A blast from the past...Bush speaks at rare appearance Tuesday

[PaceAdvantage]

Fiti-HL8O8Q

[Let's Roll]

That's a good one, thanks for posting.

[Tom]

Still looking presidential, unlike Barry.
Still making sense, unlike Barry.

[NJ Stinks]

Still looking presidential, unlike Barry.
Still making sense, unlike Barry.

Still causes me to wince just listening to his voice.

Still don't think I believe almost anything he does. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

I fell asleep after hearing 45 seconds.

While a well intended chap, NOT a riveting speaka. er.

He seems tired.

[dav4463]

I really miss this man!

[Robert Goren]

The guy who gave us the greatest economic disaster since Hoover lecturing on the economy. I hope everybody took notes so they know what not to do.

[ArlJim78]

classy guy, doesn't stoop to the level of finger pointing and partisanship like his arrogant thin-skinned successor.

[canleakid]

I fell asleep after hearing 45 seconds.

While a well intended chap, NOT a riveting speaka. er.

He seems tired.

after 30 seconds
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

[Robert Goren]

classy guy, doesn't stoop to the level of finger pointing and partisanship like his arrogant thin-skinned successor.Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape. ;)

[delayjf]

The guy who gave us the greatest economic disaster since Hoover lecturing on the economy.

A pity we didn't listen to him about Fannie / Freddie back in 2004.

Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape.

Do you mean the dot com bubble bust - that economy?

[elysiantraveller]

Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape. ;)

I get that you are a liberal and that's cool and all. But how your statements are so consistently wrong is actually quite amazing.

I really can't believe you gamble...

[ArlJim78]

Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape. ;)
Okay so for you it's all about blaming Bush.
Tell me, in what specific ways has Obama changed course on economic policy for the better? Where has he departed ways with the way things were done in the Bush years?

and one final question, when will it become Obama's economy and not Bush's?
5 years? eight years? never?

[Robert Goren]

Okay so for you it's all about blaming Bush.
Tell me, in what specific ways has Obama changed course on economic policy for the better? Where has he departed ways with the way things were done in the Bush years?

and one final question, when will it become Obama's economy and not Bush's?
5 years? eight years? never?It took 10 years to recover from Hoover. Lets hope it not that long. Things are quite a bit better than when Bush left office, but they still have a ways to go. 2 1/2 to 3 % growth in GDP is not great, but it sure beats the hell out of minus 6.2%. Most companies have plenty of cash to expand right now. They are waiting on the customers to start buying again. It is beginning to happen, but most people are taking it slow. Somethings are almost back like new car sales. Other things like new home sale are still low. The big thing that Obama or whoever the president is has to do is not to ever again let the bankers gamble recklessly with their banks money. It is not going to be easy. The pressure is already on. But if he or his successor ever weaken it will only be a matter of time before the country will be back in the same mess it was in the fall of 2008. That is like send a bunch of money to the track with someone and telling him he can keep half the profits. He might win for a few days in a row but he will lose all of your money all sooner or later.

[Greyfox]

Things are quite a bit better than when Bush left office, but they still have a ways to go.....Most companies have plenty of cash to expand right now. They are waiting on the customers to start buying again..

I don't know where you get your stats Robert.
Saying "Things are quite a bit better than when Bush left office,"
sounds like a cliche.
Would the average American agree that things are better than they were four years ago? I doubt it.
Of course businesses are waiting for customers to start buying again.
If I'm out of work, it's hard to buy anything.

Personally, I believe Bush II was a disaster.
Obama is worse. He's mortgaged your children and grand-children's future.
Give him 4 more years and they'll never get out of that serfdom that he's building for them.

