Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Some thoughts on what the new administration should do to "fix" the mess created over the last 20 or so years:

Future growth will come from debt destruction rather than more credit.

Interest rates are near zero because the Fed wants folks to spend not save.

Having the same "leaders" that caused this mess is NOT the answer.

Creating more debt to fix a debt bubble is NOT the answer, debt must be destroyed even at the expense of the shareholder and debt holders.

The projected plan is NOT good for the dollar, creating jobs while increasing debt = cash worth less.

This nation has little savings, limited ability to lend & shifting private debt to public debt will not be good for our children or their grandchildren.

We need to help our "leaders" see the light, the path is not an easy one, and will take years of savings, dramatic reduced government spending & passing tax cuts to rebuild.

While difficult it is the only way to ultimately fix this mess.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

I'm a novice at best when it comes to this stuff, but I read a lot and from what I have been reading I agree with much of what you say. This $850,000,000,000 plan scares the crap out of me.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Tx- What you say is the truth. I expect OB to come on here and say that this spending is not a problem and some pollyana views on how it will all be ok. Our retirees demand for social security althought they barely paid anything in, along with our baby boomers refusal to pay their true costs are going to create a huge debt burden for future generations. What happens when people decide they want actual returns for the risk of the US government. Our borrowing costs are going to be very high.

Simply put we as a government and people are going to have to demand that this is a long road but one that must be done.

An interesting message board that was set up over a year ago primarily for investors but has similar political thoughts as you state is at
www.tickerforum.org. Its run by a guy name Karl Denniger. Language is sometimes pretty foul but overall pretty good discussion of what is going on in the global markets from a bunch of yahoos.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

While TXBadger may be right-- I think he is close-- there is no political will to do anything like this. Carl Rove and George Bush made the Republican Party "Democratic lite" over the past eight years: more government, more government spending. Would anyone believe the Republicans if they actually said that all this spending isn't the way to go? None of them had the balls to say no to Bush, it will ring hollow if they say anything to Obama.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Tennesseebadger wrote:
While TXBadger may be right-- I think he is close-- there is no political will to do anything like this. Carl Rove and George Bush made the Republican Party "Democratic lite" over the past eight years: more government, more government spending. Would anyone believe the Republicans if they actually said that all this spending isn't the way to go? None of them had the balls to say no to Bush, it will ring hollow if they say anything to Obama.

Which circles back to the desperate need for new leadership in the GOP.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

We need to spend a lot on infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, High-speed rail, electrical grids, Wind, Solar, Bio Fuel Energy. I would put most of the stimulus package, 600,000,000,000 or so into this. This will create a lot of jobs while the private sector is not and cause a multiplier effect to increase demand on consumer and capital goods. This will cause the private sector to start needing increased capacity and more hiring.

In the long run, these improvements will increase productivity for our economy and allow our economy to be more efficient.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Tennesseebadger wrote:
While TXBadger may be right-- I think he is close-- there is no political will to do anything like this. Carl Rove and George Bush made the Republican Party "Democratic lite" over the past eight years: more government, more government spending. Would anyone believe the Republicans if they actually said that all this spending isn't the way to go? None of them had the balls to say no to Bush, it will ring hollow if they say anything to Obama.

TxBadger's post is directed at what the "new administration" should do to fix the mess.

I for one am expecting Obama to fix it just like he promised. If he doesn't I won't be blaming Republicans, Karl Rove or George Bush. It is going to be a tough road to hoe but it I absolutely agree that it has to be done in a manner similar to what TxB suggests.

I recall stating here a few months ago that my biggest worry was allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. I was told that Obama's plan would not involve that and there was no need to worry. Now it seems that Pelosi and co. can't wait to get rid of those tax cuts but that our new President is apparently hesitant to do it. Getting rid of those tax cuts means a huge tax increase, and that will only burden Americans more at the worst possible time.

I still don't believe huge Wall Street bailouts were necessary, and I continue to believe that they simply pushed a collapse down the road a bit without eliminating the core problems. Those problems have not been fixed and yes, a collapse of the US dollar remains a distinct and realistic possibility, particularly if other countries that have invested here are more effective and pro-active in eliminating debt and financing bubbles. That would ultimately result in reinvestment elsewhere and a hard drop in the US dollar. If that happens, Katy bar the door because this country will see chaos like never before. I just might become a currency trader out of necessity after all.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

JSG II wrote:

Tennesseebadger wrote:
While TXBadger may be right-- I think he is close-- there is no political will to do anything like this. Carl Rove and George Bush made the Republican Party "Democratic lite" over the past eight years: more government, more government spending. Would anyone believe the Republicans if they actually said that all this spending isn't the way to go? None of them had the balls to say no to Bush, it will ring hollow if they say anything to Obama.

I still don't believe huge Wall Street bailouts were necessary, and I continue to believe that they simply pushed a collapse down the road a bit without eliminating the core problems. Those problems have not been fixed and yes, a collapse of the US dollar remains a distinct and realistic possibility, particularly if other countries that have invested here are more effective and pro-active in eliminating debt and financing bubbles. That would ultimately result in reinvestment elsewhere and a hard drop in the US dollar. If that happens, Katy bar the door because this country will see chaos like never before. I just might become a currency trader out of necessity after all.

