the stimulus package and what it could do for their states, instead of playing politics and putting on a pretense: We don't want that money. Governors govern. Leave the grandstanding for the moral majority.

[cethklein]

Is that what's happening? I mean..people that do that...just stop paying, are going to get money back from the government? THAT'S part of the bail-out, stimulous BS?

Damn. Well, good for my ex-husband then. Asshole stopped paying the mortgage 6 months before we moved out in order to fund his affair, and he's gonna get money from the government?

I hope you're wrong.

Yeah, but he'll need the couple grand he gets from the government since his credit will be absolutely fucked after his foreclosure. So you can rest a little easier. I hope he thinks he's REAL smart when he tries to go get a car or home loan sometime in the next seven years.

[James81]

Is that what's happening? I mean..people that do that...just stop paying, are going to get money back from the government? THAT'S part of the bail-out, stimulous BS?

Damn. Well, good for my ex-husband then. Asshole stopped paying the mortgage 6 months before we moved out in order to fund his affair, and he's gonna get money from the government?

I hope you're wrong.

I'm under the impression that the bailout was designed to just buy up those bad loans from the bank (not give money to the individuals).

And it's still a mark on his credit. And a foreclosure is a pretty bad mark to have. Even if he DID get money from the government, he's gonna be screwed housewise for at least 3 or 4 years. And credit wise it'll be there for 7 years.

[Alpha Echo]

Yeah, but he'll need the couple grand he gets from the government since his credit will be absolutely fucked after his foreclosure. So you can rest a little easier. I hope he thinks he's REAL smart when he tries to go get a car or home loan sometime in the next seven years.

I'm under the impression that the bailout was designed to just buy up those bad loans from the bank (not give money to the individuals).

And it's still a mark on his credit. And a foreclosure is a pretty bad mark to have. Even if he DID get money from the government, he's gonna be screwed housewise for at least 3 or 4 years. And credit wise it'll be there for 7 years.

True...I forgot about the whole credit thing. Though he won't need a car anytime soon, it'll be hard to get much else. I hope I'm there when he falls....

[robeiae]

Far better that the cash strapped states should close schools, cut services to the impoverished elderly, and lay off workers, thus plunging their states deeper into financial meltdown. The important thing, after all, is to remain ideologically pure.

That will show those scam artists in DC that they can't get away with such behavior.
Yes, that's the only POSSIBLE solution, other than taking the cash...

:rolleyes:

Did we go through a wormhole or something that I somehow missed?

[robeiae]

I'm under the impression that the bailout was designed to just buy up those bad loans from the bank (not give money to the individuals).

And it's still a mark on his credit. And a foreclosure is a pretty bad mark to have. Even if he DID get money from the government, he's gonna be screwed housewise for at least 3 or 4 years. And credit wise it'll be there for 7 years.
Nope. That's not what Obama is saying. People in foreclosure are gonna get a pass and their loan will be renegotiated or paid down (or both) by the Feds, so they can keep owning it.

You watch--there won't be any repurcussions re credit or the like. After all, that wouldn't be fair...

[James81]

Nope. That's not what Obama is saying. People in foreclosure are gonna get a pass and their loan will be renegotiated or paid down (or both) by the Feds, so they can keep owning it.

You watch--there won't be any repurcussions re credit or the like. After all, that wouldn't be fair...

Renegotiated loans wouldn't be such a terrible thing. If you can get these loans back down to something people can afford each month it's way better than letting it go to foreclosure and not recouping ANY of the money from it.

[cethklein]

Nope. That's not what Obama is saying. People in foreclosure are gonna get a pass and their loan will be renegotiated or paid down (or both) by the Feds, so they can keep owning it.

You watch--there won't be any repurcussions re credit or the like. After all, that wouldn't be fair...

You seem awfully sure about this. Why is that? I've seen nothing to imply that there will be any paying down of loans on a massive scale (if at all).

[robeiae]

1. The money is going to be spent whether they spend it or someone else does, so their antics aren't saving you a dime.
I don't know that to be the case, nor do you. You may be right, however. So I guess you're one of those with the mindset "take whatever you can get from the government, whether you actually need it, or not...don't cost nothin."

Side story: after Hurricane Andrew ravaged South Florida, I was working as a grocery store manager. In those months after the storm, we got a large number of folks coming in and paying with Red Cross checks that were doled out to help those in need. Three incidents involving those checks have always stuck with me.

1) A guy I actually knew paid for his groceries with one. He lived in an apartment around the corner from the store. No damage. Zero. And he had power the day after the storm. How did he get this check? Pissed me off, but there was nothing I could do.

2) Another guy--accompanied by wife and child--paid for his groceries with one, or rather paid for MOST of his groceries. The rip-away portion of the checks--and the guidelines I had from the Red Cross--specifically forbid the purchase of alcohol. This guy had a couple of cases of beer. I told him he'd have to pay cash for it and he threw a complete hissy-fit. Threatened me, screamed obscenities, the works. Asshole.

3) A woman paid for her groceries and when totalled up, she still had a little left. So, she grabbed some candy at checkout and kept grabbing more til she hit the top. So what, you say? Well look, the checks were all made out for "up to" x dollars. The Red Cross was issuing them for people to use to replace lost goods and food. And many, many people didn't hit the limit. Others went easily over, but then paid the rest out of pocket. But the point is, this money was coming from the Red Cross relief fund. When that fund dried up, the checks stopped. The ides was that people use it to replace what they lost, not as "free" money.