[ArlJim78]

It took 10 years to recover from Hoover. Lets hope it not that long. Things are quite a bit better than when Bush left office, but they still have a ways to go. 2 1/2 to 3 % growth in GDP is not great, but it sure beats the hell out of minus 6.2%. Most companies have plenty of cash to expand right now. They are waiting on the customers to start buying again. It is beginning to happen, but most people are taking it slow. Somethings are almost back like new car sales. Other things like new home sale are still low. The big thing that Obama or whoever the president is has to do is not to ever again let the bankers gamble recklessly with their banks money. It is not going to be easy. The pressure is already on. But if he or his successor ever weaken it will only be a matter of time before the country will be back in the same mess it was in the fall of 2008. That is like send a bunch of money to the track with someone and telling him he can keep half the profits. He might win for a few days in a row but he will lose all of your money all sooner or later.
so in your analysis Obama has lead us to an 8-9% increase in GDP growth compared to Bush. interesting take.

[Robert Goren]

I don't know where you get your stats Robert.
Saying "Things are quite a bit better than when Bush left office,"
sounds like a cliche.
Would the average American agree that things are better than they were four years ago? I doubt it.
Of course businesses are waiting for customers to start buying again.
If I'm out of work, it's hard to buy anything.

Personally, I believe Bush II was a disaster.
Obama is worse. He's mortgaged your children and grand-children's future.
Give him 4 more years and they'll never get out of that serfdom that he's building for them.The GDP was -6.2% for the last quarter of 2008. It is currently at +2.5%. It is not great, but it is quite a bit better.

[Robert Goren]

so in your analysis Obama has lead us to an 8-9% increase in GDP growth compared to Bush. interesting take. It is true when you look at the last quarter of 2008 to what it is now. It is a rather remarkable turn around. If you don't believe my numbers, just google them. You will see they are right. I know it really hurts republicans admit how bad things were when Obama took office. They like to pretend thing weren't that and Obama made them worse. But the GDP numbers don't lie.

[mostpost]

It is true when you look at the last quarter of 2008 to what it is now. It is a rather remarkable turn around. If you don't believe my numbers, just google them. You will see they are right. I know it really hurts republicans admit how bad things were when Obama took office. They like to pretend thing weren't that and Obama made them worse. But the GDP numbers don't lie.
Here are the GDP figures I came up with. I took the last four quarters of Bush's term plus the first two quarters of Obama's. (I think that the effects of Bush's policies go far beyond that) I compared them with the most recent six quarters under Obama. (Quarters three and four in 2010 and all four in 2011.

Bush Obama
-1.8 +3.5
+1.3 +3.1
-3.7 +2.2
-8.9 +1.6
-6.7 +1.5
-.7 +1.6

Now, those Obama numbers are not great, but they all have plus signs in front of them. 83% of the Bush numbers have minus signs attached-big minus signs.

What about some other indicators-like jobs created?
During the same period as above (last year of Bush plus first six months of Obama) we lost 7,451,000 jobs. Conversely during the most recent eighteen months under Obama we gained 2,956,000 jobs.

Unemployment.
In June of 2009 unemployment stood at 9.5% (It did go higher to 10.0%)
Currently unemployment stands at 8.2%. A drop of 1.3% (or 1.8%)

Now the other side is going to say unemployment rates are down because people have given up on trying to land a job. Well, there is a stat for that too.
It's called the U-6 rate and it includes those who have stopped looking for a job and those who are working parttime who wish to work full time.
That rate was 16.5 in June 2009 and is currently 14.5. A drop of 2 points.

Perfect? No. Better? Yes.

So you put Burger boy on "Ignore?" Let me tell you what you have been missing.






NOTHING!

[delayjf]

How about a comparison of Bush's best quarters against Obama's

[mostpost]

How about a comparison of Bush's best quarters against Obama's

Bush's best quarter is slightly better than Obama's best quarter, so far. Ask me again in two years.

[Greyfox]

Interesting. RobertG and Mostie both believe the same thing yet their numbers are quite different. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Bush's best quarter is slightly better than Obama's best quarter, so far. Ask me again in two years.
Any stats on who's a bigger nerd?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/90222-1.jpg

H9m3GyDh6M8

[Lefty]

So, Robert, I guess you think the Bush Tax Cuts were a Bad Thing?

