Where Do You "See" This Country Headed?

[ReverendHellh0und]

Not a reasonable question. One person can lead a child to a cliff's edge, and another person throw him off.



He's making it worse.

New disasters contemplated:

Carbon tax. Everyone is going to have to pay a tax for living. Ain't that grand and novel?

The nationalization of the American car companies is complete. The people that didn't want to buy Ford, GM, and Chrysler have had their money stolen by Obama to give to GM and Chrysler. The next command will be to BUY AMERICAN.

The nationalization of the banks is well underway. That's not good.

The nationalization of the American health care system will commence...so welcome to the DMV, folks.

Obama's already made a MAJOR foreign policy flop and been publicly spanked by the Russians. The boy knows his place now and will behave.

Obama's pushing the US over the edge. Can only lead to disaster.

don't forget Iran laughing at us!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

1. Yes or no: Was this country in economic decline before Obama took office?

Yes. Bush was a liberal. He didn't understand the basic principles of freedom, either.

That's if you want to be objective about this.

2. What do you think Conservatives would have said about Pres. Obama had he allowed capitalism to run it's course w/o bailout funds?

Nothing. May as well wonder what astronomers would say about the sun rising in the west tomorrow. Can't happen, pointless to discuss it.

BUUUUUUT....if Obama had done that....the nation would be better off.

That's beyond argument.

3. Considering that the NASDAQ, S&P 500 and the DOW have all been in the toilet for months,

Yes, the DJIA lost 30% of its value since the Messiah was elected.

how does anyone expect the private sector to pull this country up by its boot straps?

Easy. Failed businesses fail, successful business pick up the pieces for peanuts and move on. Stealing money from working Americans to keep GM in business, after those Americans said they don't want GM's products, is a gross violation of their freedom. Stealing money from Americans who work to pay their mortgages to pay the mortgages of people who can't afford them is a greivous insult to the people who keep their mortgages up, and an affront to the people who can't afford to buy homes because the government isn't allowing the market the freedom to go down to the level it should be at.

For some reason under the socialist world view of Democrats and Obama, people who fail have a greater claim to the money a man's earned than the man who worked for it.

Why do YOU support this?

In other words, if the government doesn't try to inject some financial clout into the economic machine where would the money then come from?

Where is the money coming from if "the government" interferes?

Well...if you'd bother to think it through....it's coming from one of three places:

Borrowed from China and elsewhere....that our children have to pay back.

Stolen from taxpayers in the form of taxes.

Stolen from wage earners in the form of inflation, which is stolen via printing press.


That's it.

The ONE other source of cash the government has simply will not be utilized by any collectivist power-amassing ideologue such the fools routinely elected to national office - sell national assets. Ain't gonna happen, no point in discussing it.

WHICH of the three list above does the least damage to the nation?

Answer NONE. All are disasters. Since there hasn't been a war threatening the survival of the nation, there's been absolutely no reason for deficit spending. No, not since WWII. Yet, even in times of peace, the Democrats and socialist Republicans have been eagerly spending 10, 20, 30, and now 100% more in outlays than it recieves in revenues.

Any family would starve doing this.
Any businessman would go to jail for this.

You Obama supporters and Republican-only people applaud your politicians.

The Free enterprise system is the correct system.

That system requires....

...the borrower guarantees the loan, not the government (FDR's fault).

...the lender takes the risk of the loan, not the government (FDR again).

...would-be borrowers that can't show they're good for a loan,...don't get the loan (Carter's fault, Amended by Clinton)

...banks that won't extend credit to people aren't forced to do so for any reason. (Carter's fault, Amended by Clintion)

...businesses that are going to fail....go to bankruptcy court.
...stockholders of businesses that are going to fail....lose their money.

...and...most importantly for the people who whine about the "little guy" that's lost his money in the stock market...if you can't afford to lose your ante, don't draw cards in the game.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

don't forget Iran laughing at us!

