would disagree with those of you who remarked or implied that Obama did nothing much out of the ordinary when he ordered the strike against bin Laden.

There isn't very much that I like about what Obama has done while in office, but on his action involving bin laden, I applaud his courage, decisions, and handling of the entire matter with the utmost admiration.

sounds somewhat demeaning to the middle and lower classes. But if you buy into the Fed, Bernanke and QE2, then by default you're buying into trickle down economics. I realize the purest definition of trickle down is around tax cuts. I argue that anything that can create wealth could potentially have the same effect.

You own stocks right? How does your brokerage account look these days as compared to last summer right before Bernanke's little Jackson Hole WY speech in early August when he announced QE2? It forced you, me, other investors large and small into equities. The intent was to create wealth, and as a result to spend that wealth, hence trickle down.

Last thing, don't agree with AF. He really is a complete partisan buffoon. See, I'm actually toning down my language. He can't even get the GM, Chrysler and speculators right.

AF is an idiot. Just look at that last post. The Treasury Dept is making money on GM & Chrysler? Come on, it's going to take years before they pay back the $60B $100B, or whatever the final amount they borrowed. The Treasury has made money from most of the financial institutions, not GM or Chrysler. Both were lousy investments by the govt, right behind Freddie and Fannie. He rambles on about speculators. Oil is down $15. Why? Dollar up, demand down, and margin calls. They raised the margin requirements, hence certain folks had to sell. Pretty simple.

I said in my post the truest definition of trickle down are tax cuts. I was talking about QE2. QE2 is a form of trickle down. Yeah, some middle class folks have investments but its marginal in 401Ks and IRAs. I should have said upper middle class and the wealthy.

i try to recognize facts.....yes he ordered thr raid. yes it was bold.
too bad he can't fiure out what to do to get the economy on track...maybe he can be bold once more?
stop trying to turn the country into a complete welfare state.

Let us not pin the blame on Obama. He saved both Chrysler and GM and GM is investing in plants and hiring 2000 people. The US Treasury made money on the deal.

Go tell you republican nut jobs to stop giving more tax cuts to the rich 1% and tell them to let commodities and exchange commission implement proper regulations on speculation.

What specifically don't you like about what he has done?

Do you hold Congress responsible as well?

How would you handle the current state of our countries economy?

What do you think were the main factors of the downturn/recession?

What do you think are the main reasons for inflation and stagnant incomes now?

Do you think the government or leader of one country has much sway over an economy which is affected and very much involved in a global economy?

After more than two years, it's fair when someone points out he owns it now.  Personally, I think TARP (and I give Bush/Paulson credit for it) along with the stimulus kept it from being even worse than the Great Depression.  But I recognize there's no way to prove it.  And let's not forget about the Fed.  Obama gets no credit or blame for what Bernanke has done.  I also think the Fed did the right thing.  But, again, we'll never know what would have happened if they didn't do QE 1 and 2.  Last, as a Democrat, I am scared shitless about the deficit and the national debt.  I'm in favor of serious cuts across the board.  I'm also in favor of some modest tax increases on the people most able to afford it.  Trickle-down economics is a totally bankrupt concept and has been shown not to work.  The only people who believe in it are in the Republican leadership.

-- Modified on 5/16/2011 7:59:40 PM

so I'll take him at his word.

.....................................................................................................................................
"I had real reservations about the intelligence. My worry was the level of uncertainty about whether bin Laden was even in the compound," he said.

"There wasn't any direct evidence that he was there. It was all circumstantial. But it was the best -- information that we had -- since probably 2001," Gates said.

The decision to go ahead with the raid by President Barack Obama was "one of the most courageous calls" a president has made, given the uncertainty of the intelligence and the riskiness of the operation, he said.
.....................................................................................................................................

So if I understand it, the chance Bin Ladin was even there was 50/50 or so and on that basis Obama still launched the raid? And that makes it a bold move?

I strongly disagree with Obama's attempts to close Gitmo.  I strongly disagree with his efforts to investigate/prosecute the CIA ops who performed the water boarding etc... ordered by their superiors.  I disagree with him suspending oil drilling.  I disagree with the government furnishing healthcare to anyone who doesn't have it and making me pay a portion of it.  I don't appreciate his lies during campaign promising open government only to then see all the behind closed doors secret sessions.

But, on the issue of what he did reference bin laden, he has my sincere and utmost respect... job well done...

What I am wondering and would like you to articulate further about is.

Suspension of oil drilling - Are you speaking specifically about off shore drilling? If so, it is my understanding the suspension was temporary, and done to create the opportunity to make sure rigs were safe, and met the proper guidelines.

