Discussion in 'Current Events' started by chev, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Guess the big Obama economist approval orgy may be coming to an end.

    (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world's largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
    A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama's popularity ratings with the general public.
    On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said.
    Geithner received an average grade of 51, while Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71, the paper said.

    Looks like a big fat F in my book. :dissapointed:

    Full story here.
  2. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    Just looking at Tim Geithner and Ben Bernake, turns my stomach, when I see them on TV. Tim has no personality or conficdence when he speaks. Barack has asked him to appear more in public and represent the treasury dept as a leader.
    Now this is the same guy who had tax issues, and Wall St rallied briefly after his nomination was announced.

    Ben Bernake, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, as he knew what was going to happen with the housing and bank industry and got us into this mess. JMO

    Watch out for the next phase of Obama's plan for education. Arne Duncan who ran the Chicago Public Schools, which are failing miserably, is the Secretary of Education? Although he is a former basketball player, and Obama's Chicago connection in the White House. Scary!!
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I hear he has a terrific 3-point shot, so that more than qualifies him as sec'y of education. :sick:
  4. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    The library called.....your book is overdue.
    You know the one from the children's mythology section with the big pictures.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    On March 10th, Chairman Bernanke addressed the Council on Foreign Relations on the economy and from his comments, one thing caught my attention.

    Transcript of Chairman Bernanke's talk

    As 2008' went on and the obvious came to light that the economic crisis was global instead of just American, there was talk that various leaders and so-called experts were weighing the idea of a global economic system and global currency to replace the various present systems including the global dominance of the US dollar.

    From a global economic perspective which completely discounts national loyalities and looks upon human kind as some economic means to a profitable ends, I can see the appeal of such a process. A global economic system would solve many problems and would also most likely necessitate political changes (some dramatic) in many countries to align all law with the new economic paradigm. For those who enjoy war, I've no doubt business would be brisk.

    Chairman Bernanke, as word of this direction has leaked around and his own evasiveness when questioned on it, this disqualifier and direct admission to evade the subject again at this time does IMO prove most interesting. There is no hard fast proof either way as to which direction we will head going into the next few years but I do believe global economic leaders and mega-global corporations do bare watching closely.

    The dollar as we speak literally sits upon the edge of blade and could go either way. Bretton Woods in the 1940's created a global economic system and when crisis hit in 1971' Nixon changed that earlier agreement. Nixon's decision to close the gold window for good may have been the death neel for that global system and we are witness to it's funeral durge at this time.

    Rahm Emmanual said that no crisis should go to waste and when it comes to political power no crisis ever does. Going forward watch closely as our political and economic leaders attend and take part in meetings of an economic nature. Watch treaties as these have historically been the mechanism to subvert constitutional protections of the individual. It is these gov't created crisis that gov't then uses to it's own ends but behind them are men in the shadows who benefit even greater. Democrat/republican, conservative/liberal are just meer words to them and a hegelian mechanism to be used for a specific ends.

    AV mentioned going back to the basics in another thread and he is correct. It's not perfect, nothing is to be honest but there is a mechanism of safety found back in those basics. If we continue to consolidate power at the top, further and further from our local control and closer and closer to the powerful, connected few, whose whispers will be heard in whose ears?

    BTW: For the record I do not believe the CFR or whoever to be some super secret conspiracy group. Their actions are all about pushing their beliefs that either benefit their business/economic interests or in other cases their beliefs for a better community of mankind. Usually the better community has a root in a positive to their economic interests. Problem is that betterment of mankind often involves force and being a believer in the non-agression axiom a means and mechanism I oppose.
  6. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    We never return our books 'til we complete all the coloring....please pass the red!
  7. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    Come on, Chev. An SAT score so soon? What Candidate Obama promised versus President Obama's Cabinet Of Genius's has only had four months since election day to figure a few things out. Give them a bit more time to pour hundreds of billions of dollars down a black hole as fast as possible before they move on to something else...