I expect sudden humps in the Iranian desert sometime next year, and I don't mean a surge in the camel population, I mean....underground nuclear testing.

The Iranians have had at least a full decade of uninterrupted effort making their bomb, I'm sure they'll celebrate Obama's successful foreign policy with some special fireworks.

 

[Objective Voice]

Scarecrow,

Alot of what you've said in reply to my last post makes sense in principle, but the answers to this country's problems as you (and the not-so-good Rev. :mrgreen, IMO, aren't practical under the current circumstances. For example, had the gov't (Obama Administration) done nothing to stop the bleeding as it were, I believe the markets would have collapsed months ago. Did providing the bailout funds only prolong the enivitable? Maybe, but considering that it has and continues to be an issue of a total lack of "working capital" versus (consumer) credit worthiness, I doubt any major lending institution would have been able to conduct "business as usual" with their clients - both large (coorperate American) and small (individuals/small businesses). On the side of the lender, the money just isn't there; on the side of the consumer, the trust just isn't there nor is the ability to repay. So, this country is in an economic "catch-22".

As we've seen from Wall Street, one day things are going well, the next day PANIC and ramped stock selloffs. Someway, somehow the markets have to stablize. How to do that is the question. So, let's say the free enterprise system was allowed to run its course and "survival of the fitest" was allowed to happen. I don't see where those companies where the "cream rose to the top" would have been able to be profitable in the short-term. Odds are with so much debt still on their balance sheets from their new gobbled up "acquisitions", they'd still be operating in the red for years! The markets would still be in flux for some time. How long, no one knows, but that's just part of the problem as I see it.

The other side of that takeover coin is consumers would still lack the "collateral" you speak of in order to borrow. Moreover, the very collateral we'd all put up for the loan - our homes and/or our cars - are the things that are economically depreciated in value. And considering that it IS the housing market that is at the root of our current economic problems, it's very - no EXTREMELY - unlikely that the banks would accept homes as collateral without expecting extremely large interest rates. Which would mean most Americans would be right back in the same credit/debt mess only worse! And trust me, you really don't want homeowners to start filing for bankruptcy. We're talking millions of bankruptcy filings, folks! Talk about the tax payers taking on other people's debt problems! The markets are already in extreme flux. You don't want these lost assets coming down the pipe through the bankruptcy courts. Talk about inflation run amuck!!!

Now, the "national assets" you eluded to are now homes! But that's really nothing new. The gov't via HUD has always held home foreclosure auctions or provided home buying grants to the public. I expect this will happen in abundance in the near future. (You'll know the time is right when you start seeing those late night real estate infomercials again.) But before that happens isn't it smart to atleast try to keep people in their homes and create income opportunities so that the economy at least has a chance to grow and become viable again? But I digress, until then, the housing markets will remain in chaos.

In principle, I understand what the Republicans/Conservatives are suggesting. But in all practicality, their rational isn't sound. The people don't have the savings (disposable income) nor the valued assets (homes/cars, investiment instruments, i.e., stocks, bonds, 401K, etc.) to use as collateral. And the banks aren't willing to take more risks on top of the troubled assets they have. Thus, the larger corporations aren't willing to buy up the smaller (or other major) businesses to add to their debts, not until the debt of the failed company is removed or significantly reduces to where it's manageable. So, things will remain stagnent for a while. As such, the way we use to do business just won't work today.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Scarecrow,

Alot of what you've said in reply to my last post makes sense in principle, but the answers to this country's problems as you (and the not-so-good Rev. :mrgreen, IMO, aren't practical under the current circumstances. For example, had the gov't (Obama Administration) done nothing to stop the bleeding as it were, I believe the markets would have collapsed months ago.

The Obama regime hasn't been in power for "months".

There's nothing to stop the markets from collapsing. Let's look at the DJIA and who's in it.