In all three cases, I see people that don't "get it," are selfish, are users.

2. They are making a political statement. They really don't give a flying fuck about how the bill will affect us one way or the other. They probably haven't even read it, and they probably don't understand it even if they did.
Yeah, the people that passed the bill and the people that support it haven't read it either. And they wouldn't understand it, either. They're just selfish know-nothings or ideologues.
3. The government needs to function as a whole, not as rogue parts. Not only are they breeding discontent among the citizens by making an open, public rebellion against this bill, but they are driving an even FURTHER wedge between the parties than already exists. And I didn't think that was even possible.Oh, BS. The States are under no obligation to accept crap from DC.

[robeiae]

You seem awfully sure about this. Why is that? I've seen nothing to imply that there will be any paying down of loans on a massive scale (if at all).
Huh?

http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/homeowner-affordability-plan/ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Page 2, point 2. How do you think this bit will be accomplished?

[cethklein]

Oh, BS. The States are under no obligation to accept crap from DC.

And the voters are under no obligation to re-elect these idiots (and they likely won't. How do you campaign on "everyone else got money but we didn't, but don't worry, I stayed ideologically pure."?)

[Don Allen]

Okay. This really burns me up.

There's nothing that's a bigger turnoff to me, personally, than the attitude of "hey, I'm gonna get some of that, no matter what."

So, you guys think these Governors are being stupid/foolish/asinine/what-have-you?


The way I see it, if they turn down bailout money because the money IS AN ILLUSION AND THE BAILOUT IS WRONG, they're SAVING ME and everyone else money.

Really, I can't stand this idea that we should scam the government for all we can get, 'cause everyone else is gonna do it. That's not the attitude that made this country great, but it is the attitude that will sink it.

Don't miss my point Rob, I couls care less if you agree or don't agree with the stimulus as far as this thread is concerned. My point is that these hypocritical bastards will take the money, but they're posturing and grandstanding as if being force fed to eat a shit pie from a stroke patient.

Bobby Jindahl had no problem when Bush offered 10 billion to the State in emergency money after Katrina, that was a bailout. What I'm livid about is the posturing, its counterproductive whether you're a republican or democrat, I understand hating the stimulus, fine, not a problem, but unless your State succeeds from the union, AGAIN, you're going to pay this money back, so who the hell are you trying to fool that you're not going to take it on principle, it's BULLSHIT!!!!!!

[robeiae]

And the voters are under no obligation to re-elect these idiots (and they likely won't. How do you campaign on "everyone else got money but we didn't, but don't worry, I stayed ideologically pure."?)
Of course. If that's what happens.

[Don Allen]

Nope. That's not what Obama is saying. People in foreclosure are gonna get a pass and their loan will be renegotiated or paid down (or both) by the Feds, so they can keep owning it.

You watch--there won't be any repurcussions re credit or the like. After all, that wouldn't be fair...


This is what Limbaugh is saying........I just heard him yesterday...

[robeiae]

Don't miss my point Rob, I couls care less if you agree or don't agree with the stimulus as far as this thread is concerned. My point is that these hypocritical bastards will take the money, but they're posturing and grandstanding as if being force fed to eat a shit pie from a stroke patient.

Bobby Jindahl had no problem when Bush offered 10 billion to the State in emergency money after Katrina, that was a bailout. What I'm livid about is the posturing, its counterproductive whether you're a republican or democrat, I understand hating the stimulus, fine, not a problem, but unless your State succeeds from the union, AGAIN, you're going to pay this money back, so who the hell are you trying to fool that you're not going to take it on principle, it's BULLSHIT!!!!!!
I disagree.

My opinion is that it's a bad move, that it won't really help, and that it will ultimately make matters worse. So, I hope they DON'T take the money.

[robeiae]

This is what Limbaugh is saying........I just heard him yesterday...Then, that would make Limbaugh right...or rather "correct."

[Don Allen]

Forget the stimulus, its a done deal... THEY WILL TAKE IT, I will send you a 20 dollar fucking bill if one of these dickweeds don't take it, thats how sure I'am that they will take it.... I'd send more but times are tough....I need stimulus, different subject....Anyway they're just lying through their teeth, you must see this??????

[Don Allen]

Then, that would make Limbaugh right...or rather "correct."



I didn't say he was right, i said that he promoted the idea... I haven't heard this come from the White House or Obama...

[robeiae]

Forget the stimulus, its a done deal... THEY WILL TAKE IT, I will send you a 20 dollar fucking bill if one of these dickweeds don't take it, thats how sure I'am that they will take it.... I'd send more but times are tough....I need stimulus, different subject....Anyway they're just lying through their teeth, you must see this??????
What do you want, Don?

I WANT them to refuse the money. I hope they do. If they don't, I'll be disappointed.

I want the banks and Wall Street to refuse monies, too. I hope that executive salary cap makes some do exactly that.

And I want the Feds to nix GM and Chrysler's BS plans, forcing them to declare bankruptcy, reorganize, and either become profitable or die.