    In the mean time, the Left is finally realizing that Obama isn't Jesus after all. Jesus could build a cabinet. Maybe we could all pitch in and find Mr. 'I Don't Know How To Figure Out My Own Taxes' some interns in training while he waits for a staff to show up in a magic pumpkin, or admit a big mistake and cut him loose.
  8. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Did you say "pour hundreds of billions of dollars down a black hole"?
  9. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    WWI - $196.5 billion

    WWII - $5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars

    Korean War - $403 billion

    Vietnam War - $584 billion

    Desert Storm - $61 Billion

    Iraq War - $3 trillion possibly

    Yes, it costs a lot of money to keep the grateful and the ungrateful
    safe while you sit in the comfort of your little study and have the
    freedom to come and go as you please.
  10. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Not a very good dodge, since the Iraq war was launched under false assumptions and has nothing to do now with keeping us safe, if it ever did.The millions of dollars we are spending over there now are not fighting a war to keep us safe, they are sustaining our occupation of a foreign country. Basically you're fine with "pouring hundreds of billions of dollars down a black hole", as long as it's a black hole that makes you feel better (and safe in the comfort of your little study :happy2:). When you get right to the business of wasting the taxpayer's dollars, you are no different than the people you criticize.
  11. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    You don't remember the newscasts and the newspapers after the Gulf War? How UN inspectors discovered Iraqi nuclear weapons programs? And the countless times the inspecters were not allowed to inspect? Or the Iraqi's admitting to possessing chemical weapons and chemical weapon agents, but that they had been secretly destroyed. You don't remember the top Iraqi officials who defected and gave out info about nerve agents? And you don't recall Operation Desert Fox.

    Saddam did not bully his neighbors or admit that he ever had weapons of mass destruction. He did not use these weapons to threaten his part of the world or our allies. Bill Clinton, his Sec. of Def. William Cohen, Madeleine Albright and many others did not decide back in the '90's that Saddam was a huge pain in the ***** and would eventually have to go. Numerous leading Democrats, including John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, did not express initial support for the war, until Howard Dean put a such roaring left wing tatt on it that the war could no longer be supported by the Dems.

    Roll another one Jones, just like the other one. :bloodshot:
    Maybe oblivion's a good thing after all...

  12. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    In the liberal world an F is an A. Obamas failures with economists was clearly racially motivated.
  13. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Do me a favor and just shut it. :rolleyes2:
    You are about as creative as a wet mop. Your little pathetic jabs are getting old and just prove what a twit you really are.
    The only thing Mythological around here is your opinion about yourself.
    Stop taking threads off topic just to pathetically attack me.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2009
  14. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    You left out the the Grassy Knoll, the Elephant Man's bones, and the secret machinations of the Illuminati :happy-very:

    The Iraq Survey Group was the team sent by the Pentagon and the CIA to ferret out all the facts concerning Iraq's supposed WMD program. Their final report was delivered in 2004 by Charles Duelfer, who had been appointed to head the ISG by George Tenet.
    Among their key findings:

    • Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.

    • Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.

    • Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
    Here is George Bush in his last interview with Charles Gibson:
    Even the outgoing President has admitted that he was wrong. The only reason to keep clinging to discredited conspiracy theories about "secret nuclear programs" and "top level defectors" is so that you can feel better about continuing to "pour hundreds of billions of dollars down a black hole".

    Your justifications for continuing to waste taxpayer money on black holes that you personally approve of is the main reason why I doubt earmarks and pork will ever be eliminated, because pork and wasteful earmarks are always someone else's pet project, never your own.
  15. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    You can give it but you can't take it. As many are aware, you have to be cencored by Cheryl and the moderaters here in BC's "Current Events" when you are challenged for spreading mis-information and bad mouthing those who disagree. Expect to be challenged, as long as you spew your hatefully inspired garbage. Respect others who disagree with you and maybe you'll get the same treatment back. But as long as you gonna act like a hack, expect to be treated like one...nuff said

    Back on topic:
    Given the fact that these "economist" didn't see this crash coming, I am less than impressed with their forecasting talents.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Very good points above and it was ironic that yesterday after reading your comments I read this along the same subject lines. Thought I'd pass along your way in case you also found it of interest.