Alcoa Inc. AA - Biggest customers, airplane companies and soda cans. Airlines are collapsing, Alcoa's going to be hurtin'.

American Express Company AXP - they're hurting right now, too...and aren't going to get better until something happens.

AT&T Corp. T - Not a growth stock...people will limit their phoning as money gets shorter.

Boeing Co. BA - make me laugh. Orders are plummeting across the industry.

Caterpillar Inc. CAT - as construction begins to fall, so does the need for heavy construction equipment.

Coca-Cola Co. KO - always a need for soda, I suppose.

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours DD - as demand for products declines, demands for the chemicals to make those products declines.

Eastman Kodak Co. EK - why on earth is Kodak still on the list? They're still shrinking. No one buys their digital cameras, film is fast becoming an esoteric specialist medium.

Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM - Will weather any recession/depression, isn't the factor for growth.

General Electric Company GE - Obama will attack defense deeply. Boeing isn't selling airplanes, either. Be a while before this giant comes back. Its products won't lead the recovery.

General Motors Corp. GM - zero is the lowest this stock can go.

Home Depot Inc HD - new home sales, home refurbs, all declining.

Honeywell International Inc HON - dependent on other industries to create a demand for it's products.

Hewlett-Packard Co. HWP - My PC is good for years and years. So's yours, I bet. No recovery seed there.

International Business Machines Corp. IBM - ditto what I said for HP.

Intel Corp. INTC - ditto what I said for HP and IBM.

International Paper Co. IP - Might go up as more and more people move to cardboard accomodations thanks to Obama's complete mismanagement of the economy.

Johnson & Johnson JNJ - Everyone always needs bandaids ... but not furniture polish.

McDonald's Corp. MCD - Cheap fat will sell well in the coming depression.

Merck & Co. Inc. MRK - Nationalizing medical care will do amazing things to destroy the value of this company.

Microsoft Corp. MSFT - ditto what I said for HP.

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. MMM - Sells many products....will follow, not lead, a recovery.

J. P. Morgan & Company JPM - a bank. Dry ice in the sahara in the summer.

Philip Morris Companies Inc. MO - tobaccy...sales will remain steady. Addictions are like that.

Procter & Gamble Co. PG - Spic and Span...stuff. Will do okay.

SBC Communications Inc. SBC - I'll admit ignorance on this one.

Citigroup Inc. C - down to what, a buck?

United Technologies Corp. UTX - Airplane engines...too bad...and airconditioner...dropping...and elevators...not going up, shall we say, until the buildings do.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT - so many people are unsatisfied with what they sell...

Walt Disney Co. DIS - luxury items.

Did providing the bailout funds only prolong the enivitable?

No. It guaranteed that the broader collapse would be inevitable.

As we've seen from Wall Street, one day things are going well, the next day PANIC and ramped stock selloffs.

Ummmm...from the viewpoint of the smart investor, selling and getting out of the stock market as soon as possible is "doing well". It's not the place for your money to be right now.

Someway, somehow the markets have to stablize. How to do that is the question. So, let's say the free enterprise system was allowed to run its course and "survival of the fitest" was allowed to happen. I don't see where those companies where the "cream rose to the top" would have been able to be profitable in the short-term. Odds are with so much debt still on their balance sheets from their new gobbled up "acquisitions", they'd still be operating in the red for years! The markets would still be in flux for some time. How long, no one knows, but that's just part of the problem as I see it.

Why are you assuming those companies that have merged with others by picking up a lot of debt are the companies that can or should survive?

The problem is the government interfering. Government interference caused all this in the first place. Further interference is merely causing more damage and forcing the coming disaster to spread wider.

Moreover, the very collateral we'd all put up for the loan - our homes and/or our cars - are the things that are economically depreciated in value.

Are they?

A person with a thirty-year fixed mortgage that keeps his job is going to have his mortgage paid for by the coming inflation. He will have the complete use of "ONE HOUSE" at the end of it. A person owning a car will have "ONE CAR". At the end of the day, that man will have a home, and car to drive to and from work in.