But who's really lying through their teeth? You want to "forget" the stimulus? Screw that. The people that voted for it and that are claiming it's about "stimulus" are the ones lying through their teeth. I'm not about to get off that. I see no reason why I should.

[robeiae]

I didn't say he was right, i said that he promoted the idea... I haven't heard this come from the White House or Obama...Well, I gave the link to the executive summary of the plan.

Here's a bit from a news story (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing-qna19-2009feb19,0,7656237.story):



How does the loan modification program work?

This program applies to borrowers who are unable to make -- or are struggling to make -- mortgage payments that exceed 38% of their monthly income. If the lender agrees to lower the interest rate or reduce the principal amount to bring the payment to 38% of the borrower's income, the government will pay half of the additional cost to the lender to reduce the payment to 31% of the borrower's income.


That suggests--pretty strongly--that the Feds are gonna end up paying down debt for some three million homeowners.

[James81]

I don't know that to be the case, nor do you. You may be right, however. So I guess you're one of those with the mindset "take whatever you can get from the government, whether you actually need it, or not...don't cost nothin."



I'm actually a "pull yourself up by your fucking bootstraps" kind of person.

If there are sections of either one of these bills that are paying money to the people who are defaulting on their loans, then those sections of the bill are ridiculous.

Renegotiating loans that have spiked? Meh. In one way, yeah, it sucks to pay for people's stupid financial decisions. But on the other hand, getting SOMETHING is better than nothing. A foreclosed house is going to hurt a bank way more than a reduced interest rate.

[James81]

Oh, BS. The States are under no obligation to accept crap from DC.

There's a little blip in our history that I like to call the "Civil War" and it's outcome that suggests otherwise.

[Don Allen]

Selective editing Rob? From your link.....

Isn't this just rewarding people for making bad decisions and irresponsibly getting in over their heads?

The Obama administration says the loan modification plan will exclude speculators and borrowers with high debts. Homeowners must live in the house in question, document their income and demonstrate an ability to make the new payment for an extended period of time.


The alternative, as we've already seen, kick the bums out, take the default and depress the shit out of home prices...Bush's plan worked great, you want more of this?

[SherryTex]

Don't miss my point Rob, I couls care less if you agree or don't agree with the stimulus as far as this thread is concerned. My point is that these hypocritical bastards will take the money, but they're posturing and grandstanding as if being force fed to eat a shit pie from a stroke patient.

Bobby Jindahl had no problem when Bush offered 10 billion to the State in emergency money after Katrina, that was a bailout. What I'm livid about is the posturing, its counterproductive whether you're a republican or democrat, I understand hating the stimulus, fine, not a problem, but unless your State succeeds from the union, AGAIN, you're going to pay this money back, so who the hell are you trying to fool that you're not going to take it on principle, it's BULLSHIT!!!!!!

of course Democrats NEVER posture. Jindal wasn't governor when Katrina hit --and the reason for refusing the money was not Rush said so..it was too many strings attatched. There are still untold amounts of fed money waiting to be spent to rejuvenate the Gulf Coast, held back by red tape.

If these Governors want to try to weather the storm without the money..let them and lets see what state those states are in --in one or two or three years when all this stimulus is supposed to take effect. Why so angry?

[cethklein]

Of course. If that's what happens.

Don't worry, it won't. These chicken-shit governors are all talk. not a one of them will turn down the money. (which again, is as it should be.) But they shouldn't talk as if they will when we all know they won't.

[SherryTex]

So are you mad that they will take the money or won't. I'm confused.

[robeiae]

Selective editing Rob? From your link.....

Isn't this just rewarding people for making bad decisions and irresponsibly getting in over their heads?

The Obama administration says the loan modification plan will exclude speculators and borrowers with high debts. Homeowners must live in the house in question, document their income and demonstrate an ability to make the new payment for an extended period of time.


The alternative, as we've already seen, kick the bums out, take the default and depress the shit out of home prices...Bush's plan worked great, you want more of this?
I don't understand. Nothing you've noted undoes what I am suggesting: that the Feds are gonna shell out cash--our cash--to float delinquent or near-deliquent mortgages.

As to what I want more of, home prices were inflated by these shitty loans. Let 'em go. Someone's gonna buy 'em. Banks will take what they can get.

And hey, if a homeowner calls the bank and the bank agrees to renegotiate, great.

[Don Allen]

So are you mad that they will take the money or won't. I'm confused.



Sherry, there's an old Bugs Bunny cartoon wher elmer Fudd is trying to fatten up bugs before sticking him in the pot for dinner. He gives Bugs a bucket of Carrots, lettuce, celery and other good rabbit treats. Bugs starts screaming about the garbage Elmer expects him to eat as he gulps down every last bite of food screaming and cussing the whole time about what garbage it is...


Hence these Govenors, piss and moan and cry and bitch, yet they'll take the money. But this ain't a cartoon, it's peoples lives and they are making a mockery of them.

[Don Allen]

I don't understand. Nothing you've noted undoes what I am suggesting: that the Feds are gonna shell out cash--our cash--to float delinquent or near-deliquent mortgages.

As to what I want more of, home prices were inflated by these shitty loans. Let 'em go. Someone's gonna buy 'em. Banks will take what they can get.

And hey, if a homeowner calls the bank and the bank agrees to renegotiate, great.


The problem is that its just to damn widespread, and its killing everyones home values, not just the people who are in over their heads.

