Search results

Because this is not putting the Fed on the "slippery slope". Bear Stearns/JPM wasn't either. Now Lehman - that was a DIFFERENT story. Definitely a slippery slope there...

That's true - people do buy a lot of stuff from China... But - how much stuff is really made with USA label on it any more? Is buying stuff from China the chicken or the egg? Also, I am often confused about complaints of buying "cheap goods from ____" when there is also the complaint that...

Hmmm - so if the Trickle-down theory is not going to boost our economy when we need it, what is it for? NAFTA? You mean globalization is bad? How come I only hear about it in good terms?? :confused:

Some of them are not fat-n-happy trust fund babies. But overall, shouldn't they be trickling down on everybody else now?

Well, I was allowing for a bigger pool - still in the upper tier though. Maybe the problem is they don't have enough in the upper 5-1% so they are not spending it. :eek:

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? This is when they should be hiring more. Like one guy said on tv "I've never been hired by a poor man." RIGHT! Bush Economics 101! So...where are they...?

Ok - I was thinking he was saying "The American financial system is sound because we're dumping it's misdeeds on the back of the American public." So basically the same thing...

When he says that, isn't he really saying: "Believe in YOURSELVES, because we're sticking you with the bill!" So he's really like Tony Robbins in a way...

Soon Goldman will be trading with itself to the sound of crickets on the trading floor...

Good thing there's not much of these financial stocks in the retirement funds John Q Sixpack is in. I think the "everything's ok" talk on the tube is like Dorothy clicking her shoes and thinking wishful. But then what else is Bush going to do- shrug and say "I f-'d up!"?? McCain said...

Whenever there are discussions that involve reported numbers like GDP and unemployment etc, I always wonder about the numbers themselves. Things like GDP and CPI have been altered in their calcs over the years for political reasons, so how do you create a proper foundation for comparison...

19 cents/shr http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080915/lehman_bankruptcy.html Sorry about that dude. But at least the execs at LEH made out ok...:p

Hmmm... Growth policies vs. wealth-transfer policies?

You can't deny Clinton this: No successful major terrorist attack occurred AT ALL during his Presidency. Therefore, by that logic, Clinton was a better protector of the US than Bush, who was President during the successful 9/11 attempt. You are implying that Bush has kept us from being...

If that's true, then maybe that girl can be a gov't witness in a fraud case against Lehman employees. Just because they're bankrupt doesn't mean they are getting away afterward...

"I am Elmer J Fuld, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht." :D

The premise of the original statement seems to measuring the President's term vs. successful terrorist attacks. So the term of the current President starts in 2001. Excluding the major event of 9/11 makes no sense then when discussing successful terrorist attacks.

Also - the argument is constructed to exclude the single worst successful attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. "SINCE 9/11..." Why exclude the timeframe of the major incident? It is setting up the assertion in a biased manner to begin with. If the other side wants to reframe it, they...

This is a specious argument to begin with. That's like saying "No major successful (300+ dead is the threshold?) terrorist attacks occurred at all on US soil during Bill Clinton's administration." So everybody can concede that Clinton did a great job during his administration...

It turns out she did say "No" to that Bridge to Nowhere. Though that was after she said "Yes". She did take the pork $$ for it though and spend it elsewhere. But I like hearing her say in her speeches that she said No like she was against it from the beginning - it sounds really good...