The monetary values may change, but you're discussing utilitarian objects that the person needs, not actual investments.

And considering that it IS the housing market that is at the root of our current economic problems,

No. The government is at the root of our economic collapse. The Housing Market is the symptom.

Now, the "national assets" you eluded to are now homes!

Actually, if I elude anything, I'm trying to move away from it.

The national assets I was referring to, now that you're done "assumin' ", is the sale of places like Camp Pendleton, the Presidio, Camp David, the 1/3 of all the western states the Federal government reserves to itself without doing anything with it, that kind of thing.

Camp Pendleton is probably worth an easy trillion dollars, back when a trillion dollars was real money, make ten trillion in Obama-money.

My house?

That's my asset, not the nation's.

The failure to make that distinction is one of the reasons the socialist government is in so much trouble now.

But before that happens isn't it smart to atleast try to keep people in their homes and create income opportunities so that the economy at least has a chance to grow and become viable again? But I digress, until then, the housing markets will remain in chaos.

Until the mortgages are paid off, those houses belong to the banks, not the people living in them. So it's fatuous to say "keep people in their homes", since the people living in their own homes aren't the ones with the mortgages.

In principle, I understand what the Republicans/Conservatives are suggesting. But in all practicality, their rational isn't sound.

In principle, I don't have a clue what the Democrats are proposing, since in all practicality what they do say doesn't make any sense.[/quote]

The people don't have the savings (disposable income) nor the valued assets (homes/cars, investiment instruments, i.e., stocks, bonds, 401K, etc.) to use as collateral.

Life is a bitch. For how many decades have the sensible economists been warning against deficit spending on any level, including the personal level?

Hmmm?

More deficit spending is going to work as well at getting us out of this depression as it did in ending the last one. That means its not going to work, and it's going to make things worse.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

don't forget Iran laughing at us!

I just have to wonder what it is that runs through their heads when the liberals start arguing that it's important that we pick THEIR guy for president because the rest of the world likes him.

As my old man told me, if you're going to join the Army, hope to hell you get a general like Patton. He's a sonofabitch, but the enemy will hate him more than you do.

I have NO IDEA why the left wanted to make France happy.

But they did.

 

[Objective Voice]

Scarecrow,

I disagree with alot of what you've said above in reply to my post. Banks use to provide loans to individuals by virtue of their ability to repay. In making that determination, they would use hard assets as collateral, i.e., homes, cars, jewelry, stocks, bonds, savings, etc. But over the last 20+ yrs, that all began to change. Signature loans became common place soon followed by the issuance of credit cards w/high credit limits requiring little or no collateral to back the credit lines. Still, even when hard assets were used as collateral by banks very few of said assets where owned outright by the one applying for the loan. So, essentially, what you had was "good faith in service and credit worthiness" that backed the loans, and in those instances where collateral was used the banks recouped part of their loses by either foreclosing on the home or repossessing the cars and/or other hard assets. In both cases where collateral is concerned, the banks knew they had something they could resell and turn into cash even if the value of said asset had depreciated. But when financial institutions went from collateralized loan guarantees to credit worthy loan guarantees, they caught on to the loopholes in the banking industry brought on mostly through deregulation. All one has to do is look at the fall of such companies such as ENRON and WorldCom to get a glimps at how "creative financies" brought these companies to their knees. It's this same "internal/big corporate credit swapping" that has placed this country's economy is such a pickle. So, yes, in a sense government is to blame in-part, but only in so far as how deregulation played a major role in where we are now.

As to your argument on survival of the fitness where big business is concerned, read this article and tell me you still hold the same view at least for the immediate future. Corporate America can't fix this problem - not in the short term - because it IS the problem! And please, don't get me wrong. I'm still very much for the free enterprise system, but at this point in our country's history I really don't think big business can get us through this, not w/o going through lots of growing pains along the way. Here's where government, if acting quickly and smart, can help!