Otherwise, and this pains me slightly, we would agree..... probably pains you too...lol

[SherryTex]

Look, I'm not a simpleton. I'm not a polyanna. I KNOW no one is unscathed. My parents are right at retirement and they've been harmed severely. They NEED to retire...and may not be able to without having to sell their home which is worth much less.

We bought a new house three years ago --at the peak and we've lost 150K of value and won't be able to sell and we've lost 150K of our 401K. I have many friends who either were cut back on hours or laid off or who are scrambling for money to get through each month. Everyone is hurting.

However, I don't think the stimulus package arguement that all spending is stimulus therefore means all spending is good. I don't view everything strictly through a political lens or I would distrust every and all actions. I can, but find that to limit one's ability to recognize when something might possibly be genuine.

If I thought the Democrats were genuine about believing this stimulus package would solve the problems, I'd give them a chance but even they say this might not work. Even they say there will be a need for more. 750 billion for Tarp. 789 billion for stimulus. 750 billion for foreclosures. 3TRILLION, 890 Billion dollars proposed and/or allocated for spending since November (with Bush and Obama in agreement) 1 Trillion 589 Billion just since Inaugeration! I think this is pretty bad for everyone!

I don't subscribe to the We Have to do something even if we don't know what we're doing. That's We're lost but we're making good time kind of logic.

[James81]

Look, I'm not a simpleton. I'm not a polyanna. I KNOW no one is unscathed. My parents are right at retirement and they've been harmed severely. They NEED to retire...and may not be able to without having to sell their home which is worth much less.

We bought a new house three years ago --at the peak and we've lost 150K of value and won't be able to sell and we've lost 150K of our 401K. I have many friends who either were cut back on hours or laid off or who are scrambling for money to get through each month. Everyone is hurting.

However, I don't think the stimulus package arguement that all spending is stimulus therefore means all spending is good. I don't view everything strictly through a political lens or I would distrust every and all actions. I can, but find that to limit one's ability to recognize when something might possibly be genuine.

If I thought the Democrats were genuine about believing this stimulus package would solve the problems, I'd give them a chance but even they say this might not work. Even they say there will be a need for more. 750 billion for Tarp. 789 billion for stimulus. 750 billion for foreclosures. 3TRILLION, 890 Billion dollars proposed and/or allocated for spending since November (with Bush and Obama in agreement) 1 Trillion 589 Billion just since Inaugeration! I think this is pretty bad for everyone!

I don't subscribe to the We Have to do something even if we don't know what we're doing. That's We're lost but we're making good time kind of logic.

I can agree that the amounts are too high for these bills (but that's mainly because so far the bailout and the stimulus are bogged down with ridiculous pork), but the concepts behind both of them are good in theory. The two pronged focus...one towards wall street and banks and the other towards what the news calls "main street"...is as solid a plan as anything the government can do to help the economy.

On a grossly basic level, though, our economy is build on pretty much four major factors (there are myriads of other things, but these are the main things that drive our economy):

Spending
Investment
Savings
Credit

A healthy economy will have a decent balance between those four things. The other factors which come into play (like demographics) are factors that affect how people do each of those 4 things.

The bailout and the stimulus, at their base levels, Have a focus on 3 of those 4 things. So the ideas behind both bills should have an affect on the economy as a whole.

[SherryTex]

But the spending is on government. The spending is borrowed money --using credit cards that will charge major interest in the future to pay bills we have now.

What I do see, is skads of money being spent and thrown about without any concern about how we will pay for this. The stimulus bill passed and the Dow tanked. The foreclosure bill plan was announced and the Dow is still tanking more. Doesn't this say that maybe...this isn't the way?

[James81]

What I do see, is skads of money being spent and thrown about without any concern about how we will pay for this. The stimulus bill passed and the Dow tanked. The foreclosure bill plan was announced and the Dow is still tanking more. Doesn't this say that maybe...this isn't the way?

The DOW tanking has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of these bills. The DOW was going to tank whether these bills were there or not.

[nighttimer]

I'm really very happy to hear Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin and some of these other GOP governors don't want any of the stimulus money.

More for those who do. :Thumbs:

[James81]

Sarah Palin and ....don't want any of the stimulus money.



There's a real shocker.

[SherryTex]

I'm glad too, for different reasons.

I think we should be at least concerned about the fact that we're spending or proposing spending 750 billion every few months with the recent flurry of activity. The Stimulus,the Tarp, the Car Bail Out, the Foreclosure plan...what's the tipping point...what's the point at which the Federal government spending isn't stimulus but rather, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

I ask this serioiusly of those who feel this stimulus plan is so good and that all these plans to spend money will somehow solve a problem that came from the Republicans spending money we didn't have and creating a government budget that was above our means. How is it better if a Democrat does the same thing? How is this good for the country as a whole?

We'll get our 13$ every other week for our groceries from the stimulus bill, and IF you're in foreclosure and IF you're one of the 9 million that qualifies THEN, you can refinance your home at a lower rate minus penalties than those who got their loans and are paying the bills. We'll get our converter boxes for our TV so we can spend our 13 on pizza and watch the circus on TV...tell me how this will make the real issues of rampant losses on Wall Street, rampant loss in property values, shops going out of business because no one is spending money, taxes being raised on a local level at a startling rate to make up the differences in lost revenue...Jobs come from businesses. Businesses hire when they feel safe. Who feels safe with this kind of crazy spending going on?

