The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican'sPerspective!!

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...

[...]



Unemployment in fact fell strongly under FDR, except for 1938-39
when he foolishly listened to the conservatives.

So you keep saying. In fact, if the administration (whether
Roosevelt's or Obama's) keeps running up the national debt with
phony-baloney "stimulus" programs that don't create real jobs, while
raising taxes higher and higher, sooner or later they hit the wall
and they *have* to start paying the bill. You can't build a healthy
economy on "workfare programs."

When the markets fail it is the government's responsibility to step in as
the lender of last resort.

In this case it was the government's "stepping in" that started the problem
in the first place. We would never have had the subprime mortgage crisis
that started all this if lenders had not been forced or coerced by the
federal government (primarily through the CRA) to make high-risk loans to
people with extremely poor credit ratings. When lenders had to make loans
accepting the borrowers' *welfare* checks as "income," you could not
reasonably expect anything other than what happened.

Added to this of course where the ACORN thugs, legally represented and
advised by our current president, then a "community organizer" -- whose acts
of intimidation against small banks (blocking driveways, organizing protests
in front of bank officers' homes, occupying bank lobbies and threatening
federal lawsuits etc.) too often were successful in getting loans for
extremely poor credit risks.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"DRS" wrote in message

When the markets fail it is the government's responsibility to step in as
the lender of last resort.

In this case it was the government's "stepping in" that started the problem
in the first place.

As usual, Harrington is full of ****.

We would never have had the subprime mortgage crisis
that started all this if lenders had not been forced or coerced by the
federal government (primarily through the CRA) to make high-risk loans to
people with extremely poor credit ratings. When lenders had to make loans

Rightard propaganda. It wasn't the primary lenders that caused the
collapse and subprime mortagages were only a small part of the primary
lender's problems.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote in message
...
On Oct 1, 2:18 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in
...



On10/1/09 13:25 , Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter wrote in message
...

Clinton, was the last government in the US to even come close to a
balanced budget.

This is only true if you define, "Balanced budget" to be not spending
more
money than you take in in any given year or years. If you define it
the
way
I would define it in the case of my own family, I mean that I don't
owe
anybody any money, or the amount I owe is less than the amount I am
worth.
In this case, Clinton was a long way from balancing the budget. We
haven't
had a balanced budget since before Roosevelt. It kills me that we can
be
trillions of dollars in debt, and the politicians still talk about
"balancing the budget". This is never going to happen.....

Bill

It is a political convenience when ever the numbers get nasty
politicians
take the first derivative and use the result as their new talking
point.

Think about it from a math perspective it will explain a lot of the
rhetoric
for the last century or so.

w..

This is not limited to the art of politics. When I worked for AT&T, and
we wanted more money, it was my job to look at the current figures and
find losses. Whether they were there or not.

It was done entirely by taking the first and second derivatives, and
showing flat revenue where there was growth, and loss where revenues
were
steady.

Worked everytime.

Yes, because there was no other choice. IOW, you couldn't manufacture
money
from nowhere, so all you could do was save where you could, and wait for
it
to "catch up". We're in the same predicament, so there is nothing else we
can do either. I'm not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is the
terminology. I just want them to make a clear distinction between not
going
further into debt, and paying off the present debt. All we can do is not
spend more than we earn from year to year. We can't pay off what we
already
owe, and I want them to make that fact very clear.

Could someone please explain to me where the money is coming from to
pay these people that are getting subsidized employment? My
understanding of pArt of the stimulus program was summer jobs for
youth. It was touted as a way to provide meaningful work experience
for youth 14-24. The thought behind that being that those youth would
put their earnings back into the economy because they are one of the
largest spending demographics. Most programs ran mid June to late
July. Yet retail spending was way down in July. And unemployment was
way up. Makes me wonder what the youth did with their earnings. But
what really concerns me is where the monies to pay them came from in
the first place.

Here in Oregon, the unemployment rate is 12%. That means that about one
person in 8 is out of work. This tells me that the youth, and everyone else
who has any kind of a job at all is using their money to buy food for their
families, even if their families are their parents.

As to where the money is coming from....The government is either borrowing
it, or they are printing it. In either case, it is coming from ME. I am
retired, and my 401K has shrunk drastically, and the price of everything is
going up, which means that my standard of living is going down, down,
down.....That's where the money is coming from......