PDA

View Full Version : Wasting money in Iraq


46zilzal
03-07-2008, 02:28 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/news/economy/jobs_february/index.htm?cnn=yes

Might have something to do with domestic problems??

JustMissed
03-07-2008, 02:46 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/news/economy/jobs_february/index.htm?cnn=yes

Might have something to do with domestic problems??

I just read this morning that Goldman Sachs estimates that housing values could fall 30%.

A guy that bought a $200K house two years ago will find himself living in a house worth $140K. OUCH!

I live in the Tampa Bay Florida area and our local paper just reported that 1 in 20 houses are vacant. Not good.

With the "dollar" so de-valued and no relief in site for oil prices I don't see anything to help turn things around.

Just read the other day that it would take 7-9 days of trading just to cover the short sales in the equity market. If the market tumbles and we limit down-I don't know what will happen.

Probably a good time to go fishing.

JM

46zilzal
03-07-2008, 02:50 PM
TOO many amateur speculators getting caught in their rookie-ness!

Secretariat
03-07-2008, 04:56 PM
I just read this morning that Goldman Sachs estimates that housing values could fall 30%.

A guy that bought a $200K house two years ago will find himself living in a house worth $140K. OUCH!

I live in the Tampa Bay Florida area and our local paper just reported that 1 in 20 houses are vacant. Not good.

With the "dollar" so de-valued and no relief in site for oil prices I don't see anything to help turn things around.

Just read the other day that it would take 7-9 days of trading just to cover the short sales in the equity market. If the market tumbles and we limit down-I don't know what will happen.

Probably a good time to go fishing.

JM

Sachs is also now talking about 200 a barrel oil.

PaceAdvantage
03-07-2008, 06:03 PM
I see electing all those Democrats to Congress is paying off dividends....it should be Utopia around here if we get a Dem in the White House.

riskman
03-07-2008, 06:27 PM
The Democrats are so sure that they are going to take over the White House and get strong majorities in both Houses of Congress, that they will not do anything that has even a remote chance of ruining that take-over. The Democrats don't care about the Rule of Law or the Constitution. All they care about is power.

You know for sure they don't care about our borders, and why is that? It has been reported that most Hispanics will vote Democrat. The millions illegally coming into our country could all be card-carrying al Qaeda members, and if they said they would vote for the Democrats, they would be welcomed with open arms. Right now they are being welcomed in with open borders.

The Democrats were elected in 2006 to get the troops home from Iraq, and they have done nothing. They have sat around for seven years and watched Bush-Cheney walk all over the Constitution.

46zilzal
03-07-2008, 06:28 PM
The Democrats were elected in 2006 to get the troops home from Iraq, and they have done nothing. They have sat around for seven years and watched Bush-Cheney walk all over the Constitution.
That is true. More concerned about their own hides than doing what is obviously right.

JustRalph
03-07-2008, 08:09 PM
The Democrats were elected in 2006 to get the troops home from Iraq, and they have done nothing. They have sat around for seven years and watched Bush-Cheney walk all over the Constitution.

Bush is doing pretty well for a dumb ass huh? :lol:

riskman
03-07-2008, 11:33 PM
Bush is doing pretty well for a dumb ass huh? :lol:

These are your words--not mine.

There are two traits that are desirable in a president: intellectual curiosity and an interest in history. Unfortunately for the Republican spinners, these are two traits definitely lacking in George Bush. He's the only president in my lifetime who has liked to boast about how little he reads. He needn't boast. It's quite evident. The things he is interested in are very few.

Actually, it is literally true that anybody could be president.(Who would ever think that Obama would be running to the finish line with Billary.) Things that are required are intelligence, common sense, good judgment, integrity and communication skills. No experience necessary. It is not molecular physics. It's not baseball. Anybody with sense enough to assemble a competent staff can have all the factual information needed for decisions.

As for foreign affairs – another vastly overrated field – all that a president needs in that regard is the ability to judge character and, when desirable, to establish good personal ties with foreign leaders. Most of our presidents, in fact, have taken office without any experience in foreign affairs. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan are recent examples. Secretaries of state do the bulk of the work in foreign affairs. Bush really blew it here-something maybe to do with shot gun Cheney?

Tom
03-08-2008, 12:19 AM
That "dumb-ass" has pretty much trampled Bin Losi and Reid. Makes all his detractors here look pretty stupid as well - especially those who mistake him for a vegtable! When you mock people who just keep rolling along succeeding, it shows how empty your suit is.

But the dems are too busy to worry about spending, Iraq, or anything else right now - they are planning a "do over" - at taxpayer expense - because they were not smart enough to hold a simple primary innot one, but two states! Do-over......what was that, third, fourth grade? :lol:

jballscalls
03-08-2008, 12:42 AM
\ vegtable!
\

:lol:

Secretariat
03-08-2008, 02:03 AM
I see electing all those Democrats to Congress is paying off dividends....it should be Utopia around here if we get a Dem in the White House.

lol...so after 6 years of GW and a Republican Congress, and contineed cloture and threatened veto of any bill the Dems' wanted the past year, they are to blame according to your above logic. Phew...you are truly amazing. :bang:

lamboguy
03-08-2008, 02:20 AM
this guy has literaly ruined the fiber of this great country. take a look at the last 3 terrible presidents, they all have one thing in common, the value of the dollar went down while they were in office. nixon, carter and bush jr.

a lower dollar is only good for multinational company's. their profits go way up when we are on the cheap. at the same time the price of food, gasoline, and other comdities rise. there has been a tremendous loss of jobs for the people in this country, actually unprecented. yet the statistics say the opposite due to less people looking for jobs, and unemployment benefits running out.