I think Pres. Obama is right in going to the states (governors) and getting them to ID their "shovel-ready" projects. Government contracts even at the state level is "guaranteed money!" - though they are taxpayer dollars. Still, in identifying infustructure projects the people will see a return on their investment even if they don't believe that's the best way to spend those tax dollars. Consider this:

Taxpayer dollars used to repair roads or finish a highway project that's been on the drawing board for years. Now, this new roadway will connect to major metro areas that will bring in new revenue streams. Or how about building better schools or improving landscaping in public or state parks to increase tourism? People don't often view such things are revenue streams, but in certain parts of this country tourism is big business that has seen a decline since 9/11. That needs to return!! And that's just one facet of the economy that needs a fix. There are so many others that I believe the ARRA appropriately targets. Again, does it have "pork in it"? Yeah! But this time around most of it is worthwhile...if you just think it through alittle.

But I digress because this isn't necessarily about the ARRA, but rather the argument of "big government" and "more government control". Sorry, but I don't see it that way, at least not intensionally. I don't think the government wants to own banks or utility companies or auto industries or anything like that. But I do think that our government recognizes that big business has run amock and can't correct itself at this time. And thus, the only way to keep it all together is for the one major source we have left to step in and "hold assets" until things turn back around. It's been done before (i.e., land banks and the railroads) just not on this scale.

 

[Objective Voice]

For those who still believe the government has stuck its nose where it doesn't belong, here are a few exerpts from a live chat given by Warren Buffet today on MSNBC's Squawk Box.

"6:05a: Economy is "close to the worst case." Can't imagine it being much worse, but if the Fed hadn't stepped in last September it would indeed have been worse. The economy "has fallen off a cliff."

"6:06a: Buffett says consumers are 'scared and confused.' He hasn't seen consumers, or Americans in general, as fearful as now. American people 'feel they don't know what's going on' so they've pulled back. Nature of government makes it hard to send consumers a clear message about what Washington is doing, but government will play a huge role in the recovery.

"6:25a: Would help if government's policies to help economy were better communicated. We have a system that can help the banks and most banks are in 'pretty good shape.'"

"6:32a: Buffett says credit conditions are tightening again, but aren't as bad as they were last September. The government has to 'speak with real clarity.'"

"6:38a: FDIC has been a 'huge factor' in boosting confidence in U.S. banks, and confidence is essential to the functioning of the economic system. A banks that needs to go broke should be allowed to 'go broke.' Shareholders in banks can lose their money, but depositors should not. We have to make it very clear that people aren't going to lose their money that's deposited in banks."

"6:50a: Obama speaks wonderfully. Still it needs to be 'made as clear as possible' that no one should worry about losing their deposits in a U.S. bank and the President is the person to send that message."

"7:32a: Buffett says very difficult to answer whether he would let General Motors go bankrupt. Automakers have done a lot of dumb things because their business model doesn't exist any more. They need a new business model and a recovery. Current management and the union didn't get us into the problems. No use being mad at them now. They should work together and try to avoid bankruptcy. Not good to have America's "home-town industry" in bankruptcy."

"7:35a: U.S. economy was not a 'house of cards' but it was based on 'leveraging up.' 'America works and America was working over the past ten years' but people did some very stupid things involving borrowing too much money.

"7:41a: Free markets sometimes overshoot but they're still the best system. When they do overshoot, government is needed to help correct things."

"7:54a: People should still try to live within their means, even though lower spending is not helping the economy."

8:16a: Buffett says he has had only a few informal conversations with President Obama and is not really giving economic advice to the administration, but he repeats his support for Obama. "He is the right president and this is the right country." He expresses no regrets for his support of Obama during the presidential campaign.

8:18a: Obama's stimulus plan is part of the recovery effort but won't do it alone and won't bring about an upturn immediately. Other steps are even more important.

