Jimmy Buffett discussion
https://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
I've asked my wife not to do that but I can't control what the other moderators do...Skibo wrote:I'm even more offended when the mod comes in and removes the p*** spam before I get a chance to bookmark the links.
Sheesh. We can't be EVERYWHERE. And now we have one less to go around here.FunkHouse9 wrote:Ok, I'm not trying to be a pest, but I see that the title of the thread has been changed and the original post was edited to remove the "lame joke" from it. I hope that the edit was made by MileHighPirate but I see that the post does not have the usual "this post has been edited" line which I take to mean it was done by a moderator. As stupid as it is for me to even care, I take a little offense to the fact that a juvenile jab at a public figure was censored in a public forum while many of the far more offensive statements I've seen here remain.SMLCHNG wrote:Good point.alphabits wrote: I meant to mention this, too. Why the heck was the title of this thread allowed to remain as-is?
I just edited the incorrect names of the Candidates. And that's all. I'm sure it's funny.FunkHouse9 wrote: Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this.
Elrod wrote:I've asked my wife not to do that but I can't control what the other moderators do...Skibo wrote:I'm even more offended when the mod comes in and removes the p*** spam before I get a chance to bookmark the links.
Thank goodness! I'm freaked out enough knowing that dude at the North Pole can see me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake.SMLCHNG wrote:We can't be EVERYWHERE.
It's W trying to open the locked door in China.Wino you know wrote:I'm sure it's funny.FunkHouse9 wrote: Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this.
But all I'm seeing is a red "X"
My work computer does that a lot.
So you can either describe it to me and let me laugh NOW, or let the suspense consume me unitl I go home in the morning and log onto my own computer.
Oh yeah!alphabits wrote:Thank goodness! I'm freaked out enough knowing that dude at the North Pole can see me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake.SMLCHNG wrote:We can't be EVERYWHERE.
Okay, that's funny.FunkHouse9 wrote:It's W trying to open the locked door in China.
bumper wrote:You really think the collapse of the brokerage sector and insurers is a result of republican policy?Lightning Bolt wrote:It looks like you've figured out the concept of TRICKLE-DOWN economics that have been the hallmark of these Reagan Republicans.AdamBomb8 wrote:They p*** down our backs and try to tell us it's raining.
Problem is... this last week's dose came down on us like a d*m bursting.
Certainly not entirely... but far from equally either.moonie wrote:Just curious, LB, you're take on last week's financial debacle...you're blaming Republicans for it? You seriously don't feel that it's equal blame?
but do they know of that nether time, kinda asleep cause you overserved yourself but still marginally awake?alphabits wrote:Thank goodness! I'm freaked out enough knowing that dude at the North Pole can see me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake.SMLCHNG wrote:We can't be EVERYWHERE.
Alan Greenspan and Ben BernankeLightning Bolt wrote:bumper wrote:You really think the collapse of the brokerage sector and insurers is a result of republican policy?Lightning Bolt wrote:It looks like you've figured out the concept of TRICKLE-DOWN economics that have been the hallmark of these Reagan Republicans.AdamBomb8 wrote:They p*** down our backs and try to tell us it's raining.
Problem is... this last week's dose came down on us like a d*m bursting.Certainly not entirely... but far from equally either.moonie wrote:Just curious, LB, you're take on last week's financial debacle...you're blaming Republicans for it? You seriously don't feel that it's equal blame?
The Republicans under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all espoused a fiscal policy of tax breaks (that most effectively impacted those in higher earning brackets) that created lower tax revenues,
and higher deficits resulting in a weak U.S. dollar. A country with a weak currency is completely gambling against its' future revenues, in our case a lessened trade deficit, but it was always thought to be appreciating by some here. No fear....
The Clinton period brought a return to a "pay down the debt", more balanced budget up against federal tax intake, and the dollar stabilized as a sound currency.
Yes, interest rates decreased under this administration, but the public wasn't listening, far too many were benefitting. You can debate the benefits/detriments of his administration's trade policies, and fiscal oversight, but nothing was allowed to slide to bring us to the levels we're at today.
While Clinton himself was far from perfect, the government did have a multi-year budget surplus when George W. Bush took office.
He decided that meant it was time to return to supply-side, deficit spending that was only made worse by 9/11 and the fictional reasons to go to war in Iraq.
We could have righted the ship right there, with a call for patriotic fiscal unity...but, no.
The idea that Americans could simply "go shopping" to save the quickly floundering economy was one completely championed by the president and the Republican-controlled legislature.