Basically, I hold Obama responsible. He was the guy. He said he had an economic plan. He didn't have a plan. He let the democrats have a feeding frenzy. Then he pronounced it an imperfect bill that may require tweaking and signed the damn thing saying, we might need to spend more. So how will he craft the next bill? Will he go to the Republicans and say, "It's your turn at the public trof?" I'll be just as mad. Or will he say, Nancy, we need another stimulus bill...at which point, whatever cuts/projects didn't get in the first bill, will get their payoff.

[robeiae]

The DOW tanking has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of these bills. The DOW was going to tank whether these bills were there or not.
Are you sure? Isn't it kinda odd that big slides came right after unveilings of plans and the like?

I mean, the Dow has now slid more since Obama took office than during the big slide last year. So far, no "plan" or statement that he (or anyone in his admin) has offered or made has led to any kind of uptick.

It's almost like the market thinks he's either full of shit or just doesn't know what he's doing.

[Christine N.]

There's a real shocker.

Alaska doesn't NEED the damn money, so it's not like she's taking a big stand or anything, which was exactly my first thought when I first heard about it. They're swimming in oil money up there, a place where the oil companies write checks to the residents every year. They also have fewer residents than any other state.

Big whoop.

As far as the car companies, I'm over it. Let 'em find a new way to make something people need and want, or go under. Don't pay to uphold a company that produces goods that will sit around because no one can afford them or wants them.

The DOW went down after the bills were signed because Wall Street knows it's going to be time to pay the piper. Time to stop giving CEO's giant bonuses while laying off grunts, time to stop loaning money to people who can't pay it back.

[robeiae]

I don't think so, Christine.

Stocks are down across the board. Not just for financial companies. It went down--and is still going down--because people aren't investing. Any people.

And that means people have no faith--right now--in the direction of the economy.

And--to me--that means they have no faith in what Obama has done and is doing.

[James81]

Are you sure? Isn't it kinda odd that big slides came right after unveilings of plans and the like?

I mean, the Dow has now slid more since Obama took office than during the big slide last year. So far, no "plan" or statement that he (or anyone in his admin) has offered or made has led to any kind of uptick.

It's almost like the market thinks he's either full of shit or just doesn't know what he's doing.

But the market isn't GOING to immediately come back up after a bill is passed. It's almost like thinking that as soon as you give your waitress your order, that your food will magically appear in front of you.

The market is based on investment speculation, and that changes every HOUR (not day, month, but HOUR). Look at how much the market fluctuates in a given day. So many different things go into it that to say "Hey, it went down today and the bill passed..this bill is a failure" is kind of ridiculous.

Watch the market when they actually start spending money. When people are actually having to go back to work to do the work that this stimulus money is wanting to do. THEN make a judgement about the bill.

To rag on Obama after a month is so unrealistic that it hurts. Therre is a very real possibility that the economy won't really recover much in the four years he's in office. Let alone after a month or on the day a bill is passed.

But people will criticize anything he does because he's the man who's there. He's a new guy who's supposed to fix all our problems and give us hope. Get your head out of the clouds. I voted for Obama because I believe he'd change the direction of the country and stop the bleeding. Not make the market go up because of legislation.

Alaska doesn't NEED the damn money, so it's not like she's taking a big stand or anything, which was exactly my first thought when I first heard about it. They're swimming in oil money up there, a place where the oil companies write checks to the residents every year. They also have fewer residents than any other state.

Big whoop.

No state ever has the money it needs, no matter how much money they have. There is always more that can be done, and when it comes to government money there is NEVER enough. Yeah, things may be good, but they could be EVEN BETTER. But good is good enough, I guess.

The DOW went down after the bills were signed because Wall Street knows it's going to be time to pay the piper. Time to stop giving CEO's giant bonuses while laying off grunts, time to stop loaning money to people who can't pay it back.

The DOW went down because people are still being laid off in record numbers, foreclosures are off the charts, and the the over-inflated prices are trying to reset themselves.

Stocks were overpriced and overinflated because of the bubble. That bubble burst and, in true market fashion, it's going to go below where it needs to be and then back above and then back below (think of a like a vibrating wave) until it stabilizes. That could take years.

[robeiae]

But the market isn't GOING to immediately come back up after a bill is passed. It's almost like thinking that as soon as you give your waitress your order, that your food will magically appear in front of you.Look James, I don't think passing spending bills in Congress is gonna do jack shit for the market. Ever.

But you're ignoring reality, here. When Timothy Geithner held his big presser and announced what he was planning to do, the market fucking tanked big time. One followed the other.

That doesn't prove the plan was wrong or right, sound or unsound. However, it does show that investors didn't think much of it. So, I can say--and be completely correct--that what Obama and his admin have done do far has led to the market going down.

The market is based on investment speculation, and that changes every HOUR (not day, month, but HOUR). Look at how much the market fluctuates in a given day. So many different things go into it that to say "Hey, it went down today and the bill passed..this bill is a failure" is kind of ridiculous.Yes and no. The market is driven primarily by emotion. And it responds--quickly--to changes in emotion of its players.


