Comments Posted By Larry, your brother
Displaying 11 To 15 Of 15 Comments
IF IT WASN'T SO FRIGHTENING, I WOULD LAUGH
I haven't been here for a few weeks so it's comforting to note that nothing's changed.
Stick to politics and away from economic policy. I think you have a better take on the former and don't fully understand the latter.
3 weeks. This government is in place for 3 weeks and you, like so many conservative voices, are predicting (hoping for?) utter disaster. So Geitner didn't have a fully fleshed out economic program to solve the biggest economic problems in 70 years 10 days into his term. What an idiot! How can we trust him? If you did any more than watch the stock market (which if you haven't noticed is populated by traders with itchy trigger fingers these days and NOT long term investors) you may have seen that he's proposing private funds, and NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT, trying to solve the problem of of these toxic assets. Sure, the government is promising a backstop, but they did that with Chrysler (and got paid back, by the way). Does any one remember the S&L crisis? It's hard to say exactly, but I've seen comments that the government actually made money taking assets and selling them over time. I'm not sure I believe it, but you can bet it was close either way. And by all means, let's limit the benefits of those companies we give money to. That, by the way, WOULD BE EVERY COMPANY AND FARMER IN THIS COUNTRY. Why should we tell Wells Fargo and not 3M how to compensate people since they both benefit from government largesse? I'm reminded of the scene from Casablanca. "Corporate welfare? I'm shocked, shocked that corporations receive any kind of government assistance!"
Is this stimulus package going to work? I haven't a clue, but to hear the outrage of the Republicans about "generational theft" after doubling the national debt in 8 years makes me nauseous. I really can't take these guys seriously. Especially that slime ball Boehner.
Enough. You can all hope for failure. I just hope you can hunt squirrels if you're right.
1. The stim bill had nothing to do with economics. It was entirely in the realm of the political. And you don't have to have a PHD in econ to know that $30 million for wetland preservation and protection for the Harvest Mouse has nothing to do with economic recovery and everything to do with fulfilling the wishes of a powerful politician.
2. If Obama and his people had played down Geithner's appearance on Tuesday instead of building it up as the answer to the bank's problems, no one (including top econmists who have referred to the incident as "amatuer hour) would be complaining. Forget the street (except that his bungling resulted in a 5% loss in one day for the market) and listen to economists - the ones I've read are extremely uneasy not just because they announced a plan, gave Geithner a big buildup, and then didn't have one but because even the bare bones outline he gave shows that the government is going to be making a riverboat gamble with whatever they come up with and no one has any confidence in them based on their performance so far.
3. I can't believe you want government determining how much your job or you are worth to your company. What possble reason would the government have to stop at just ordering CEO salaries. Give me one reason why they couldn't just logically continue that process until they determine everyone's pay? This isn't a slippery slope it's a cliff.
4. So you think poor people who get government assistance shouldn't be able to own fancy cars or HD TV's? Shouldn't we limit their benefits too since they get "government money?" Oh! The shame! My own brother a racist!
5, Puhleeze don't talk of hypocrisy with regard to Republicans (and the smear that conservatives want Obama to "fail"). After running a campaign that promised "transparency" and "reform" we get a 1000 page bill, crafted behind closed doors with no Republicans, a bill no one has read, no one knows the details, and a president who lied through his teeth about "no earmarks," the opposition's position ("all they want is tax cuts"), and even the salubrious effect the bill would have immediately (caterpillar workers hired back immediately contradicted by the comapany's CEO).
6. How's those personnel choices going, Barack? Yeah - real smooth. No incompetence there.
7. The GOP mouthed the same crap about Democrats wanting us to lose the war and wanting the economy to go in the tank. Stop with the talking points. They are unbecoming of anyone with more than a third grade education.
ed.
Comment Posted By Larry, your brother On 13.02.2009 @ 21:14
I WILL MISS THE LEFT'S BUSH DERANGEMENT
I have read enough recently and listend to enough comments to know that BDS is still alive, although now it is becoming Barrack Deranged Syndrome. Does anyone really belive this is the culmination of 30 years of the democrats trying to create a socialist state (anymore than the current Sec. of the Treasury and the Fed chief have been doing)? Do you really think that this president will be a weak-kneed, fawning shrinking violet when it comes to world politics? And if I hear one more time that people are afraid he will turn this country into a Muslim state governed by Islamic law, I think I'll throw up.
Keep it up and you'll you'll have to see some doctor to see if there's a cure for this new syndrome.
Comment Posted By Larry, your brother On 19.01.2009 @ 22:42
Only time will tell what direction this President and Congress take us, but, honestly, people that write on this blog have to take it a little easy for now. We're 4 days after the election and someone is talking about revolution. Wait until he does something to get freaked out. As for Emmanuel, read the WSJ editorial--I couldn't agree with it more (and I never, I mean never, agree with the WSJ editorial board). This is a guy who's best friend in the house appears to be the retiring Republican rep from Peoria. Again, wait until he does something WITH THIS PRESIDENT before you freak out. And I have to agree with the poster who talked about the makeup of this Congress. Yes, it's going to lean left--more people across the country voted for Democrats this year that Republicans. But look at who those Democrats are. They are not the wild eyed, 60s liberals you apparently fear. These are pro-life, pro-second ammendment, Iraq war vet Democrats (at least some are). The agenda will have issues like healthcare that the peopele are apparently worried about. But that doesn't mean that, sometime in the next couple of months, you're going to wake up in Sweeden.