[Robert Goren]

So, Robert, I guess you think the Bush Tax Cuts were a Bad Thing?You guessed correctly. The ones on the middle class were too small to do much good and the ones on the rich did what tax cuts for the rich always do, nothing except add to the deficit.

[bigmack]

You guessed correctly. The ones on the middle class were too small to do much good and the ones on the rich did what tax cuts for the rich always do, nothing except add to the deficit.
Holy Christ, how do you do it? Day in, day out, you're a raging idiot.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

[ElKabong]

Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape. ;)

The DOW went down the last 7 months Slick was preznit....every month, 7 straight months

[Lefty]

Robert, if they were so bad, why in the world did Obama extend them?

[Tom]

Thats because Clinton, unlike him, actually left his successor an ecomony in good shape. ;)
No, he did not.
And he left the 9/11 plot well on its way to completion.
And he left Bin Laden alive and kicking.

How many DEAD AMERICANS did he leave behind? Both military and civilian?

Al Qeda flourished under Clinton.

[Tom]

Robert, if they were so bad, why in the world did Obama extend them?

And he said we HAD to extend them! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

Bush spoke at a rare appearance the other day.
Obama appears daily and this is what he needs to do his speeches.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/19/National-Politics/Images/pols-teleprompter015.jpg

[bigmack]

And he said we HAD to extend them! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wull sure. As much as Dumb Ed and all the other miscreants talk about the Bush Tax Cuts helping the rich, let's go back to my previous post with stats.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000


Let's see now. 463 is 85% of 544. Suck on that Goren, Mostie & Smelly.

85% of the BUSH Tax Cuts benefit the middle class.

Let's see if Maddow, Bashir, Larry, Rev. Al, Chrissy, or any of the other confused souls, EVER mention that.

[Tom]

The break on the lowest tax brackets was what percentage?

Stinky?
mostie?

[NJ Stinks]

Robert, if they were so bad, why in the world did Obama extend them?

Because he wanted to! :lol: :lol:

Even you, Lefty, must have noticed that Republicans wouldn't agree to squat if their heroes/benefactors had to pay a nickel more in federal taxes. :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

stinks, who are their benefactors?
Do you really think it's wise to pay more in fed taxes and take that money
out of the private sector for the govt to waste?

The private sector creates jobs.
The Fed govt creates programs.

[NJ Stinks]

stinks, who are their benefactors?
Do you really think it's wise to pay more in fed taxes and take that money
out of the private sector for the govt to waste?

The private sector creates jobs.
The Fed govt creates programs.

We are miles apart, Lefty, and common ground is hard to find.

The benefactors are the people/corporations that support their election campaigns.

Yes, I consider it wise to take money out of the private sector and pay for government programs that benefit those in need. I also believe it is wise to take money out of the private sector and pay the down the Debt and pay for the military.

You look at government programs and see mostly waste. I look at government programs and see mostly the good they do for people in need. I agree there is waste but the benefits of these programs far outweigh whatever funding is wasted IMO.

At any rate, you make 'government programs' sound like an obscene phrase. Do you consider the GI Bill - a government program - to be a waste of private sector money too?

[Lefty]

stinks, did you know that last time around corporations gave more to Obama than M'Cain? And Unions always are top heavy in their contributions to Dimocrats.

We have spent what, 7 trillion on the war on poverty since Johnson. And they say we have more in poverty than ever before. Those precious programs really
did a lot of good, eh what?

I say Charities do more good than the govt ever did for people.

[NJ Stinks]

The difference is Obama will raise taxes if the bill ever gets through Congress.

Why would unions give a dime to Republicans? What for?

We spent a trillion on the War in Iraq. $7 trillion to elevate the poor in this country since 1963 sounds like good value.

Charities do great things too. :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Wull sure. As much as Dumb Ed and all the other miscreants talk about the Bush Tax Cuts helping the rich, let's go back to my previous post with stats.








Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion…The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000
















Let's see now. 463 is 85% of 544. Suck on that Goren, Mostie & Smelly.

85% of the BUSH Tax Cuts benefit the middle class.

Let's see if Maddow, Bashir, Larry, Rev. Al, Chrissy, or any of the other confused souls, EVER mention that.

I just saw this and I'm too tired to put time into this now. But here's a quick answer.

A household in Iowa makes $50G's a year. The Bush tax cuts lower the household's federal tax bill by $1,500 a year. Great. Problem is Washington is bringing in less tax revenue. So there is less revenue in Washington to send back to Iowa. Because the State of Iowa receives less money in subsidies from Washington, the State of Iowa has less money to send out to it's counties and towns. Of course, the counties and towns still have the same bills to pay every year so what is left to do? Raise the property taxes of the householder in Iowa. Let's be charitable and say the property taxes only went up $1,500 in 10 years since the the Bush tax cuts began. Now the lucky householder in Iowa is pocketing an extra nada a year while the country drops off a cliff in debt.

Meanwhile, a Connecticut household makes a million a year. The Bush tax cuts lower the CT's household's federal tax bill by $46,000 a year. Of course, the CT household owns a great house and property taxes skyrocket on the house to the tune of $12,000 a year in the 10 years since the the Bush tax cuts began. "So what?" says the CT householders. "We're still up $34,000 a year because the Bush tax cuts."

Yea, the Bush tax cuts were a great deal for the 85% alright. The country can't pay for squat and most people are treading water.

[bigmack]

Yea, the Bush tax cuts were a great deal for the 85% alright. The country can't pay for squat and most people are treading water.
I'll let you 'hit the rack' as it's far too late for you to defend such a knavish argument.

[Robert Goren]

It would be wise to remember that the few good quarters of the Bush 43 administration were fueled by increased limited on previously maxed out credit cards and home equity loans on over valued houses. I doubt that anyone really believes that we should return to the days of the over extended consumer of 2004-2008.

[elysiantraveller]

It would be wise to remember that the few good quarters of the Bush 43 administration were fueled by increased limited on previously maxed out credit cards and home equity loans on over valued houses. I doubt that anyone really believes that we should return to the days of the over extended consumer of 2004-2008.

What are you talking about? Did Bush raise my credit card limit from 5k to 10k when I wasn't paying attention?.... :lol:

You then try to blame Bush but your last sentence pins it all on the "over extended consumer." Is it now Bush's fault people took on more debt than they could pay?

Seriously dude... day in and day out.

[Greyfox]

I just saw this and I'm too tired to put time into this now. But here's a quick answer.

A household in Iowa makes $50G's a year. The Bush tax cuts lower the household's federal tax bill by $1,500 a year. Great. Problem is Washington is bringing in less tax revenue. So there is less revenue in Washington to send back to Iowa. Because the State of Iowa receives less money in subsidies from Washington, the State of Iowa has less money to send out to it's counties and towns. Of course, the counties and towns still have the same bills to pay every year so what is left to do? Raise the property taxes of the householder in Iowa..

You are essentially saying Iowa depends on Washington for subsidies.
Since Iowa no longer gets those subsidies, the property taxes in Iowa counties and towns go up. They go up because those counties and towns now have a Revenue problem. You believe this because those groups still have the same bills to pay.

But maybe the problem lies in the belief that those counties and towns absolutely need all of the services and infrastructure that they are providing.
A careful examination (audit) of most Government Administrations, at the local, State, and Federal levels can likely show that these operations have a lot of unnecessary fat that could be cut.
Hence most Government Administrations actually don't have a Revenue problem.
Instead, in reality, they have a Spending Problem.
Unfortunately, most elected officials don't have the guts to cut spending for fear that they won't be elected again. So they continue to tell the citizenry that they have a Revenue Problem -which is usually a big lie.

Revenue is usually not the problem.
Spending is the problem.

