No outrage from dems on wells fargo 3b qtr

She's right, though. The GOP has a vested interest in the economy's failure. They drew a line in the sand w/ the stimulus vote.

If the economy recovers, it's going to be very tough in 2010 & 2012 for Republicans.
That depends on whether you guys really do decide to push gun registration.
 
I really don't view you that way; though I know you're conservative, I don't consider you a hack by any means, and I don't think you rail just to rail against Obama or Dems.
I'm very much a fiscal conservative, though i'm actually quite the social liberal/libertarian. a pity that some people are too partisan to see the beauty in that.
 
She's right, though. The GOP has a vested interest in the economy's failure. They drew a line in the sand w/ the stimulus vote.

If the economy recovers, it's going to be very tough in 2010 & 2012 for Republicans.

bullshit...they drew a line about giving money we don't have. they have no desire to see the economy fail, if they do, they deserve to be voted out of office. there is absolutely no proof that the 25 billion dollar stimulus from bush is the sole cause of the profits. or are you going to be a party hack and claim any success in the economy is due solely to the stimulus without actually verifying if that is true?
 
bullshit...they drew a line about giving money we don't have. they have no desire to see the economy fail, if they do, they deserve to be voted out of office. there is absolutely no proof that the 25 billion dollar stimulus from bush is the sole cause of the profits. or are you going to be a party hack and claim any success in the economy is due solely to the stimulus without actually verifying if that is true?

We could debate all day on that. I'm sure if the economy recovers, you'll find all kinds of reasons why it did so in spite of Obama, and not because of him.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about perception, and voters. The GOP has a vested interest right now in the economy failing, at least until the mid-terms. Whether he deserves the credit or not, Obama WILL get it if the economy recovers in the near-term.

Don't take my word for it; ask your fellow righties. They know it as well as I do, and plenty have admitted to that. Damo's point about the gun registration is a good one, but barring that, if the economy comes back in the next year, it's a disaster for the GOP.
 
OTE=Onceler;423007]We could debate all day on that. I'm sure if the economy recovers, you'll find all kinds of reasons why it did so in spite of Obama, and not because of him.

if you want to play that game, then i am sure you will find all kinds of reasons the economy recovered just because of him....


That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about perception, and voters. The GOP has a vested interest right now in the economy failing, at least until the mid-terms. Whether he deserves the credit or not, Obama WILL get it if the economy recovers in the near-term.

Don't take my word for it; ask your fellow righties. They know it as well as I do, and plenty have admitted to that. Damo's point about the gun registration is a good one, but barring that, if the economy comes back in the next year, it's a disaster for the GOP.

i'm not sure about that, people are tired of this spend, spend, spend government approach, even the dems sense it. i don't think people are going to remember bush's little spendulus (just look at evince, she thought this thread, wells fargo's succes was a result of obama's stimulus, not bush's), they are going to remember how the dems spent outrageous sums of money....and how some republicans have finally gotten financial religion and are now against spending more money.

i think the next election is a going to be a surprise
 
"i don't think people are going to remember bush's little spendulus "

I agree. That's why the fate of both political parties is so vested in the economy right now. I can't think of another issue - even Iraq - where the lines were so clearly drawn.

Like it or not, Obama will get credit if the economy recovers, especially if it does so in a strong way, in teh short term. Maybe people are sick of all the spending, though polls still show majority support for most of the gov't actions so far. HOWEVER, if the economy recovers, they won't care how much was spent to do it.

If it doesn't, the GOP wins....
 
"i don't think people are going to remember bush's little spendulus "

I agree. That's why the fate of both political parties is so vested in the economy right now. I can't think of another issue - even Iraq - where the lines were so clearly drawn.

Like it or not, Obama will get credit if the economy recovers, especially if it does so in a strong way, in teh short term. Maybe people are sick of all the spending, though polls still show majority support for most of the gov't actions so far. HOWEVER, if the economy recovers, they won't care how much was spent to do it.

If it doesn't, the GOP wins....

i guess we will see...

isn't there some historical precedent that the voters tend to balance the legislature against the whitehouse....that could be a factor as well.
 
