Has this started to affect anyone's spending habits yet?
Not particularly. I am a notorious cheapskate already. However, my wife and I have always been big savers, putting money away to spend on projects that will increase our equity. The carpeting guy nearly fell over when I called him to order about $3,000 in new flooring the other day. Apparently, he hasn't had many customers lately. I don't really view that as spending; I view it as investment.
You can project and foresee certain shortcomings of policies as well as make reasonable estimations of the strengths of a policies; however, you cannot foresee every eventuality and every effect. That being said, policies like invading a stable, currently non-threatening government or evaporating a surplus by distributing in tiny amounts to the middle class are some obviously bad policies. When you get into more nuanced/subtle changes and strategies - there is a lot of grey area.
Then didn't you also lose since you were arguing against yourself?
*Crickets* as HMTKSlave fails once again.
Why don't you explain exactly what you wish to say about Obama's economic policies in your own words without simply quoting an article and then making comments about it that clearly show you didn't understand it?
Why don't you explain exactly what you wish to say about Obama's economic policies in your own words without simply quoting an article and then making comments about it that clearly show you didn't understand it?
*Crickets* as Joe realizes Steve is not going to take his bait.
You did not ask me about Obama policies until just now. You asked:
Please enumerate the bad policies that are prolonging the pain.
In response I linked to an article written by Steve Forbes where he discusses Mark-To-Market and the Short Selling Uptick Rule. Forbes also goes on to point out that FDR suspended M2M in 1938 and created the uptick rule on short selling that same year.
M2M is a very dangerous rule because of the effect it can have on a bank's balance sheet. In good times the balance sheet can spiral upward in value even though no value is really there and in down times it can quickly spiral out of control. It takes "paper" gains and losses and makes them real.
These bad policies were enacted while Bush was President, no one is arguing otherwise. However, President Obama has had no qualms about overturning other bad Bush policies (government funding for embryonic stem cell research, Gitmo, Presidential records) so why has he not gotten rid of these bad policies that are prolonging the pain?
Sad that it took you four useless posts (and a number of insults) to get here.
As usual, you show an abundant lack of insight and reading comprehension. That's probably due to the Lyme Disease. The article, an opinion piece that proves nothing (especially coming as it does from a paper that has unironically published opinion pieces by Rush Limbaugh), says that Obama is wrongly continuing Bush policies. It is very fair to say that the point of the article is that Obama is too much like Bush. That is the conclusion of the article. That's what I said in my first response to your crappy little article, because I can actually understand what I read. If you can't glean the same meaning from that article, you're pretty dull. But then, you still think Obama is not a natural born citizen and you think that slavery can be morally justified, so it should be obvious to anyone who has read this board that you're pretty dull and not very credible. It's not an insult to point this out. It is simply a fact.
As for the article itself, Bush was in office for eight years. Obama hasn't been in office for eight weeks yet. Bush left a lot of mess, and Obama has been working his ass off to set things right. You mentioned that he's going to reverse Bush's stupid stem cell policy. Well, we didn't learn that for certain until late this week and it'll only be made official on Monday of next week. He'll probably reverse Forbes' piddily little objection as soon as he can. If this pissy little objection is the best you can do, then I stand by my original assesment of Steve = fail.
As usual, you show an abundant lack of insight and reading comprehension. That's probably due to the Lyme Disease. The article, an opinion piece that proves nothing (especially coming as it does from a paper that has unironically published opinion pieces by Rush Limbaugh), says that Obama is wrongly continuing Bush policies. It is very fair to say that the point of the article is that Obama is too much like Bush. That is the conclusion of the article. That's what I said in my first response to your crappy little article, because I can actually understand what I read. If you can't glean the same meaning from that article, you're pretty dull. But then, you still think Obama is not a natural born citizen and you think that slavery can be morally justified, so it should be obvious to anyone who has read this board that you're pretty dull and not very credible.
As for the article itself, Bush was in office for eight years. Obama hasn't been in office for eight weeks yet. Bush left a lot of mess, and Obama has been working his ass off to set things right. He'll probably reverse Forbes' minor little objection as soon as he can. If this pissy little objection is the best you can do, then I stand by my original assessment of Steve = fail.
If the main conclusion you drew from that article is "Obama = Bush" then you must still be suffering from some mixture of Obamamania and Bush Derangement Syndrome. The point of the article was to highlight policies that the author feels have contributed to the destruction of the market. An assessment that I agree with.
You really should leave the ad hominem attacks out of the forum. The only serve to weaken your own arguments.
You really should leave the ad hominem attacks out of the forum. The only serve to weaken your own arguments.
Steve, we've had this discussion before. It's not an ad hominem attack to point out a lack of credibility based on prior statements tending to show a lack of credibility.
You have seriously damaged your credibility by incredible statements that you have made in the past, not the least of which being that you have personally claimed to have problems with reading comprehension due to your Lyme Disease. I was not the one who brought that to the fore. You made that an issue when you used it to explain why you sometimes can't understand what you read.
It's not an ad hominem attack to remind people of your past incredible statements and your inability to comprehend what you read. Those problems are germane to your credibility and reliability. They allow the reader to make a valid inference that any current or future claims you make should be more carefully evaluated for credibility and reliability than a claim made by someone without your problems.
Read FRE 608. You have said that you don't credit the opinions expressed by Firedoglake because of the people who write for it and because of its reputation, but no one accused you of making an ad hominem attack. Credibility of source material matters and not every questioning of credibility is an ad hominem attack. There's an end to the discussion about ad hominem attacks for today.