when you look at it the best presidents in my opinion, kennedy, reagan and clinton, all had strong dollar policies. kennedy also was able to lower tax rates while creating a strong buck. reagan lowered taxes to stimulate strong dollar and then had largest revenue gains of all times. clinton was a basic continuation to reagan, and got fortunate with the internet. no doubt about it, clinton was a lucky man, the whores in the u.s. congress, republican and democrtatic wound up spending their time trying to dethrone clinton instead of the usual theivery that goes on in that town.
my opinion, i would rather be lucky than good!

riskman
03-08-2008, 03:59 AM
That "dumb-ass" has pretty much trampled Bin Losi and Reid. Makes all his detractors here look pretty stupid as well - especially those who mistake him for a vegtable! When you mock people who just keep rolling along succeeding, it shows how empty your suit is.

But the dems are too busy to worry about spending, Iraq, or anything else right now - they are planning a "do over" - at taxpayer expense - because they were not smart enough to hold a simple primary innot one, but two states! Do-over......what was that, third, fourth grade? :lol:

So you think it is good politics for the President to "trample" the Dem House and Senate leaders. The one who looks arrogant(stupid is direspectful) is the "trampler".You call "trampling" leadership? The rights hero, Ronald Reagan would NEVER treat the Senate and House leaders like a piece of shit no matter how revolting they were. Neither would Bush Sr.,Clinton(ugh !) or any President that had any understanding of how the system is suppose to work. If you call Bush a success, then 70% of America must be morons. You can call me stupid--- I guess I am-- I voted for the SOB and what a major disappointment that was. George Bush was not the first President to try and get more and more power for the executive branch of our government, but he might have been the first President that the Congress let walk all over them. I guess thats success.
The last five or six years, nothing that comes out of the White House do I take at face value. If George Bush says it is Wednesday, I check the calendar.

It isn't just George Bush, it is "Washington" as a whole. That includes politicians from both parties, the lobbyists, think tanks, and for sure television news programs of every channel. Truth has become a stranger in our nation's capital.

Tom
03-08-2008, 10:16 AM
So you think it is good politics for the President to "trample" the Dem House and Senate leaders.


Damn straight!
When Binlosi donns a head covering and bows to terrorists and the Dingy slop in the chamber proclaims defeat while our trooops are in action, I believe they should be tried for TREASON and dealt with accodingly. Bennedict Arnold looks like a national hero next theses two slimeballs.
Bush has been far too easy on them. Hopefully, karma will take care of the situation.

ddog
03-08-2008, 12:21 PM
a strong country has a strong currency, simple as that.
a strong country can build the tools as needed to defend itself within it's own borders.

any admin that presides over a gross weakening of the dollar and thus investor confidence in this country is/was a traitor admin.
any admin that allows the outsourcing of the means of defense is/was a traitor admin.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what anyone says about you, if you are strong you will be percieved as strong.

If you are not internally strong then you can shout it from the rooftop of the WH, but it doesn't change a thing.

strong companies welcome short-sellers.

JustRalph
03-08-2008, 01:59 PM
I agree with the premise that all of Washington is bad. It should be chemically cleaned like a bad drain.

But I also come from the basic fact that No matter who the Dem is, any Repub will be better. Bush has acted like a Dem in some areas and a mealy mouthed pansy in others, but I would rather have Bush than any Dem.

Basic less of two evils argument

dutchboy
03-08-2008, 02:28 PM
I believe it was the mid 1980's when farmland prices were falling many farm owners were forced to sell due to the issue of government backed loans that would not allow negative equity.

Will that also happen if housing prices continue to fall? Would it be accurate to assume that a good percentage of vacant homes are owned by absentee landlords who only bought the homes to flip them. Not sure why the flippers and the banks with the money to loan could really expect the prices to continue to rise.

I just read this morning that Goldman Sachs estimates that housing values could fall 30%.

A guy that bought a $200K house two years ago will find himself living in a house worth $140K. OUCH!

I live in the Tampa Bay Florida area and our local paper just reported that 1 in 20 houses are vacant. Not good.

With the "dollar" so de-valued and no relief in site for oil prices I don't see anything to help turn things around.

Just read the other day that it would take 7-9 days of trading just to cover the short sales in the equity market. If the market tumbles and we limit down-I don't know what will happen.

Probably a good time to go fishing.

JM

Tom
03-08-2008, 04:19 PM
I agree with the premise that all of Washington is bad. It should be chemically cleaned like a bad drain.

But I also come from the basic fact that No matter who the Dem is, any Repub will be better. Bush has acted like a Dem in some areas and a mealy mouthed pansy in others, but I would rather have Bush than any Dem.

Basic less of two evils argument

Yup. I never voted for Bush....I voted against to lib dem idiots, and no matter how bad Bush has been in some ares, he was by far the better choice both times.

Secretariat
03-08-2008, 09:46 PM
Yup. I never voted for Bush....I voted against to lib dem idiots, and no matter how bad Bush has been in some ares, he was by far the better choice both times.

In other words your vote was cast for Bush.

Tom
03-09-2008, 12:48 AM
Give that man a cupie doll.
Sec, I'm amazed you picked up on that.

PaceAdvantage
03-09-2008, 02:46 PM
lol...so after 6 years of GW and a Republican Congress, and contineed cloture and threatened veto of any bill the Dems' wanted the past year, they are to blame according to your above logic. Phew...you are truly amazing. :bang:I just took the page out of your playbook. Blame everything and anything on those in power, right Sec?