Watch the market when they actually start spending money. When people are actually having to go back to work to do the work that this stimulus money is wanting to do. THEN make a judgement about the bill.
By your own reasoning though, you can't do that.

[James81]

Look James, I don't think passing spending bills in Congress is gonna do jack shit for the market. Ever.

Sure it will. Spending bills will never be a long term fix for the economy, but they will affect the market.

And I've given my own personal examples enough as proof of that. Maybe it's not affecting the market the way you think it should, but it's having an affect and in the short term, it's a positive affect.

Beyond that, it's just speculation. It may just be prolonging the pain (we don't know when this is going to bottom out), or it may just be enough to make the pain less intense until the market naturally bottoms out and resets itself.

But you're ignoring reality, here. When Timothy Geithner held his big presser and announced what he was planning to do, the market fucking tanked big time. One followed the other.

That doesn't prove the plan was wrong or right, sound or unsound. However, it does show that investors didn't think much of it. So, I can say--and be completely correct--that what Obama and his admin have done do far has led to the market going down.

The market is and was tanking anyway. I can tell you that fact that an increase in the women wearing bikinis on the beach has caused an increase in sales of popsicles, and I could make a damn good case for it. But the truth is, one has little to do with the other. The fact that popsicles sales are increasing is because the weather is getting warmer and because the weather is getting warmer, more women are wearing bikinis on the beach.

Same thing. There are far too many factors at work in the market (it's so fluid) to say that just one thing has caused another.

Yes and no. The market is driven primarily by emotion. And it responds--quickly--to changes in emotion of its players.

Any smart investor knows that before you ever start investing, you need to remove emotion from the equation. Pick up a copy of 24 Essential Lessons for Investment Success by Willam J. O'Neil and give it a read.

There are emotional investors, but the key players go off of speculation that is based on past trends and market facts, not emotion.

By your own reasoning though, you can't do that.

Sure I can. Because I'm one of the few people in here who isn't pretending that what I am saying is concrete fact. I assert what I know strongly, but I also know that what I am saying doesn't apply all of the time.

[johnnysannie]

There's a real shocker.

She may change her mind and use it to pay those nasty little back taxes that she now owes on the per diem she charged the state of Alaska for going home every night.

[johnnysannie]

Then, that would make Limbaugh right...or rather "correct."

No, it's just one more example of how slanted and how ignorant Limbaugh is.....

[SherryTex]

And I hope she does. Then maybe we can ask Rham Emanuel to pay for his years of living rent/mortgage free in a mansion thanks to political favors from Connecticut that were a "gift" that should have been reported as income.

I guess it's easy to be a multi millionare when you don't pay bills or taxes.

[James81]

She may change her mind and use it to pay those nasty little back taxes that she now owes on the per diem she charged the state of Alaska for going home every night.

And I hope she does. Then maybe we can ask Rham Emanuel to pay for his years of living rent/mortgage free in a mansion thanks to political favors from Connecticut that were a "gift" that should have been reported as income.

I guess it's easy to be a multi millionare when you don't pay bills or taxes.

Meh, neither one of those have anything to do with the discussion. We get it, both Dems AND Repubs are worthless wastes of flesh.

We gotta do the best we can with what we've got though.

[MattW]

We gotta do the best we can with what we've got though.Vote them out collectively on principle, or keep directing our energies at picking Tweedle-Dee over Tweedle-Dum every 2-4 years?

[SherryTex]

Yes but is THIS the BEST we can do? Man are we in trouble.

[James81]

Vote them out collectively on principle, or keep directing our energies at picking Tweedle-Dee over Tweedle-Dum every 2-4 years?

Heh, exactly.

I voted for Hope and Change this election. Not because I voted for Obama, but because anybody who was currently holding an office, I voted against them.

You want hope and change? Forget the president. He's a patsy anyway. Vote against the 500 other fuckers that are in Washington.

[MattW]

Vote against the 500 other fuckers that are in Washington.Don, is that you?
:tongue

[Don]

Heh, exactly.

I voted for Hope and Change this election. Not because I voted for Obama, but because anybody who was currently holding an office, I voted against them.

You want hope and change? Forget the president. He's a patsy anyway. Vote against the 500 other fuckers that are in Washington.
Don, is that you?
:tongue
It seems like more people are channeling me lately. I'm glad to see people are catching on. :roll:

[James81]

It seems like more people are channeling me lately. I'm glad to see people are catching on. :roll:

It's kinda like you are Whoopi Goldberg and I am Patrick Swayze isn't it?

[Don]

It's kinda like you are Whoopi Goldberg and I am Patrick Swayze isn't it?
You got it backwards, Whoopi. :D I've been trash-talking the 545 since the day I got here.

[robeiae]

Sure it will. Spending bills will never be a long term fix for the economy, but they will affect the market.

And I've given my own personal examples enough as proof of that. Maybe it's not affecting the market the way you think it should, but it's having an affect and in the short term, it's a positive affect.Is that a concrete fact? Sounds like it.

But I think you're wrong, here. Really, I'm pretty damn sure of it. Your experiences as "proof" don't involve the market at all, that I can see. Explain it to me. Because if in the short term, it was positive, then why is the market down?