Healthcare - this one I disagree all the time with a close friend. I think mainly because of perspective. He has never had a lapse in medical coverage, nor has he or his parents ever had to pay for it (Military). So our perspectives are completely different. The question I always post to him is if tomorrow, you lost your job along with healthcare, would you want your government to provide basic coverage for you and/or your family, or would you just take your chances with getting sick until such time you could pay a premium?

Well, yes, the news media reports have indeed said exactly what you describe.  But, IMHO, that was just an excuse to force Obama's et.al. agenda for the so-called green agenda.  Artificially force higher gasoline prices by restricting supply and thereby make his agenda more appealing.  Nice idea, but premature because most working folks are locked into gasoline to make a living.  Now that campaigning has begun, Obama has weakened the restrictions that he imposed in the hope that gas prices will come down by the time election issues matter.  I don't recall any "special" inspections, etc... that were done to "make oil drilling more safe".  In fact, oil industry watchers claim absolutely nothing was done.  So, I believe Obama has simply manipulated circumstances.

As for healthcare, it's not a black/white issue.  In the example you mention, of course I would hope that there is some mechanism to assist those who have suffered because of no fault of their own.  But, that wasn't the target of his healthcare legislation.  He opted to force everyone to pay so that those who refused to work, refused to even try the help themselves, would have coverage at the expense of those of us who work.  Now, I'm really sorry for those who are too lazy to try and suddenly get sick and require some kind of medical attention.  But, as Obama used to say, "decisions have consequences" and such is life.  I personally work hard for myself that the things I want.  I don't appreciate having to give some of it up so that those who won't work equally hard, can get it for free.  Because of Obama's new legistlation, I now have to pay an additional 1500 bucks a year with slightly less coverage.

I guess Gates thinks so.  I'm not prone to argue with the guy.  He's Bush guy, ran the CIA, too, and seems like a very solid citizen.  One of Bush (and Obama's) best appointees.  And I felt that long before he made his remarks on the raid.

Let's not talk about oil prices right now because I don't want to break out my reports and charts.

As for healthcare - $1500 extra - I think you exaggerate. How did you come up with that number?

Who do you pay now for healthcare? I am guessing thru an insurance company. And if they are decreasing your coverage, how is that Obama or the government's fault as they are a private industry/company?

Second, lazy people without jobs are probably so poor they already qualify for Medicaid. Changing the structure of healthcare is not going to create a new breed of government moochers as they already exist. People who take advantage of the system, believe me, are already doing so.

My mom is a social worker, and she knows first hand the difference between lazy individuals and struggling families. The lazy people aren't struggling. But families who make just enough not to qualify for government assistance, but still not enough to makes ends meet, much less health care - which has become somewhat of a luxury item these days - these "working poor" who work everyday, even when sick, who pick up side and odd jobs, who have too much pride to ask for help, these are the people I want to protect. These people who are just like my grandparents who between them worked 3 regular jobs and God only knows how many side gigs to support my mom and her siblings. Who always managed to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Who managed to save up and buy a house back in the sixties in Chicago during "hidden" segregation and illegal practices to keep Blacks from owning property.

And I want to ask you when was the last time you actually had to give up something you wanted for someone else to have healthcare?

I can tell you the last time I did it. 2007. I own a small company and the insurance company (not anyone from the government), wanted $600/month per person for coverage. I didn't want my employees to go without so I paid it. Let me tell you, there were a lot of perks and and non-perks I had to sacrifice so people I cared for, who helped me grow my business, worked late and long when I needed, never complained, kept my clients happy and who really deserved it could have quality health care. We have a different more affordable system now, but no thanks to the insurance company. It was something I had to devise.

Okay, I think I am done. Putting away podium.

Yeah, trickle down sounds  - bad.

Makes me think of what comes out of the end of a gutter. Who would want that? And what kind of person would over than to another and say "It's good."

"My sources say Bin Laden is in a villa in Pakistan."

Wonder why her sources were so accurate and ours were not back then.

Also, be mindful in Oct. 2008, Pres. Obama had still not yet been elected.

wow, all bush would have needed to do was blow up the whole country and we would have got him. lol!

that reminds me of "bin ladin determined to strike"

-- Modified on 5/16/2011 6:44:20 PM

Blowing up Iraq or Afghanistan? Bush Admin handle access and pursuit of intelligence haphazardly in my opinion.

Sarcasm: It is often a sign to me the other person no longer has any valid points to make.