    Special public welfare interests can come into gov't and on the least pretext and justification announce intervention in the public space and for the most part, a certain chorus will erupt in opposition most often under the correct reasons of wasting the taxpayer dollar. The real reason only known to opposition party leaders is the fear those tax dollars in the form or income transfer consitute a vote payoff that will harm in the next election cycle but we dare not expose that MO of both political parties. Best to just keep up another fascade in case the leemings figure out there really is a cliff just ahead.

    However, if that special interest happens to be in the world of so-called defense and the public has been conditioned (leemings again) to a boogeyman, then the same rationale of considering the request to the true need as it relates to taxpayer dollars gets thrown out the window.

    I live in the district where the F-22 is assembled and you can bet that baby holds "pet-project" status here but what amazed me was to learn that the F-22 has economic connections to 43 of our 50 states. Strategic thinkers in some measure have made the case that more F-22's are not needed but with this aircraft being so spread across the economy, what are the odds that we'll shed this equally gov't welfare at this bad economic time even if all things say we should? There's those 2 famous cowpokes again, Slim & None!

    This is another reason I say both political parties are the same , it's just the focus of their own version of welfare may at times go to different places. Then you have something like George Bush who gave democrats more welfare in order to get their votes to build the war machine and they went right along with it. Just look at the votes from the otherside to increase gov't in those directions when it came time to vote. Bush and his cohorts lied to the American voter about fiscal principles as he sold those down the river for the ends of certain interests but democrats equally sold themselves out on their principle of opposing the war. That's why you get candidates who have to declare, "I was for it but then I was against it" or with the new guy it is, "I was against it but now that I'm running things, I'm for it!"

    Seems now President Obama is even protecting torture positions of the former Bush adminstration but why when you consider it's campaign rhetoric on the US war position? I'm still waiting for democrats who now overwhelmingly control Congress to repeal the "evil" Patriot Act they so vocally called as wrong back in the day. Oh but wait, that was myth, myth and myth if you just look at all the democrat names listed. The opposition in truth were few in numbers and based on the panic and hysteria frothed up by a willing cabal, never really had any chance of bringing a balance and rationale to the discussion on how to proceed going forward. Now it seems to me that the new administration is just another repeat of the famous chorus, " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"

    Funny how perfectly the shoe fits when it's slipped onto the other foot!
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    That being true, then should these same economists and their actions in gov't be audited with full transparency so we know what happened and thus can properly determine a course forward?

    I look forward to reading your public declaration in support of HR 1207 and especially in light of your many public declarations that enough oversight and regulation was lacking that caused this mess. If the Federal Reserve is the principle engine of money and credit, would this not seem the most logical place to start?
  18. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    My opinion is that this will never happen. Ron Paul never gets anything done. The Government uses the Fed to promote inflation which if you asked the average citizen what they thought about inflation they would declare that inflation was bad. So if Joe thinks inflation is bad and he discovers that Government is behind inflation guess who loses their power.
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    And thus the reason we can never allow the masses to learn the truth as a full auidt would surely expose to light. This would also blow completely out of the water the keynesian myth that free markets and laissez faire economics are at the root of all our economic ills. We haven't had free markets and laissez faire economics in this country since the 19th century and good argument is made that not since the late 18th century. Use intervention for political gain, cause a crisis in it's wake and then blame a ghost to keep the State itself from being seen as the bad guy!

    The State must always look perfect in the eyes of the masses because to be anything less would result in loss of faith among the masses and this threatens State power! Parties and personas come and go, but the State itself is always perfect. Only lemmings and rubes believe such nonsense and each election cycle we show the world that not only do we control the world's weath, the world's energy and the world's military might, we also have cornered the global market of lemmings and rubes too!
  20. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Ok guys I just watched the Obama photo op. He proudly proclaimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. When Bush said the same thing at a time when the fundamentals were even stronger he was attacked relentlessly. This is a great opportunity for Obama supporters to be fair. If you people thought the fundamentals were weak when Bush was President I am curious as to just how strongly you disagree with what Obama has just said.

    My little disclaimer is that I think they are both right. Although I think the Obama circus is trying to destroy our economy and take away more of our economic freedoms.