8:54a: What is the biggest lesson you learned in 2008? Buffett answers it is the dangers of extreme leveraging. Leveraging up is a "lot of fun on the way up" but can be a "tragedy" on the way down. The lesson that needs to be learned is we shouldn't let big institutions be "unchecked" in their use of leverage.

8:56a: "Corporate America has plenty of room to behave better." Corporations must report truthful, accurate numbers.

8:58a: Are you more optimistic or pessimistic about the economy since you first described it as a Pearl Harbor. Buffett says more optimistic because the government did step in last fall to prevent a total disaster and remains optimistic about the economy's long-term prospects. "This country will work fine even if we screw it up."

8:58a: Average American should certainly avoid credit card debt. Can't make money borrowing at 18 to 20 percent. "I'd go broke." His advice: "Stay away from debt as much as possible."

You can read the entire blog dialog here (at least for today until the link expires).

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Corporate America can't fix this problem - not in the short term - because it IS the problem!

GOVERNMENT caused the problem. GOVERNMENT can't fix it. Especially not Obama's New Socialist Order. Ain't a chance in hell of anything that foolish creating anything but more disaster.

You too young to remember Ford and Carter?

Obama is going to make Carter look like an economic genius.

I think Pres. Obama is right in going to the states (governors) and getting them to ID their "shovel-ready" projects.

"Shovel ready"? That's a new way of saying "pork". Remember FDR? He tried spending his way out of the Depression.

He created the novel experience of a depression inside of a recession. Obama is going to create the novel experience of complete disaster when none was needed.

Want to turn the economy around? Let the people keep their own damn money for a change. Cut taxes for corporations to ZERO. Cut capital gains taxes to ZERO.

PERMANENTLY.

If the federal budget can't stand that....read the Constitution, and delete all programs that don't comply with it. That eliminates 90% of federal spending right there.

That's if you want to actually fix the problem.

People that want bigger government don't want to fix the problem. They can't. They want to make the problem bigger, because the problem is government.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

For those who still believe the government has stuck its nose where it doesn't belong, here are a few exerpts from a live chat given by Warren Buffet today on MSNBC's Squawk Box.

Ah.

MSNBC.

The network that hired Olberman.

Don't waste our time referring to them.

You don't see me referencing WND, do ya?

 

[Objective Voice]

Didn't refer to MSNBC as a reliable news source, just the chat that featured Warren Buffet.

I can see you're more of an Obama hater than someone who sees government as intrusive. Of course, most Reps/Conservs would say that as the POTUS "Obama IS the gov't", and I guess in a way that's true considering that each new president attempts to influence the legislature to implement his agenda. Still, it's obvious I don't see things quite as doom and gloom as you and other Concervs do.

Still, for the record I don't want bigger gov't, but when the economy is sufferring the way it is even before the gov't authorized the 1st bailout funds in October 2008, gov't has to step in and do something because it's painfully obvious that the economic problems this country face aren't w/the result one or two major corporations going down the drain. We're looking at the potential for several going "bye-bye" across a few major industrial and financial sectors that have been the backbone to this nation's ecomony for years - decades!!, companies such as:

Auto - Ford, GM, Crysler; home buying/lending - Lehman Bros. (gone), Freddie/Fannie and to a degree AIG, and now CitiBank/Group; housing insurance gaint - AIG; major trading companies - Beare/Stern.

The list continues to grow, but the good news is eventually things will get better. Wall Street will fix itself in time. We as comsumers just need to stop panicing, start saving more where we can, and just live within our means.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Didn't refer to MSNBC as a reliable news source, just the chat that featured Warren Buffet.

The implication of anyone not posting a joke is that their reference is "reliable".