That same legislature deregulated the SEC to the point that short-selling stocks, particularly those more precarious housing lenders moved to the point of being cannibalistic and criminal.
The dollar, once again weak, has no leverage for lending institutions to use with world banks. The ever-worsening housing numbers just pushed it over the edge.
It is truly short-sighted leadership and sheer mismanagement that has brought us to this point.
Who was at the helm the past 8 years of this not-really-so-sudden downturn?
You're right there... greed dooms all.bumper wrote:Alan Greenspan and Ben BernankeLightning Bolt wrote:bumper wrote:You really think the collapse of the brokerage sector and insurers is a result of republican policy?Lightning Bolt wrote:It looks like you've figured out the concept of TRICKLE-DOWN economics that have been the hallmark of these Reagan Republicans.AdamBomb8 wrote:They p*** down our backs and try to tell us it's raining.
Problem is... this last week's dose came down on us like a d*m bursting.Certainly not entirely... but far from equally either.moonie wrote:Just curious, LB, you're take on last week's financial debacle...you're blaming Republicans for it? You seriously don't feel that it's equal blame?
The Republicans under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all espoused a fiscal policy of tax breaks (that most effectively impacted those in higher earning brackets) that created lower tax revenues,
and higher deficits resulting in a weak U.S. dollar. A country with a weak currency is completely gambling against its' future revenues, in our case a lessened trade deficit, but it was always thought to be appreciating by some here. No fear....
The Clinton period brought a return to a "pay down the debt", more balanced budget up against federal tax intake, and the dollar stabilized as a sound currency.
Yes, interest rates decreased under this administration, but the public wasn't listening, far too many were benefitting. You can debate the benefits/detriments of his administration's trade policies, and fiscal oversight, but nothing was allowed to slide to bring us to the levels we're at today.
While Clinton himself was far from perfect, the government did have a multi-year budget surplus when George W. Bush took office.
He decided that meant it was time to return to supply-side, deficit spending that was only made worse by 9/11 and the fictional reasons to go to war in Iraq.
We could have righted the ship right there, with a call for patriotic fiscal unity...but, no.
The idea that Americans could simply "go shopping" to save the quickly floundering economy was one completely championed by the president and the Republican-controlled legislature.
That same legislature deregulated the SEC to the point that short-selling stocks, particularly those more precarious housing lenders moved to the point of being cannibalistic and criminal.
The dollar, once again weak, has no leverage for lending institutions to use with world banks. The ever-worsening housing numbers just pushed it over the edge.
It is truly short-sighted leadership and sheer mismanagement that has brought us to this point.
Who was at the helm the past 8 years of this not-really-so-sudden downturn?
In your attempt to make Bush the fiscal villain you have oversimplified an internationally complex economic issue. Take a look at chart of the U.S. Dollar dating back to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II. You will be surprised to the see the dollar strongest in 02 and 03.
This fiasco has to do with many things, king among them is greed and greed does not respect anything including political ideology.
I *hate* when that happens...Skibo wrote:I'm even more offended when the mod comes in and removes the p*** spam before I get a chance to bookmark the links.FunkHouse9 wrote:Ok, I'm not trying to be a pest, but I see that the title of the thread has been changed and the original post was edited to remove the "lame joke" from it. I hope that the edit was made by MileHighPirate but I see that the post does not have the usual "this post has been edited" line which I take to mean it was done by a moderator. As stupid as it is for me to even care, I take a little offense to the fact that a juvenile jab at a public figure was censored in a public forum while many of the far more offensive statements I've seen here remain.SMLCHNG wrote:Good point.alphabits wrote: I meant to mention this, too. Why the heck was the title of this thread allowed to remain as-is?
It's 'cause his elves work for the NSA.alphabits wrote:Thank goodness! I'm freaked out enough knowing that dude at the North Pole can see me when I'm sleeping and knows when I'm awake.SMLCHNG wrote:We can't be EVERYWHERE.
Reagan inherited 21.5% interest rates and the beginning of the creative mortgage package. An out of control unemployment rate and 13% inflation, "stagflation" You prefer that to what Bush I inherited?Lightning Bolt wrote:You're right there... greed dooms all.bumper wrote:Alan Greenspan and Ben BernankeLightning Bolt wrote:bumper wrote:You really think the collapse of the brokerage sector and insurers is a result of republican policy?Lightning Bolt wrote:It looks like you've figured out the concept of TRICKLE-DOWN economics that have been the hallmark of these Reagan Republicans.AdamBomb8 wrote:They p*** down our backs and try to tell us it's raining.