Comment Posted By Larry, your brother On 8.11.2008 @ 11:08
WHEN WILL OBAMA RESPOND TO 'APPEASEMENT' CHARGE?
Imagine this scenario:
A key regional player supports a terrorist group hoping to overthrow a flawed, though friendly to the U.S., government. They provide arms, funding, and training to this terrorist group. The U.S. has called them out for doing it, said they should be ostracized, and refuses to recognize them. Yet, our President says we should talk with them while the war is still being fought and, indeed, makes that trip. His apologists point out it is probably the highlight of his presidency and, in fact, maybe any presidency. President Obama traveling to Iran? Obviously not. It was Nixon traveling to China in 1972. You could paint the same scenario using the Soviet Union. And remember--we KNEW they both had nuclear weapons.
Obama made the mistake of saying he would meet with these people without preconditions. But if you believe anyone in the State Department would let him do that you're wrong. The refreshing difference we see with someone like Obama is the change from the belligerent bully who has occupied the White House for 7+ years. We forget that past presidents of both stripes have met with our avowed enemies to both resolve issues and keep them in check.
China=Iran? Not hardly. Nixon was going for the gold - attempting to outflank the Soviets and alter the world balance of power. Talking to Iran hardly rises to that level.
Besides, setting up the strawman that Bush or anyone else doesn't want to talk to Iran is just not working anymore. We have preconditions for talks with Iran; stop their enrichment activities, halt their support for Shia militias hostile to the US in Iraq, and stop funding terrorism. Obama said he wanted to meet with Iran without establishing that country's seriousness in carrying on negotiations. That is stupid, foolish, and naive beyond belief - almsot as bad as what he said yesterday - that "Iran was not a threat" to the United States. It doesn't matter what the state department would or wouldn't "let" him do. He's the fricking president for god's sake! The fact that he made the statement shows an extraordinary shallowness and inexperience that disqualifies him from being president.
Your brother Rick
Comment Posted By Larry, your brother On 19.05.2008 @ 13:16
THE TOTAL WITLESSNESS OF OBAMA APOLOGISTS
It's nice to see that Karl Rove and his tactics are alive and well in the conservative blogsphere. That is, if you say something often enough and loud enough, what you say becomes the truth. A prerequisite for this tactic is that you take something that is irrefutable and expand on it from there.
So here we have Obama who has an affiliation of varying degrees with at least three of the Gang of Four promoted by conservatives: Wright, Rezko, and Ayers (outside of conservative blogs I've not read anything credible about Auchi). He obviously knows Wright, has heard him speak, and has done a poor job of explaining his connection to him. But do you honestly, I mean in your heart of hearts, think that Obama is a racist who hates America? If you believe that then I suggest you keep taking whatever you're taking because once you come down you're going to really hate reality.
Obama's connection with Rezko is less problematic but still needs explaining. Everything anybody is accusing him of should be found out the same way Nixon was found out: Follow the money. If he did anything it will show up somewhere. Does the real estate deal qualify? Probably not. The owner got what he wanted for the property (if I remember right). Did Rezko's wife qualify to buy the land? Probably not, but I work for a family that's involved in real estate and there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to have Rezko's wife buy the property. Making the Rezko property unbuildable looks like a sweetheart deal, but it also looks like a homeowner looking to protect a piece a property he owns and enhancing it. In the grand scheme of things, it probably falls somewhere short of a politician investing some money, say, in a baseball team and reaping huge profits a few years later when the team is sold (sound like someone we know?).
As for Ayers, I think this one is being made up out of whole cloth. He's a neighbor. He sits on a board with him (and 20 other people). He was involved in organizational meetings for his candidacy. He is not a close confidant. He doesn't advise the campaign. He doesn't appear for him. I'm not even sure he should "disavow" him because there doesn't seem to be anything to disavow. But if you say often enough that they are friends, it begins to sound like Obama listens to him, trusts him, and wants him in the cabinet. Total rubbish.
Let me just leave you with one more thought. I'm pretty damn tired of reading on this and other conservative blogs that liberals hate America. Oh, I know it's a softball kind of comment--easy to make a hit with. But I really can't believe that The Fop is convinced that a vast majority liberals think we deserved 9/11 or that Wright speaks the truth. It's utter nonsense. There are extremes of both sides that take positions that are unpalatable, but the majority does not. If you really believe that, then I recommend again that you continue taking whatever it is that is causing this altered state of consciousness and not come back to reality.
Comment Posted By Larry, your brother On 25.04.2008 @ 17:34
