Are you ready for this? stimulus 4

[bigrebnc1775]

The people investing in those dollars have already laundered it into another country's more stable currency.

This clueless and feckless administration believes that if they suffuse the economy with funny money, businesses will be induced to hire more people. That would be wrong. Businesses aren't not hiring because of a lack of money, but because of a lack of stability in the economic system.

You are exactly correct.

 

[Saigon]

BigReb -

Excellent response.

Again - if you do not understand what quantitative easing is - why were you attacking it?

It hasn't worked it doesn't work and it will not work, Do you understand what happens when you print more U.S. Dollars?
On second thought maybe a little European prick like you would want a DEVALUED U.S. dollar.

So it HAN'T worked in Europe and Japan?

Because the IMF say that it HAS worked.

Why do you think it hasn't worked?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb -

Excellent response.

Again - if you do not understand what quantitative easing is - why were you attacking it?

It hasn't worked it doesn't work and it will not work, Do you understand what happens when you print more U.S. Dollars?
On second thought maybe a little European prick like you would want a DEVALUED U.S. dollar.

So it HAN'T worked in Europe and Japan?

Because the IMF say that it HAS worked.

Why do you think it hasn't worked?

So it HAN'T worked in Europe and Japan?

This is not Europe or Japan We are better than you fuckers. stop using your failure as an example of the greatness that has made America better than you son's a bitches across the pond will ever be. Without America you dumb fucks would being saying Sieg Heil

 

[Saigon]

BigReb -

You do not understand Quantitative Easing.

The reason you are attacking it, and the ONLY reaon you are attacking it, is because it is Obama who introduced it.

If Romney were to use it - as he may well might - you WILL support it.

This is called blind partisanship.

I don't why you just dont post "I hate Obama! I hate Obama!" on every thread and leave the excuses out of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb -

You do not understand Quantitative Easing.

The reason you are attacking it, and the ONLY reaon you are attacking it, is because it is Obama who introduced it.

If Romney were to use it - as he may well might - you WILL support it.

This is called blind partisanship.

I don't why you just dont post "I hate Obama! I hate Obama!" on every thread and leave the excuses out of it.

I understand this print more paper money with nothing to back it up creates more debt.
Double dip inflation it's not good
It's not blind partisanship you dumb fuck. Who appointed bernanke?
Failure is failure no matter which party does it.

 

[Saigon]

BigReb -

I do look forward to your threads should Romney continue the same policy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb -

I do look forward to your threads should Romney continue the same policy.

Since Romney is a businessman I am sure he is capable of doing a good job of fixing obama's mess.

 

[Care4all]

BigReb -

You do not understand Quantitative Easing.

The reason you are attacking it, and the ONLY reaon you are attacking it, is because it is Obama who introduced it.

If Romney were to use it - as he may well might - you WILL support it.

This is called blind partisanship.

I don't why you just dont post "I hate Obama! I hate Obama!" on every thread and leave the excuses out of it.

I understand this print more paper money with nothing to back it up creates more debt.
Double dip inflation it's not good
It's not blind partisanship you dumb fuck. Who appointed bernanke?
Failure is failure no matter which party does it.

First president bush as an economic adviser and then Obama as the fed pres I believe...

you know Romney said he would keep Bernanke as the head of the Fed Reserve just a few months ago...and said the fed and bernanke should be making these monetary decisions without the influence of congress...? About the 2 min 30 second mark in the video...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]

he's flip flopped the last couple of days to make you all think he's with you so you'll vote for him....but you know that....and don't care...

He's got kerry beat by 1000 times over, when it comes to flip flopping....just call Romney the King on not standing for anything longer than a week, he puts his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing each morning then picks his stances....it's a darn right embarrassment to see someone as wishy washy as him....and frightening at the same time....there is no way business will get better with him in office because he brings no backbone, no one knows from one second to the next what he will believe in or do and this, imho will bring insecurity and the lack of confidence to the market and most businesses even more so than today....again, in my humble opinion.

better to know what you've got than to have someone as insecure as the King of Flip Flop Romney....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb -

You do not understand Quantitative Easing.

The reason you are attacking it, and the ONLY reaon you are attacking it, is because it is Obama who introduced it.

If Romney were to use it - as he may well might - you WILL support it.

This is called blind partisanship.

I don't why you just dont post "I hate Obama! I hate Obama!" on every thread and leave the excuses out of it.

I understand this print more paper money with nothing to back it up creates more debt.
Double dip inflation it's not good
It's not blind partisanship you dumb fuck. Who appointed bernanke?
Failure is failure no matter which party does it.

First president bush as an economic adviser and then Obama as the fed pres I believe...

you know Romney said he would keep Bernanke as the head of the Fed Reserve just a few months ago...and said the fed and bernanke should be making these monetary decisions without the influence of congress...? About the 2 min 30 second mark in the video...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]

he's flip flopped the last couple of days to make you all think he's with you so you'll vote for him....but you know that....and don't care...