Beyond that, it's just speculation. It may just be prolonging the pain (we don't know when this is going to bottom out), or it may just be enough to make the pain less intense until the market naturally bottoms out and resets itself.Or it may make it worse, or it may do next to nothing. My vote is for the last.




The market is and was tanking anyway. I can tell you that fact that an increase in the women wearing bikinis on the beach has caused an increase in sales of popsicles, and I could make a damn good case for it. But the truth is, one has little to do with the other. The fact that popsicles sales are increasing is because the weather is getting warmer and because the weather is getting warmer, more women are wearing bikinis on the beach.

Same thing. There are far too many factors at work in the market (it's so fluid) to say that just one thing has caused another.
Yet, you've just asserted that the spending bill is having a "positive effect." You don't see the problem?




Any smart investor knows that before you ever start investing, you need to remove emotion from the equation. Pick up a copy of 24 Essential Lessons for Investment Success by Willam J. O'Neil and give it a read.

There are emotional investors, but the key players go off of speculation that is based on past trends and market facts, not emotion.
Well, I'm personally down by far less than the Dow and the typical IRA and 401(k). So, I count myself as a smart investor.

I'm trying to stay serious on this, but it's kinda hard, with you recommending fluff.

The market IS driven by emotion. There's not a single respected economist that would tell you otherwise.



Sure I can. Because I'm one of the few people in here who isn't pretending that what I am saying is concrete fact. I assert what I know strongly, but I also know that what I am saying doesn't apply all of the time.I think you need to look at your wording. You seem to be asserting pretty much everything as fact. And that's okay, if you can back it up...or even if you can't. But at least stick to it.

Regardless, you are saying on one hand that "you can't say x had y effect because there are too many variables," while on the other hand you are saying "x had y effect."

[James81]

But I think you're wrong, here. Really, I'm pretty damn sure of it. Your experiences as "proof" don't involve the market at all, that I can see. Explain it to me. Because if in the short term, it was positive, then why is the market down?

This is all a moot discussion anyway. The stimulus package isn't designed to fix the stock market. The bailout was supposed to do that. ;)

Yet, you've just asserted that the spending bill is having a "positive effect." You don't see the problem?

That's because it will have a positive affect. My point is that the market's trend in the past year has been down. And that's a normal thing for the market, although this down trend is a lot more serious than the others we've had in recent years.

That was ALREADY happening before the bill was passed or even mentioned or a gleam in Obama's eye.

The purpose of this bill is to interupt that trend that is already happening. And it will. And it'll be a positive interuption because it's going to put people back to work and hold jobs.

The bill itself is catered to pander to those other factors that are fluid. The passage of the bill itself, however, isn't going to make a dent one way or the other.

I'm trying to stay serious on this, but it's kinda hard, with you recommending fluff.

How exactly would you know it's fluff if you haven't read it? William J O'neil is the founder of Investor's Business Daily. As an investor, I'm sure you've heard of it? Pretty damn reputable source for investing if you ask me. *shrug*

The market IS driven by emotion. There's not a single respected economist that would tell you otherwise.

I wouldn't discount emotion as a factor in driving the market. But the market isn't DRIVEN by emotion. Good lord.

I think you need to look at your wording. You seem to be asserting pretty much everything as fact. And that's okay, if you can back it up...or even if you can't. But at least stick to it.

I threw that last paragraph in there mainly because I've been making some strong assertions in this discussion, and I don't want to come off as a know it all. I'm not some economist or a guru or anything like that. And I wanted to say that.

[Don Allen]

I don't think so, Christine.

Stocks are down across the board. Not just for financial companies. It went down--and is still going down--because people aren't investing. Any people.

And that means people have no faith--right now--in the direction of the economy.

And--to me--that means they have no faith in what Obama has done and is doing.


Just a suggestion, go to the library (not directed soley at you Rob) get the Wall street journal and read the last three weeks, the market is tanking because wallstreet don't like the stimulus, but hates the bank bail out....


Because Obama has resurrected a bunch of banking regulations that Wall street hates.....


that's the sell off which is almost all financial stocks, becaus ethese banks if saved won't be able to speculate for huge future profits on our dime.... This is stuff the right wing press don't talk about, too bad...That would be fair and balanced....

[robeiae]

This is all a moot discussion anyway. The stimulus package isn't designed to fix the stock market. The bailout was supposed to do that. ;)
The bailout under Bush was a stupid move, too.



That's because it will have a positive affect. My point is that the market's trend in the past year has been down. And that's a normal thing for the market, although this down trend is a lot more serious than the others we've had in recent years.

That was ALREADY happening before the bill was passed or even mentioned or a gleam in Obama's eye.

The purpose of this bill is to interupt that trend that is already happening. And it will. And it'll be a positive interuption because it's going to put people back to work and hold jobs.

The bill itself is catered to pander to those other factors that are fluid. The passage of the bill itself, however, isn't going to make a dent one way or the other.
What can I say? I think you're dreamin.




How exactly would you know it's fluff if you haven't read it? William J O'neil is the founder of Investor's Business Daily. As an investor, I'm sure you've heard of it? Pretty damn reputable source for investing if you ask me. *shrug*
It's fluff because it's a trade paperback book on investing tips.

That doesn't mean it's useless or wrong. It just means that it's not really a source for understanding the economy or the market, beyond a very basic level.