I can see you're more of an Obama hater

Ohmygod!!!!! Its DIIIIIIPPPPP! (Try to imagine Jessica Rabbit)

I don't have to "hate" anyone to know when their policies are going to be a disaster. The presence of a (D) after their name makes it a certainty. (R)'s aren't much better, but used to be you could rely on them to at least have the security of the nation at heart.

than someone who sees government as intrusive.

Oh, I see. Because you've perceived that I find government intrusive, I must be wrong because you perceived some sort of "hate" for Obama, or is that the other way around.

The possibility that the government can't fix this problem by further interference hasn't crossed your mind?

Of course, most Reps/Conservs would say that as the POTUS "Obama IS the gov't",

No. Most conservatives recognize that the President is the officeholder in one co-equal branch of government, and that's only at the federal level.

Democrats...they lust after royalty. The rest of us weren't only happy that Princess Diana croaked but wished her American counterpart wannabes had been riding in the trunk of that limo, too. You know, the Kennedy's, the Clintons, the Bushes, all those people trying to create dynastic legacies to the detriment of the nation.

Good thing the Obama brats are so young, we'll only have one Kenyan president.

and I guess in a way that's true considering that each new president attempts to influence the legislature to implement his agenda. Still, it's obvious I don't see things quite as doom and gloom as you and other Concervs do.

Study more factual history, less hagiographic Democrat propaganda.

Still, for the record I don't want bigger gov't,

For the record, you asked for one.

but when the economy is sufferring the way it is even before the gov't authorized the 1st bailout funds in October 2008, gov't has to step in and do something because it's painfully obvious that the economic problems this country face aren't w/the result one or two major corporations going down the drain.

No. They're the result of the government interfering in the economy.

No Fannie-Mae/Freddie-Mac = banks carrying the risks of their own mortgages = local failures, not systemic failures.

More government interference...oh, let's see, GM got a couple truck loads of money recently. How're their sales figures doing?

Let companies that can't compete, that can't meet their financial obligations, die.

The living will be glad to pick up the peices, and the cycle of growth, decay, and corporate death will be shortened and the pain will be minimized.

Don't give the government the power to interfere, because government is always controlled by people who can afford to buy politicians, not by the people who elect them.

That includes your precious Obama.

We're looking at the potential for several going "bye-bye" across a few major industrial and financial sectors that have been the backbone to this nation's ecomony for years - decades!!, companies such as:

Auto - Ford, GM, Crysler; home buying/lending - Lehman Bros. (gone), Freddie/Fannie and to a degree AIG, and now CitiBank/Group; housing insurance gaint - AIG; major trading companies - Beare/Stern.

Life's a bitch.

Meanwhile, out of all the companies that first comprised the original giants that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average a century ago, not only is only one still on the DJIA, only that one is still in existence.

We can survive corporate failures.

We can't survive unconstitutional federal governments that can repeatedly create major economic depressions.

The list continues to grow, but the good news is eventually things will get better. Wall Street will fix itself in time. We as comsumers just need to stop panicing, start saving more where we can, and just live within our means.

We as citizens need to stop panicking and demanding the government spend money is doesn't have to save companies that can't be saved. That is the most important part of "living within our means" that you people conveniently forget.

Get the government back inside it's Constitutional straitjacket. Stop demanding spending for things the government isn't lawfully allowed to provide.

Start doing for yourself, or doing without. That means if you can't afford your own retirement, don't create a socialist security plan to give you one. It's not your money.

Stop robbing your neighbor's children for that instantly gratifying feeling that you've done nothing useful but can pretend otherwise.

 

[Objective Voice]

Scarecrow,

I'll answer you and other doubtful Conservatives/Republicans by pointing you to a video by JPMorgan/Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, as he spoke before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Economic Counsel and let you make up your mind from there.

 

[American]

The US will recover and carry on.

 

[akyron]

The US will recover and carry on.

I agree.
After an ongoing series of disasters brought on by government interference the USA will recover. Many bankers must be taken out of power though.

"Where is the stimulus money now?"

State transportation projects WILL NOT improve unemployment