Problem is... this last week's dose came down on us like a d*m bursting.Certainly not entirely... but far from equally either.moonie wrote:Just curious, LB, you're take on last week's financial debacle...you're blaming Republicans for it? You seriously don't feel that it's equal blame?
The Republicans under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all espoused a fiscal policy of tax breaks (that most effectively impacted those in higher earning brackets) that created lower tax revenues,
and higher deficits resulting in a weak U.S. dollar. A country with a weak currency is completely gambling against its' future revenues, in our case a lessened trade deficit, but it was always thought to be appreciating by some here. No fear....
The Clinton period brought a return to a "pay down the debt", more balanced budget up against federal tax intake, and the dollar stabilized as a sound currency.
Yes, interest rates decreased under this administration, but the public wasn't listening, far too many were benefitting. You can debate the benefits/detriments of his administration's trade policies, and fiscal oversight, but nothing was allowed to slide to bring us to the levels we're at today.
While Clinton himself was far from perfect, the government did have a multi-year budget surplus when George W. Bush took office.
He decided that meant it was time to return to supply-side, deficit spending that was only made worse by 9/11 and the fictional reasons to go to war in Iraq.
We could have righted the ship right there, with a call for patriotic fiscal unity...but, no.
The idea that Americans could simply "go shopping" to save the quickly floundering economy was one completely championed by the president and the Republican-controlled legislature.
That same legislature deregulated the SEC to the point that short-selling stocks, particularly those more precarious housing lenders moved to the point of being cannibalistic and criminal.
The dollar, once again weak, has no leverage for lending institutions to use with world banks. The ever-worsening housing numbers just pushed it over the edge.
It is truly short-sighted leadership and sheer mismanagement that has brought us to this point.
Who was at the helm the past 8 years of this not-really-so-sudden downturn?
In your attempt to make Bush the fiscal villain you have oversimplified an internationally complex economic issue. Take a look at chart of the U.S. Dollar dating back to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II. You will be surprised to the see the dollar strongest in 02 and 03.
This fiasco has to do with many things, king among them is greed and greed does not respect anything including political ideology.
But my point wasn't so much that W brought this on exclusively, but more the
economic ideology that all three of the last GOP presidents prescribed to: supply-side economics... the promise of a" trickle down effect"
from increased money in the pocket of business owners... utter folly!
There was your greed, alright.
G. H. Bush even derided it in the '80 election... "voodoo economics", as he ridiculed the ideal.
He would've been remembered as a greater POTUS if he had stuck to his guns.
But because he had to react to his inherited and growing deficits (he had no choice), he did raise taxes, and he fell on his political sword.
What she said.mermaidindisguise wrote:I think we should vote like Chris Rock's reasoning (this is a joke of course - he was on Larry King so I thought this thread could use some humor........)
He said you have to vote for Obama bc he only has one house. McCain has 12 houses. So if he loses like 5 houses... he still has 7 left. Obama loses one - heloses it all so he is more motivated to fix the economy. I just think that is funny.
On a serious note. I notice on thefew times I come on these threads that (political) it gets heated quickly and so many people are so rude to others here when I don't think they have to be THAT rude to get points across. Respect the others opinion but don't make them feel like an idiot because they are voting one way. I think it's totally OK to view your opinions of the candidates negatively and say why you feel that way... Lord knows we all have our reasons = but you can do that without insulting other people on the board. Some of you are so guilty of rude comments - only a few so just be careful of HOW you say it and before you SEND .. ask yourself - would I be offended if someone posted this to me?
Maybe we should have one thread for Obama and one thread for McCain. If you want to dicuss your support for Obama - you go to that thread only. If you want to discuss support for McCain and vent about Obama - then you go to the McCain sight. That seems to be the only way on this board - too bad because I like discussing things with people even if I may not agree with them.
This is a tough election and I know it's a tough choice.. just make sure you all do your homework and try to be as informed as possible. But whatever you do and whoever you vote for - VOTE... especially women - we didn't always have the right and some women were beaten to try and get the right... so for them I say VOTE!!!
Do we want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks?
I'm no expert in economics..and maybe my views are to simple...but perhaps we need to look at ourselves as being partially responsible for this mess.bumper wrote:Reagan inherited 21.5% interest rates and the beginning of the creative mortgage package. An out of control unemployment rate and 13% inflation, "stagflation" You prefer that to what Bush I inherited?Lightning Bolt wrote:You're right there... greed dooms all.bumper wrote:Alan Greenspan and Ben BernankeLightning Bolt wrote:bumper wrote:You really think the collapse of the brokerage sector and insurers is a result of republican policy?Lightning Bolt wrote: It looks like you've figured out the concept of TRICKLE-DOWN economics that have been the hallmark of these Reagan Republicans.