I wouldn't discount emotion as a factor in driving the market. But the market isn't DRIVEN by emotion. Good lord.Good lord. Yes it is.

Always has been. Emotion can very easily be predicated on fact or fantasy. It's not a negative thing. It's a human thing.



I threw that last paragraph in there mainly because I've been making some strong assertions in this discussion, and I don't want to come off as a know it all. I'm not some economist or a guru or anything like that. And I wanted to say that.Okey-dokey.

I make a good deal of assertions in economic-flavored discussions. I make no bones about it. And--to be absolutely and completely honest, so you understand where I'm coming from--I believe I understand economic theory as well as anyone. Anyone. FWIW.

If I'm overly dismissive of what I see as flawed thinking, I'm sorry.

[robeiae]

Just a suggestion, go to the library (not directed soley at you Rob) get the Wall street journal and read the last three weeks, the market is tanking because wallstreet don't like the stimulus, but hates the bank bail out....


Because Obama has resurrected a bunch of banking regulations that Wall street hates.....


that's the sell off which is almost all financial stocks, becaus ethese banks if saved won't be able to speculate for huge future profits on our dime.... This is stuff the right wing press don't talk about, too bad...That would be fair and balanced....Everything's down, Don. Sure, some financials are in the toilet, but so are some industrials.

[Don Allen]

But to suggest this is do to Obama's policy is a bit over the top. Stocks have to find bottom which I'm guessing might be another 500 points before we see a 8 to 12 month bear before we start to inch back up...

[James81]

The bailout under Bush was a stupid move, too.

I think it was handled wrong. My personal inclination is that if the government wants to help the economy in a quick short term burst, they should focus exclusively on what has caused this recession to be so particularly bad and go to the source of our current woes: the housing market.

Leave off the pork bullshit that got added (that much I'll agree with you on) and fix the root of the problems. And I would go as far to say that to fix the root of the problems is going to take MORE than JUST spending. But government relief into massively failing markets will help the market.

The other stuff that is failing? let them fail. I could give two shits less if Ford or GM goes under.

It's fluff because it's a trade paperback book on investing tips.

That doesn't mean it's useless or wrong. It just means that it's not really a source for understanding the economy or the market, beyond a very basic level.

I quoted it as a source that has a specific section devoted to informing investors to remove emotion from their investing practices. Not as any real source on the economy itself.

Good lord. Yes it is.

Always has been. Emotion can very easily be predicated on fact or fantasy. It's not a negative thing. It's a human thing.

Like I said, it's an important factor (not everybody follows the advice to remove emotion from investing) when it comes to the general Joe Schmoe who has a 401K. The guys who do it for a living (who i would assert drive the market more than the Joe Schmoes) aren't being driven by emotion. At least the ones who have any notion of smart investing.

Okey-dokey.

I make a good deal of assertions in economic-flavored discussions. I make no bones about it. And--to be absolutely and completely honest, so you understand where I'm coming from--I believe I understand economic theory as well as anyone. Anyone. FWIW.

If I'm overly dismissive of what I see as flawed thinking, I'm sorry.

I have a thick skin, so it's all good.

I am not as confident in my economic theory as you (I'm relatively new to the game), but I am confident that I probably know more about it than the average citizen. Which ain't saying much, I know. :tongue

Ah well.

[robeiae]

But to suggest this is do to Obama's policy is a bit over the top. Stocks have to find bottom which I'm guessing might be another 500 points before we see a 8 to 12 month bear before we start to inch back up...
Well again, Geithner gives his spiel and the market tumbles 300or 400 points (I forget). Surely, you don't think that was just coincidence?

And really, I don't think the specifics of Obama's policy are so much to blame as the fact that people don't see his policies as all that much of a solution.

Also, Obama should not get a pass for talking down the economy like he did. "Pass this or the damage could be irreversible."

Surly, you don't think that was helpful.

[robeiae]

Like I said, it's an important factor (not everybody follows the advice to remove emotion from investing) when it comes to the general Joe Schmoe who has a 401K. The guys who do it for a living (who i would assert drive the market more than the Joe Schmoes) aren't being driven by emotion. At least the ones who have any notion of smart investing.

Okay look, the real smart investor knows the role of emotion and uses it. So, even then, emotion is the dominant factor.

[James81]

Okay look, the real smart investor knows the role of emotion and uses it.

I like it better when you put it like that.

But there is a huge difference in saying that and saying "emotion drives the market."

[Don]

I like it better when you put it like that.

But there is a huge difference in saying that and saying "emotion drives the market."
Not really, because most investors in the market aren't that smart. As a whole, the market responds emotionally. Smart investors realise this and are still making money in the market today.

[Christine N.]

Just a suggestion, go to the library (not directed soley at you Rob) get the Wall street journal and read the last three weeks, the market is tanking because wallstreet don't like the stimulus, but hates the bank bail out....



This is what I meant. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. These bills are just the beginning of the end of the party for Wall Street. They'll be re-regulating everything, putting those rules back in place that would have prevented this.

Ya know, I dunno. I can't see an immediate drop based on one bill on one day. The market opening is determined hours before the market actually opens on any given day. It was on it's way down that day before Obama even had his coffee.

[Romantic Heretic]

This thread's getting to be a real downer. I think a little George Carlin will help.

Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: "The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope."

Oops. I don't think I helped. ;)