He's got kerry beat by 1000 times over, when it comes to flip flopping....just call Romney the King on not standing for anything longer than a week, he puts his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing each morning then picks his stances....it's a darn right embarrassment to see someone as wishy washy as him....and frightening at the same time....there is no way business will get better with him in office because he brings no backbone, no one knows from one second to the next what he will believe in or do and this, imho will bring insecurity and the lack of confidence to the market and most businesses even more so than today....again, in my humble opinion.

better to know what you've got than to have someone as insecure as the King of Flip Flop Romney....

So far the video is simple to debunk
Romney said he was opposed to the president stimulus plan, not that he opposed all stimulus plans.
He was pro abortion in HIS STATE, what was good for his state will not work for other states.

the one with maddcow has already been debunked
Whether or not Romney will be a good president remains to be seen, but obama has shown what he is made of. America cannot afford such failures anymore NOT ONE MORE DAY.

 

[Care4all]

I understand this print more paper money with nothing to back it up creates more debt.
Double dip inflation it's not good
It's not blind partisanship you dumb fuck. Who appointed bernanke?
Failure is failure no matter which party does it.

First president bush as an economic adviser and then Obama as the fed pres I believe...

you know Romney said he would keep Bernanke as the head of the Fed Reserve just a few months ago...and said the fed and bernanke should be making these monetary decisions without the influence of congress...? About the 2 min 30 second mark in the video...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related"]Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube[/ame]

he's flip flopped the last couple of days to make you all think he's with you so you'll vote for him....but you know that....and don't care...

He's got kerry beat by 1000 times over, when it comes to flip flopping....just call Romney the King on not standing for anything longer than a week, he puts his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing each morning then picks his stances....it's a darn right embarrassment to see someone as wishy washy as him....and frightening at the same time....there is no way business will get better with him in office because he brings no backbone, no one knows from one second to the next what he will believe in or do and this, imho will bring insecurity and the lack of confidence to the market and most businesses even more so than today....again, in my humble opinion.

better to know what you've got than to have someone as insecure as the King of Flip Flop Romney....

So far the video is simple to debunk
Romney said he was opposed to the president stimulus plan, not that he opposed all stimulus plans.
He was pro abortion in HIS STATE, what was good for his state will not work for other states.

the one with maddcow has already been debunked
Whether or not Romney will be a good president remains to be seen, but obama has shown what he is made of. America cannot afford such failures anymore NOT ONE MORE DAY.

and his bernanke stance??

 

[Mac1958]

.

QE3 may indeed provide the needed stimulation, the final push. But unless the Fed is able to put the brakes on and reverse course at just the right time, yikes, it could get ugly. I'm just not sure I trust they'll know when to tighten. And the way this economy is floating in cash, the tightening will have to be severe. Will the economy be able to handle that?

The best metaphor I've seen for this recovery is not a "V" shape not a "U" shape, but a bathtub shape. Decline, long consolidation and repair, then improvement. And this has far more to do with the nature of the meltdown than the political affiliation of the White House occupant.

The economy has stabilized and there have been numerous sporadic indications of life coming out of the meltdown. So this may do it, but I sure as hell hope they know when to yank the chain. And I hope we don't choke when that chain is yanked.

.

 

[Annie]

.

QE3 may indeed provide the needed stimulation, the final push. But unless the Fed is able to put the brakes on and reverse course at just the right time, yikes, it could get ugly. I'm just not sure I trust they'll know when to tighten. And the way this economy is floating in cash, the tightening will have to be severe. Will the economy be able to handle that?

The best metaphor I've seen for this recovery is not a "V" shape not a "U" shape, but a bathtub shape. Decline, long consolidation and repair, then improvement. And this has far more to do with the nature of the meltdown than the political affiliation of the White House occupant.

The economy has stabilized and there have been numerous sporadic indications of life coming out of the meltdown. So this may do it, but I sure as hell hope they know when to yank the chain. And I hope we don't choke when that chain is yanked.

.

While I don't agree with your 'take' that it could be the 'final push' to success, I do find your honesty regarding pitfall vis a vis the differences between a U and V example of the window of hope.

 

[usmcstinger]

The recovery is here.

Auto sales have returned to normal, retail sales have returned to normal, and housing inventory has returned to normal.

Housing starts will increase next year and begin to bring down unemployment.

Housing is the last piece of the puzzle.

Your predictions are not backed up by any viable source. This is certainly a Red Flag.

Obviously, you have no idea how supply,demand, price and interest rates effect the housing industry.

There are three key housing reports to be released this week: September homebuilder confidence on Tuesday, and August housing starts and August Existing Home sales, both on Wednesday.
So Much For "Housing Has Bottomed" - Shadow Housing Inventory Resumes Upward Climb | ZeroHedge

Low Housing Inventory Is NOT A Sign of Housing Recovery
Low Housing Inventory Is NOT A Sign of Housing Recovery | #MillerSamuel @jonathanmiller

There is a wealth of information on the WEB. You must not have the ability to find it.
Your statement personifies the following phrase: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Amazed]

BigReb -

Excellent response.

Again - if you do not understand what quantitative easing is - why were you attacking it?

It hasn't worked it doesn't work and it will not work, Do you understand what happens when you print more U.S. Dollars?
On second thought maybe a little European prick like you would want a DEVALUED U.S. dollar.

