Comments on: Late Late Nite FDL: Otis Speaks for Me

By: punaise

punaise — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:25:41 +0000

joyeux anniversaire egregious!

By: Other Pat

Other Pat — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:05:16 +0000

Thanks, SunnyNobility, for all those details. Would love to know the reasoning.

By: things come undone

things come undone — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:50:23 +0000

Trade deficets, workers need high paying jobs and American factories need to compete against cheaper goods.
Why don’t we in the short term give workers good paying jobs rebuilding America’s infrastructure power, water, sewage bridges etc. We have been neglecting our infrastructure for years.
Then why don’t we build some high speed trains for passengers and freight so we could then deliver American products faster ussing less diesel or electricty if we build monorails.
Faster and cheaper delivery of American goods would be a good first step toward restoring the competetivness of American goods and reducing the trade deficet.
Plus until we figure even more ways to help America compete we would be providing factory workers the good paying jobs they need right now.
Investors on the other hand would have to wait a few years even if we started now for the Bill Clinton type changes in the economy to take affect

By: things come undone

things come undone — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:37:14 +0000

selise @ 243

things come undone @ 241 -

do you think the usa budget deficit is more or less of a problem than the trade deficit?

They are both equal and related problems I think the deficet is a problem for investors first.
The trade deficet is a bigger problem for factory workers. I think we can fix the trade deficet. I don’t think fixing the deficet will help fix the trade deficet problem much. A strong economy would only provide better paying ENTRY LEVEL jobs for factory workers whoose plants closed. that was the problem with the Clinton economy
But no it would not give them entry level jobs that pay as much as there former jobs. Sure a few workers will adjust and thrive but I doubt the majority would.
Without a strong industrial base our investors will invest over seas (well they already are) we need to fix this problem.

By: things come undone

things come undone — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:25:30 +0000

Perris @244 Don’t forget government corporate welfare and war profiteering that the “insiders” also benefit from. Haliburton would still be a nothing company if it were not for all the government contracts Dick got them.

By: wigwam

wigwam — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:23:55 +0000

Christy has a new thread up.

By: anangryoldbroad

anangryoldbroad — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:22:24 +0000

The Death Tax needs to be called The Paris Hilton Tax,or The Rush Limbaugh Tax.

There are something like a dozen wealthy families that are pushing to end the estate tax, they (oh the irony) have spent a small fortune selling the idea that losing this tax benefits everyone. The rottenest myth of all is how this tax destroys family farms.

By: things come undone

things come undone — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:21:59 +0000

Perris@237
The Bushy trust fund babies realize subconciously that Bush 2 for example after failing at so many businesses and having to be bailed out by his dad how many times need to protect their trust funds even more!
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, George Soros (God I know that I’m forgetting a few people) all made UnGodly amounts of money. Most of these guys I know support Democrats.
When was the last time you heard of a trust fund kid both increasing his fortune the way Bill or Warren has and staying a Republican?

By: LibertyLee

LibertyLee — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:17:04 +0000

Why do so-called progressives want to take all the money from those of us who do the most with it and put it work along with a lot of other people? I have never understood the philosophy.

By: perris

perris — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:15:25 +0000

things come undone @ 241

Please note some stocks will rise even if we don’t get the debt under control which I’m sure Bobo Brooks will mention Exxon’s stock price if we attack the GOP economy under Bush. But the market as a whole when adjusted for inflation will not rise.
If we continue Bush’s policies we get a repeat of the 70’s -80’s and early 90’s when Bush 1 lost because he didn’t try and pay down the debt until to late to save his presidency.
Where the MSM gets the idea that reporters without economic training can write about the economy just because they memorized Karl Rove’s talking points on the economy is beyound me.
Repeating talking points might brainwash people into believing something is true but belief runs into reality sooner or later.
We have to make sure it happens sooner!

under this administration the stocks will rise that the insiders choose

in addition, we haven’t felt the inflation yet

the printing presses are working so hard the administration discontinued reporting the m3 index, this is the index that shows how much money we’re printing, it is so bad we aren’t allowed to see that metric anymore

now, when will this actually effect us?

when china and suadi arabia begin to spend all the moeny they’ve aquired through lending

they will buy something like the empire state building, give 4 times the dollar value…they will spend and but assets in America so that they have some real value

when they do that and all that paper starts floating around we are gonna see inflation probably higher then in the days of viet nam