That's silly.

I can afford my mortgage, and i'm going to refinance. So are millions of others who can afford their motgages.

There are those who could afford the starting rate, but if they had an ARM and the percentage jumped, right, or it is what has happened to several young couples I now who bought a home, thought their income would keep up with the adjustment and it didn't, they couldn't afford it, so they are refinancing using a conventional mortgage at a set rate.

Then there are my friends in San Diego and Reno who bought homes, have seen the values drop by 50% and wonder if it is wise to keep paying for something for which they will never recoup their losses and they are very near retirement age. Speculation is not always a good thing, huh.
 
It is.

I'm not one of the doomers that say that stimulus won't work. I'm just saying if I am handed 40 Billion dollars, and all I have to show for it is 3 afterwards it is not all that great.

That being said, they are the first to show a good solid return on the investment.

I think betting on doom is worthless and doesn't recognize much of the past where cycles are very real. I didn't make the point because I think stimulus will fail, I made the point because we need to remember that all 3 Billion of that was made possible by the infusion of 40 Billion dollars from us, yes us, the taxpayer.

A little accounting; TARP is handled as a loan. Cash on one side, an equal amount of debt on the other, net effect 0. Because they show a $3 billion profit doesn't mean $37 billion went down the toilet.
 
A little accounting; TARP is handled as a loan. Cash on one side, an equal amount of debt on the other, net effect 0. Because they show a $3 billion profit doesn't mean $37 billion went down the toilet.
Look, if you have an infusion of 40 Billion in a quarter and show a 3 Billion profit, all 3 Billion of the profit is because of the infusion.

Future profits will come from this. But the reality is, if you have to be handed 40 Billion dollars to cover failure and come out smelling like roses then you aren't doing a very good job.

This is just a patch on, as we try to reinflate, the bubble. We're setting ourselves up for a future burst because we refuse to look at alternatives to bubble/burst cycles.

It isn't really a partisan thing, Bush was doing it too, and the Keynesian in all American politics is obvious. It's not like I'm attacking Obama. I am stating a simple fact.

America needs to focus on some way to end the dependence on debt, not to once again rebuild that same balloon with just another weak patch on it. To rebuild the economy without this. I had hope that a leader would emerge that would have the vision to do this. Instead we had Bush and then Obama.
 
It's all interconnected. I don't see refi as a savior, just one piece of the overall puzzle.

When people aren't defaulting, it helps the banks, it helps businesses who they will spend their money with, it helps them & their confidence.

I think had we allowed the pain of failures a better recovery would be had.
 
Look, if you have an infusion of 40 Billion in a quarter and show a 3 Billion profit, all 3 Billion of the profit is because of the infusion.

Future profits will come from this. But the reality is, if you have to be handed 40 Billion dollars to cover failure and come out smelling like roses then you aren't doing a very good job.

This is just a patch on, as we try to reinflate, the bubble. We're setting ourselves up for a future burst because we refuse to look at alternatives to bubble/burst cycles.

It isn't really a partisan thing, Bush was doing it too, and the Keynesian in all American politics is obvious. It's not like I'm attacking Obama. I am stating a simple fact.

America needs to focus on some way to end the dependence on debt, not to once again rebuild that same balloon with just another weak patch on it. To rebuild the economy without this. I had hope that a leader would emerge that would have the vision to do this. Instead we had Bush and then Obama.

I suppose we all could make a lot of money with $40 billion cash on hand, but it's not a gurantee. I don't know what portion of WF's business produced the profit, but the more they make, the more likely it is that the loan will be paid off.
 
I think had we allowed the pain of failures a better recovery would be had.

That's very possible, the recovery in the decade following the pain of The Great Depression was the greatest ever, given the starting point. However, there is a big difference, following the 30s and WWII we had a ready and waiting industrial base to pull us out, that isn't the case today. Creating demand now only creates business overseas, unless you can think of another bubble to pull us out of this one. I don't think it can be done without a vibrant manufacturing base, and fast food won't be the answer.
I think the risk is too great to just stand by, watch the dominos fall, and pray.
 
Back
Top