So it HAN'T worked in Europe and Japan?

Because the IMF say that it HAS worked.

Why do you think it hasn't worked?

Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal all beg to differ , sorry.....

 

[Katzndogz]

You are all aware that QE3 is unlimited right? It's printing 40 billion dollars, not once, but every month until the "crisis" passes. Of course 40 billion dollars a month will vastly deteriorate our economy, but who cares. It's free money from the obamastash.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are all aware that QE3 is unlimited right? It's printing 40 billion dollars, not once, but every month until the "crisis" passes. Of course 40 billion dollars a month will vastly deteriorate our economy, but who cares. It's free money from the obamastash.

That's what most are not paying attention to.
It's the until further notice thing I don't like.

 

[Care4all]

Nice lie....Obamination had control of Congress for 2 years where he jammed the Porkulus scam and Obamacare down our throats. He lost elections in 2010 because he made things worse in just 2 years.

As for Romney, if Democraps control the Senate then they will block him fixing things....so you are half right. They will prevent him from fixing the mess with the hope they can steal some HoR seats in 2 years to make things worse.

Simply NOT TRUE.


''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days...''

You seem to forget that Kennedy was sick and then died, his replacement did not come until a month later and then in february of 2010 Scott Brown, a republican took his spot in the Senate.

You also have forgotten that coleman sued frankin and he too did not take his seat for months on end while the suit was going on....

and Byrd became sick, and was not there....

Democrats had the super majority in the Senate for 4 months of which one month they were not in session....

2 years is simply a lie that you have chosen to pass along as if it were the truth gonebezerk...but it is NOT the truth.

What's not true is this comment that you highlighted too. It was never said.

''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

What was said was this

Nice lie....Obamination had control of Congress for 2 years where he jammed the Porkulus scam and Obamacare down our throats. He lost elections in 2010 because he made things worse in just 2 years.

As for Romney, if Democraps control the Senate then they will block him fixing things....so you are half right. They will prevent him from fixing the mess with the hope they can steal some HoR seats in 2 years to make things worse.

uhhhhhh, he was replying to a post that spoke about needing a ''super majority'' in the Senate in order to get things done dearest!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Simply NOT TRUE.


''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days...''

You seem to forget that Kennedy was sick and then died, his replacement did not come until a month later and then in february of 2010 Scott Brown, a republican took his spot in the Senate.

You also have forgotten that coleman sued frankin and he too did not take his seat for months on end while the suit was going on....

and Byrd became sick, and was not there....

Democrats had the super majority in the Senate for 4 months of which one month they were not in session....

2 years is simply a lie that you have chosen to pass along as if it were the truth gonebezerk...but it is NOT the truth.

What's not true is this comment that you highlighted too. It was never said.

''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

What was said was this

Nice lie....Obamination had control of Congress for 2 years where he jammed the Porkulus scam and Obamacare down our throats. He lost elections in 2010 because he made things worse in just 2 years.

As for Romney, if Democraps control the Senate then they will block him fixing things....so you are half right. They will prevent him from fixing the mess with the hope they can steal some HoR seats in 2 years to make things worse.

uhhhhhh, he was replying to a post that spoke about needing a ''super majority'' in the Senate in order to get things done dearest!

But obama did have a majority>?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Well, let's see if you understand it - why do you think the administration has taken this step?

What is their motive?

Because of the upcoming election.

QEIII will give a short term kick to the economic numbers leading into the election. It will not give a kick to the economy however.

It will give the DOW a boost because publicly traded banks & Investment companies will gain in profits by liquidating mortgages.

That will not translate to economic growth because the banks are not lending money to people without the means to pay it back.

Business' balance sheets are too weak to support additional payments (a loan), people are without jobs so they arent borrowing, and larger companies who have the means to borrow arent (see Wall Street Reform as to why) because they have money in the bank.

This same attempt has been tried before (2X) and didnt work then....what in the world makes you think it will work now?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Simply NOT TRUE.


''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days...''

You seem to forget that Kennedy was sick and then died, his replacement did not come until a month later and then in february of 2010 Scott Brown, a republican took his spot in the Senate.

You also have forgotten that coleman sued frankin and he too did not take his seat for months on end while the suit was going on....

and Byrd became sick, and was not there....

Democrats had the super majority in the Senate for 4 months of which one month they were not in session....

2 years is simply a lie that you have chosen to pass along as if it were the truth gonebezerk...but it is NOT the truth.

What's not true is this comment that you highlighted too. It was never said.

''Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

What was said was this

Nice lie....Obamination had control of Congress for 2 years where he jammed the Porkulus scam and Obamacare down our throats. He lost elections in 2010 because he made things worse in just 2 years.

As for Romney, if Democraps control the Senate then they will block him fixing things....so you are half right. They will prevent him from fixing the mess with the hope they can steal some HoR seats in 2 years to make things worse.

uhhhhhh, he was replying to a post that spoke about needing a ''super majority'' in the Senate in order to get things done dearest!

You dont need a super majority to get things done, just a majority...as the Democrats had for 2 years.