Problem is... this last week's dose came down on us like a d*m bursting.Certainly not entirely... but far from equally either.moonie wrote:Just curious, LB, you're take on last week's financial debacle...you're blaming Republicans for it? You seriously don't feel that it's equal blame?
The Republicans under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all espoused a fiscal policy of tax breaks (that most effectively impacted those in higher earning brackets) that created lower tax revenues,
and higher deficits resulting in a weak U.S. dollar. A country with a weak currency is completely gambling against its' future revenues, in our case a lessened trade deficit, but it was always thought to be appreciating by some here. No fear....
The Clinton period brought a return to a "pay down the debt", more balanced budget up against federal tax intake, and the dollar stabilized as a sound currency.
Yes, interest rates decreased under this administration, but the public wasn't listening, far too many were benefitting. You can debate the benefits/detriments of his administration's trade policies, and fiscal oversight, but nothing was allowed to slide to bring us to the levels we're at today.
While Clinton himself was far from perfect, the government did have a multi-year budget surplus when George W. Bush took office.
He decided that meant it was time to return to supply-side, deficit spending that was only made worse by 9/11 and the fictional reasons to go to war in Iraq.
We could have righted the ship right there, with a call for patriotic fiscal unity...but, no.
The idea that Americans could simply "go shopping" to save the quickly floundering economy was one completely championed by the president and the Republican-controlled legislature.
That same legislature deregulated the SEC to the point that short-selling stocks, particularly those more precarious housing lenders moved to the point of being cannibalistic and criminal.
The dollar, once again weak, has no leverage for lending institutions to use with world banks. The ever-worsening housing numbers just pushed it over the edge.
It is truly short-sighted leadership and sheer mismanagement that has brought us to this point.
Who was at the helm the past 8 years of this not-really-so-sudden downturn?
In your attempt to make Bush the fiscal villain you have oversimplified an internationally complex economic issue. Take a look at chart of the U.S. Dollar dating back to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II. You will be surprised to the see the dollar strongest in 02 and 03.
This fiasco has to do with many things, king among them is greed and greed does not respect anything including political ideology.
But my point wasn't so much that W brought this on exclusively, but more the
economic ideology that all three of the last GOP presidents prescribed to: supply-side economics... the promise of a" trickle down effect"
from increased money in the pocket of business owners... utter folly!
There was your greed, alright.
G. H. Bush even derided it in the '80 election... "voodoo economics", as he ridiculed the ideal.
He would've been remembered as a greater POTUS if he had stuck to his guns.
But because he had to react to his inherited and growing deficits (he had no choice), he did raise taxes, and he fell on his political sword.
Bottom line I think is this. We can point our political fingers in any direction we wish and I am positive if we point long and hard enough we can find the villain lurking behind their political ideology. But in reality "black swan" events occur outside political bounds but are relative to the cultural confines of the time. This fiasco fits that criteria and like it or not, no one policy, no one act, no one person is responsible for this mess.
I think you're probably correct, Shannon. I cannot even begin to tell you the number of my friends, and co-workers here are in the exact situation that you've described.sunseeker wrote:
I'm no expert in economics..and maybe my views are to simple...but perhaps we need to look at ourselves as being partially responsible for this mess.
Let me explain...we (Americans) are driven by having things bigger and better then what our parent had, what our neighbors have, etc. We use credit cards for everything....we want IMMEDIATE gratification...society and television tells us this is ok. And now we have a group of people with endless debt struggling to make ends meet. I'll use my exhusband as an example....he wanted the biggest house, nicest car, clothes, etc. Back in my parent's day...they would have saved until they had enough money to purchase those things.....not my ex....he'd use a credit card to buy everything....and it drove us into the ground....since our divorce...he has filed for bankruptcy and his house has been foreclosed on....He's not unique...there are many many people in the same situation. ANd what do they do? They are still eating out every meal (using a credit card)...still living beyond their means because they don't have the will power to just say no. This would also explain the overinflated salaries of key CEO's ...always wanting MORE MORE MORE!
I don't know...perhap this is too simple of view...but I think...if we tried to live as our parents and grandparents did...work hard, make sacrifices and use common sense, we would be better off financially...