-- Modified on 5/16/2011 1:47:17 PM

i was joking!! thats what the LOL was for. but seriously, what was bush supposed to do with the info that a reporter says she has a source that bin ladin is in a villa in pakistan???? you do know pakistan is a big country?

But since you raised Iraq, what was bush to do with the warnings from Bill Clinton and other democrats that Saddam Hussein had WMD and would use them again?

Watch, listen, think. Then reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

remind me again about the "bin ladin determined to strike" warning bush ignored.

to the middle and lower classes.  But the difference re QE2 is that it directly benefits anybody with equities.  And in this day and age that includes the middle class.  So it's not trickle down if at  least some of the wealth goes directly into middle class investments and they spend some of it at Wal-Mart.  True trickle down presumes that if you cut the top rate, the upper class will spend more money, thus creating jobs for the middle class.  But in fact it never has worked.  As for AF, I used to think he was a buffoon, and it's true he doesn't write very carefully, but I find he's making more and more sense of late.  No doubt you will argue this proves I am at least a partial partisan buffoon!  LOL!  Guilty as charged, which puts me in good company on this Board!

hardly constitutes actionable  intelligence.  There were loads of rumors for years that Bin Laden was in a Pakistani city like Peshawar or Quetta.  No one thought he was in a cave in the mountains.  What were we supposed to do?  It would have been like finding a needle in a haystack.  We finally did, but it took long, careful and diffucult work, a gutsy call and even more gutsy work by SEAL Team 6.

I said it twice, and I'll say it again.

Now, you & I agree that the PUREST definition of Trickle Down is reducing taxes on the rich. But what if you accomplish the same thing by giving the rich an investment windfall? Do you know why QE2 was done, whether or not it's considered successful?

You have a slowing economy last summer. You had to juice it up somehow. Fed is freaked out about disinflation and Japan in the 1990s. Fed prints money. Fed buys long term bonds. Fed keeps interest rates low. Fed hopes lower borrowing costs spur individuals and businesses. Fed pushes individuals into more risky assests, i.e. equities. Fed hopes rich people and businesses invest and spend with intent on creating jobs.

It's a top down approach. It's trickle down. Oops that demeaning. My argument is not in the purest definition of the term, but the intent and design is the same. Maybe it's semantics. Is QE2 working? Personally I feel better because I have a lot more money in my brokerage account. Are jobs being created? That's the wild card.

Tell that to Condoleezza Rice. She told Amanpour this weekend that she was surprised that they did not find him in a cave, but rather in a house in Pakistan.

then again, that's what happens to Faux fans.

Gitmo is disgrace to this nation.

He suspended oil drilling after BP fiasco before the fiasco, he actually lifted off shore drilling. Another Faux news creation

Government is already furnishing healthcare through medicare and medicaid, wrong on that count too. All he is trying to do is get both under control and reduce healthcare cost. Every rational economist agree with his plan. Nothing happened to my plan it did not go up so, you paying for it appears to be bull.

Actually government is more open than ever before. Take look at data.gov.

I don't believe the CIA prosecution deal, haven't heard or read in reputable publication so, no comment.

some call it supply side, stupid concept. Nation cannot progress by making large percentage of population poor and illiterate.

You are partially right, but only partially.  As for the auto companies, you are correct.  But the gov't. is still waaay in the hole on AIG and it'll cost more than GM and Chrysler combined.  The Fed also made a ton of money last year but you're right about Fannie and Freddie.
As for oil, I agree on that.
You are also right that the truest definition of trickle down are tax cuts but if you're talking about QE2 as a tax cut, that's just plain wrong.  It's not a tax cut by any definition.  As for it being trickle down, sure there's a supposed trickle down effect as the rich feel richer and presumably increase spending.  But the eonomy is driven by consumer spending in general, and that's not the rich, it's mainly the middle class.
Last, and perhaps most important, "Trickle-Down Econmics"/The Laffer Curve has been totally repudiated by virtually all reputable economists.  So I don't really care what you cite as trickle-down or not.  I doesn't work.  At least not in the way Laffer proposed.  I'm sure we could each cite articles to "prove" our point, but I'll pass...and have breakfast instead!

Does that count?

never ends...blame it on Bush...a leader fixes whatever he inherits...not simply point the finger and leave us right exactly, if not worse, in the same situation he walke  into....he's a paramount campaigner,but not a doer...he's second only WJC as a politician...we need a prez now not a speech giver.

spoken just like the 'o'......yes i think this country was one of exceptionalism, not just a follower..hope the damage is not unfixable.......i wouldn't turn everyone into a welfare queen or king..i wouldn't be trying to make sure illegals have jobs at the expense of a citizen....more???