[Robert Goren]

What are you talking about? Did Bush raise my credit card limit from 5k to 10k when I wasn't paying attention?.... :lol:

You then try to blame Bush but your last sentence pins it all on the "over extended consumer." Is it now Bush's fault people took on more debt than they could pay?

Seriously dude... day in and day out.It wasn't Bush who raised your credit limit, but his economy that benefited from it being raised. Seriously Dude, do you really believe that the easiest credit in history had nothing to do with short time boom of 2004-2008. Really dude? Day in and day out, I amazed by how some people continue ignore the facts when it comes to the Bush years. For the record it wasn't the "over extended consumer credit" that caused the crash of 2008. It was gambling of the large banks's money by their bank officers on mortgage based securities in order to receive inflated bonuses. The Bush administration made that possible by their lack of regulation.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... The Bush administration made that possible by their lack of regulation.

When did deregulation commence?

[Lefty]

stinks, you sure define good value differently than I do.
What did we get for that 7 trillion when they say we have more poor
than ever before?
The Dims waste our money and you say "good value"
Yikes!

All the programs we spend all this money on, I read only about 27 cents
on the dollar gets to the consumer of the program.
That's good value? I think not.

[NJ Stinks]

....But maybe the problem lies in the belief that those counties and towns absolutely need all of the services and infrastructure that they are providing.
A careful examination (audit) of most Government Administrations, at the local, State, and Federal levels can likely show that these operations have a lot of unnecessary fat that could be cut.
Hence most Government Administrations actually don't have a Revenue problem.
Instead, in reality, they have a Spending Problem....

....Revenue is usually not the problem.
Spending is the problem.

Why not just get rid of trash collections in town? Let people get rid of their own trash for crying out loud! :mad:

Or get rid of the town library. Who do we think we are that we deserve a town library of all things? :mad:

Or get rid of half the police force. Not only can we not afford to pay their salaries, we can't afford the cop cars (and fuel) that they drive around in. :mad:

Or get rid of a public school or two. The kids aren't learnin' sh_t anyway. And for God's sake, privatize the school janitors. (Janitors have it way too good and everybody knows it! :mad: )

And definitely let's get rid of health and pension benefits for all municipal employees. Who do they think they are anyway? :mad:
______________________________________

With each passing year I become more convinced that the biggest difference between the left and the right is that the left is concerned about quality of life for all and the right is concerned about quality of life for themselves. Oh yea, the right provides plenty of lip service and contributes to charities if the moon and stars are aligned.

Put another way, the right will never truly endorse the motto: "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno."

[bigmack]

I'm tryin' to think if I've ever seen a post so far removed from the post responded to, than the display just presented by NJ.

Nope. I don't believe I have.

Tighten a belt, Greyfox? Are you NUTS?

You're obviously not concerned about quality of life for all. :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

I'm tryin' to think if I've ever seen a post so far removed from the post responded to, than the display just presented by NJ.

Nope. I don't believe I have.

Tighten a belt, Greyfox? Are you NUTS?

You're obviously not concerned about quality of life for all. :lol:

Thanks, Mack.

Hey, we can get rid of every government program out there. We can tighten belts until there is no property tax bill.

I know. Let's go back to 1875 and let the good times roll.

[Lefty]

stinks, methinks you're being silly. Getting rid of waste in govt does not equate
going back to 1875. Don't you think the govt has the obligation to protect taxpayers by being as cost effective as possible?

[bigmack]

Hey, we can get rid of every government program out there. We can tighten belts until there is no property tax bill.
I don't know what they taught you at the IRS during your years but the citizenry IS NOT a bottomless pot of gold for bureaucrats.

The point of engaging in any of these discussions around here is that perhaps you might see things differently than you would had you simply looked at issues with your own eyes/mindset.

It's clear the concept of belt-tightening is one you can't grasp. Kid goes out and spends money like a lunatic. Mismanagement beyond belief.

Comes back to parents and says, I need more. Wife says No way. Spend less.. NJ says, Don't you care for the well being of your child?