People don't appreciate this silly back and forth. If you want to talk to me more about this, email me or IM me. I'm not responding to this particular discussion on the board any further since I'm on my way to watch The Watchmen.
There is nothing in FRE 608 about Ad Hominem attacks.
Steve: Look at this article related to the current discussion. Joe: You can't trust those people because they print articles written by people I don't agree with. Steve: Why the ad hominem directed at the source of the article I linked to? Joe: You're a brain damaged slave owner. Your arguments always fail. Steve: And this has what to do with the publisher of the article I linked to? Joe: I can attack you all day long because you are stupid so it's not an ad hominem. Steve: And this has what to do with your ad hominem attack directed at the source of the article I linked to? Joe: I win, you lose, I'm going home.
Yeah, that's what it's like trying to discuss things with Joe.
Steve: What's up with all these Obama NBC cases? Joe: It's all crazy conspiracy people. Steve: Has anyone verified that he is an NBC? Joe: You don't think he's a citizen! You must be a crazy person too! Steve: What? I just want to know if he is or is not an NBC because I don't know. Joe: He's going to be the next President get over it. Steve: Don't you care about the Constitutional question? Joe: The question was answered. Steve: When and where? Joe: The SCOTUS threw it out. Steve: So, they didn't answer the question? Joe: They threw it out, that is your answer. Steve: What? Joe: You obviously hate Obama and think he is a space alien. Steve: Umm... OK...
For whatever it's worth, the stock market is giving Obama a vote of no-confidence. Insomuch as the market is forward looking, it's a bad sign. Bush may have gotten us here, but the market doesn't think that Obama is doing anything to get us out.
Comments
International evidence suggests there is a 20% chance our stock-market crash will lead to much worse.
Who run Failtown? MasterSlavester.
You really are low-hanging fruit.
Why don't you explain exactly what you wish to say about Obama's economic policies in your own words without simply quoting an article and then making comments about it that clearly show you didn't understand it?
You did not ask me about Obama policies until just now. You asked: In response I linked to an article written by Steve Forbes where he discusses Mark-To-Market and the Short Selling Uptick Rule. Forbes also goes on to point out that FDR suspended M2M in 1938 and created the uptick rule on short selling that same year.
M2M is a very dangerous rule because of the effect it can have on a bank's balance sheet. In good times the balance sheet can spiral upward in value even though no value is really there and in down times it can quickly spiral out of control. It takes "paper" gains and losses and makes them real.
These bad policies were enacted while Bush was President, no one is arguing otherwise. However, President Obama has had no qualms about overturning other bad Bush policies (government funding for embryonic stem cell research, Gitmo, Presidential records) so why has he not gotten rid of these bad policies that are prolonging the pain?
Sad that it took you four useless posts (and a number of insults) to get here.
As for the article itself, Bush was in office for eight years. Obama hasn't been in office for eight weeks yet. Bush left a lot of mess, and Obama has been working his ass off to set things right. You mentioned that he's going to reverse Bush's stupid stem cell policy. Well, we didn't learn that for certain until late this week and it'll only be made official on Monday of next week. He'll probably reverse Forbes' piddily little objection as soon as he can. If this pissy little objection is the best you can do, then I stand by my original assesment of Steve = fail.
You really should leave the ad hominem attacks out of the forum. The only serve to weaken your own arguments.
You have seriously damaged your credibility by incredible statements that you have made in the past, not the least of which being that you have personally claimed to have problems with reading comprehension due to your Lyme Disease. I was not the one who brought that to the fore. You made that an issue when you used it to explain why you sometimes can't understand what you read.
It's not an ad hominem attack to remind people of your past incredible statements and your inability to comprehend what you read. Those problems are germane to your credibility and reliability. They allow the reader to make a valid inference that any current or future claims you make should be more carefully evaluated for credibility and reliability than a claim made by someone without your problems.
People don't appreciate this silly back and forth. If you want to talk to me more about this, email me or IM me. I'm not responding to this particular discussion on the board any further since I'm on my way to watch The Watchmen.
BTW, I don't think anyone has posted this yet:
Steve: Look at this article related to the current discussion.
Joe: You can't trust those people because they print articles written by people I don't agree with.
Steve: Why the ad hominem directed at the source of the article I linked to?
Joe: You're a brain damaged slave owner. Your arguments always fail.
Steve: And this has what to do with the publisher of the article I linked to?
Joe: I can attack you all day long because you are stupid so it's not an ad hominem.
Steve: And this has what to do with your ad hominem attack directed at the source of the article I linked to?
Joe: I win, you lose, I'm going home.
Yeah, that's what it's like trying to discuss things with Joe.
Steve: What's up with all these Obama NBC cases?
Joe: It's all crazy conspiracy people.
Steve: Has anyone verified that he is an NBC?
Joe: You don't think he's a citizen! You must be a crazy person too!
Steve: What? I just want to know if he is or is not an NBC because I don't know.
Joe: He's going to be the next President get over it.
Steve: Don't you care about the Constitutional question?
Joe: The question was answered.
Steve: When and where?
Joe: The SCOTUS threw it out.
Steve: So, they didn't answer the question?
Joe: They threw it out, that is your answer.
Steve: What?
Joe: You obviously hate Obama and think he is a space alien.
Steve: Umm... OK...
Just another example...