Fight breaks out. Down goes NJ. Kerplunk.

[elysiantraveller]

First...

It would be wise to remember that the few good quarters of the Bush 43 administration were fueled by increased limited on previously maxed out credit cards and home equity loans on over valued houses. I doubt that anyone really believes that we should return to the days of the over extended consumer of 2004-2008.

Then...

It wasn't Bush who raised your credit limit, but his economy that benefited from it being raised. Seriously Dude, do you really believe that the easiest credit in history had nothing to do with short time boom of 2004-2008. Really dude? Day in and day out, I amazed by how some people continue ignore the facts when it comes to the Bush years. For the record it wasn't the "over extended consumer credit" that caused the crash of 2008. It was gambling of the large banks's money by their bank officers on mortgage based securities in order to receive inflated bonuses. The Bush administration made that possible by their lack of regulation.

:lol: :rolleyes:

Okay so which is it then? People over-extending themselves buying stuff they couldn't afford or evil banks?... you seem to want it both ways.

You just throw out bit after bit of worthless or inaccurate information hoping for something to stick. Its hilarous! Also why you are wrong more often than not. :)

While we are on the subject you might want to define for the class what the word credit means to you... Since money is basically free these days wouldn't credit be better now than before? :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Why not just get rid of trash collections in town? Let people get rid of their own trash for crying out loud! :mad:

Or get rid of the town library. Who do we think we are that we deserve a town library of all things? :mad:

Or get rid of half the police force. Not only can we not afford to pay their salaries, we can't afford the cop cars (and fuel) that they drive around in. :mad:

Or get rid of a public school or two. The kids aren't learnin' sh_t anyway. And for God's sake, privatize the school janitors. (Janitors have it way too good and everybody knows it! :mad: )

And definitely let's get rid of health and pension benefits for all municipal employees. Who do they think they are anyway? :mad:
______________________________________



None of the above can be privatized eh?? Why can't the school janitors be privatized??

In many Government Services 80% of the expenses go to pay employees, salaries, their benefits and their pensions.

I can go down to my City Hall and wander around noting that over half of the employees are away from their offices and desks. If I enquire as to the whereabouts of any specific one I'm told:
1. He's/she's in a meeting just now
2. He's/she's out on business
Public administrators sure find lots of reasons to be away from their desks, attend plenty of meetings and be out on business.

NJStinks - Give your head a shake if you don't think that there is lots of fat in most Government Administrations that could be trimmed.
(By the way, of course police are necessary. But many spend a large portion of their day doing paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. A way needs to be found to make that portion of their workload more efficient.)

[Marshall Bennett]

Bush was a great president. :cool:

[ArlJim78]

how about his example of government overreach and excess?
The Homeland Security department is only one of many offices that are required by executive order to develop "environmental justice" strategies (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mgmt/dhs-environmental-justice-strategy.pdf).
here's from their mission statement;



"Environmental justice" describes the commitment of the Federal Government, through its policies, programs, and activities, to avoid placing disproportionately high and adverse effects on the human health and environment of minority or low-income populations. As described in the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), our Nation’s vision of homeland security is a homeland safe and secure, resilient against terrorism and other hazards, and where American interests and aspirations and the American way of life can thrive. In seeking to fulfill this vision, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) aspires to avoid burdening minority and low-income populations with a disproportionate share of any adverse human health or environmental risks associated with our efforts to secure the Nation. DHS joins with other departments and agencies to appropriately include environmental justice practices in our larger mission efforts involving federal law enforcement and emergency response activities



our government is out of control. raise your hand if you're happy to be funding such malarkey.

[NJ Stinks]

stinks, methinks you're being silly. Getting rid of waste in govt does not equate
going back to 1875. Don't you think the govt has the obligation to protect taxpayers by being as cost effective as possible?


Yea, I was being silly to an extent. And I certainly agree taxpayers have every right to expect their tax dollars are not being wasted by their government.

[delayjf]

The Bush administration made that possible by their lack of regulation.
It was the Bush Administration that attempted to rein in Fannie and Freddie back in 2004 - like I said, had we listened to him....

[NJ Stinks]

None of the above can be privatized eh?? Why can't the school janitors be privatized??

In many Government Services 80% of the expenses go to pay employees, salaries, their benefits and their pensions.

I can go down to my City Hall and wander around noting that over half of the employees are away from their offices and desks. If I enquire as to the whereabouts of any specific one I'm told:
1. He's/she's in a meeting just now
2. He's/she's out on business
Public administrators sure find lots of reasons to be away from their desks, attend plenty of meetings and be out on business.

NJStinks - Give your head a shake if you don't think that there is lots of fat in most Government Administrations that could be trimmed.
(By the way, of course police are necessary. But many spend a large portion of their day doing paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. A way needs to be found to make that portion of their workload more efficient.)

I believe privatizing jobs is a losing proposition. The government hardly ever - if ever - saves money and those janitors that had a good job working for the government wind up with crap jobs with little or no benefits working for private industry. Meanwhile, the private employer/owners makes out great by hiring the former government janitor and providing zip benefits.

By the way, it benefits my entire neighborhood when people have good jobs. Your's too, I imagine.

As for the trip to City Hall, if I go to the Surrogate's Office and get whatever I needed to get without sitting around too long waiting for somebody, I'm happy. I don't care how many people are in view. Why would I?

I went into a certified public accountant's office last week at around 11:00am (the first week in April). I only saw 3 employees in the 20 person office. So what? Does that mean nobody else was working? I saw the person I needed to see and left. I didn't walk out and ask myself where everybody was and what were they doing. Why would I?

Anyway, I agree there is government fat that can be trimmed. But we differ on what is actually fat.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Anyway, I agree there is government fat that can be trimmed. But we differ on what is actually fat.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yXG6T3EKPsw/TStt84tQIcI/AAAAAAAAAXY/D2vNQ8u6J3c/s1600/SNF08FAT1-682_701744a.jpg



Yes, and I'm sure this is a real swell guy that could stand to drop a few here and there.

[NJ Stinks]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yXG6T3EKPsw/TStt84tQIcI/AAAAAAAAAXY/D2vNQ8u6J3c/s1600/SNF08FAT1-682_701744a.jpg



Yes, and I'm sure this is a real swell guy that could stand to drop a few here and there.

Wait a minute! :mad:

That guy is in great shape

for a government employee! :jump:

[Robert Goren]

First...



Then...



:lol: :rolleyes:

Okay so which is it then? People over-extending themselves buying stuff they couldn't afford or evil banks?... you seem to want it both ways.

You just throw out bit after bit of worthless or inaccurate information hoping for something to stick. Its hilarous! Also why you are wrong more often than not. :)

While we are on the subject you might want to define for the class what the word credit means to you... Since money is basically free these days wouldn't credit be better now than before? :rolleyes:The interest rate are lower these days but it a lot harder to get anyone to lend it. But then I am sure you know that. I am also sure you know that easy to obtain credit will spur growth in GDP. The government can do a pretty good job of controlling interest rates, something else I am sure you know. It can not do a very job of getting private parties to lend it. If it wants to ease credit, sometimes it has to lend the money itself to do it.
Banks have been regulated since the 1930s. Periodically, the government relaxes it regulation of them. I have not found a time when this wasn't bad for the econony a few years down the road. Prehaps, you can site an example when this wasn't true. I am always willing to adjust my thinking when anyone can present a good case, but I need concrete examples not just bullshit theory and ignoring contrary evidence.
For the record, I do not believe bank by themselves are evil. Banks are need to grease economic activity. But when outlandish legal rewards are placed before the bank officers, it foolish to think that they( the bank officers) are not going take big risks with the depositors money that wouldn't take if those rewards didn't exist. Unfortunately when some those big risks fail, they not only effect the banks, but the economy suffers too in very big way. That is what happened in the fall of 2008.