Why do you say that, I think major corrections have occurred, there is blood on the streets of Wall Street, even if said company doesn't completely go under. The market were frozen and not operating correctly. Yeah there were a lot of toxic assets that caused many problems. But what do you say to financial firms with CMBS paper backed by trophy assets in major markets, that the market is valuing at pennies on the dollar.

We should be smarter and more proactive then to just let another great depression occur to squeeze out all the bad players. There are better ways.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

TxBadger offers up a list of problems, and a pretty good list it is, but I don't see any fixes. Brandt offered the only suggestion of any kind of fix.

1. How do we destroy debt? What's the mechanism?

2. What does the Fed do about interest rates? Short term? Long term?

3. Which leaders? Public sector? Private sector? Who should be a new leader?

4. If creating more debt is NOT the answer, what is the answer?

5. Cash becomes worth less. Isn't that inflation? How do we approach that?

6. National Debt? Pay it off? How?

7. Entitlements are out? Savings are in? Food and shelter take a big hit?

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Brandt wrote:
We need to spend a lot on infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, High-speed rail, electrical grids, Wind, Solar, Bio Fuel Energy. I would put most of the stimulus package, 600,000,000,000 or so into this. This will create a lot of jobs while the private sector is not and cause a multiplier effect to increase demand on consumer and capital goods. This will cause the private sector to start needing increased capacity and more hiring.

In the long run, these improvements will increase productivity for our economy and allow our economy to be more efficient.

The problem with those projects is that the money takes a long time to filter into the economy as the govt pays the engineering firm first, where projects are often long delayed in the planning stages, then the engineering firm slowly pays money out in the form of salaries and equipment/materials purchases. It could take a few years for all the govt money to get out into the economy. Second, even if the govt spend an extra $300 billion over the next two years on infrastructure spending, construction spending in the US will probably not increase on net. The govt spending, rather, will just compensate for the lower levels of spending by private and state and local sources which occurs in every economic downturn. Note that I do favor increased infrastructure spending. It's just that people need to have realistic expectations as to how much it will reenergize the economy.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Strange Brew eh wrote:
I expect OB to come on here and say that this spending is not a problem and some pollyana views on how it will all be ok. Our retirees demand for social security althought they barely paid anything in, along with our baby boomers refusal to pay their true costs are going to create a huge debt burden for future generations. What happens when people decide they want actual returns for the risk of the US government. Our borrowing costs are going to be very high...

Its run by a guy name Karl Denniger.

Yeah, that's me: Pollyanna. Haven't you noticed my consistently cheerful analyses?

The Social Security recipients who didn't pay much into the system mostly are, how to put this...dead or nearly so. The people now retiring mostly have been paying a lot more into Social Security, especially since Ronald Reagan fixed it in 1983, with the help of that guy Greenspan. link And their benefits, in real dollars, will be a lot higher:

For example, in the scheduled-benefits scenario, CBO projects that people born in the 1990s--who will probably retire in the 2050s and 2060s--will receive median benefits of $21,500 (in 2004 dollars), compared with $13,300 for those born in the 1940s, who are retiring today. link

Back in the 1950s Dwight Eisenhower disappointed many conservatives by refusing to dismantle Social Security. So eventually they settled on the "starve the beast" notion of turning it into a sort of mandatory 401(k), which is what Chile did under the guidance of market-driven, yet tenured, faculty from the University of Chicago. Sure, most people aren't covered down there, and sure a lot of those people who are have seen their retirement funds disappear before their eyes of late, but still... The Bush partial privatization proposal in 2005 was to be the camel's nose under the tent to undo Social Security; you'll recall how the public loved that idea.

Social Security's small long-term funding gap can be fixed by additional revenues amounting to less than1 percent of US GDP. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 (when the GOP still controlled Congress) that the underfunding would amount to an average of 0.4 percent of GDP over 75 years (2005-80). [See CBO report linked above.]

So, let me get this straight: The US economy will collapse if we shift 0.4 percent of GDP annually to supporting Granny in her old age? This in a country that spends 6-7 percent (or 15-17 times as much) of GDP on recreation? link Seriously? Can't we all give up one sports or concert ticket a year and chip in?

Karl Denninger is loud, but that doesn't make him right.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Brandt wrote:
We need to spend a lot on infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, High-speed rail, electrical grids, Wind, Solar, Bio Fuel Energy. I would put most of the stimulus package, 600,000,000,000 or so into this. This will create a lot of jobs while the private sector is not and cause a multiplier effect to increase demand on consumer and capital goods. This will cause the private sector to start needing increased capacity and more hiring.

In the long run, these improvements will increase productivity for our economy and allow our economy to be more efficient.

Obama Team on Defensive After CBO Report on Stimulus

A new Congressional Budget Office report suggests Obama's proposed, gianormous stimulus plan is really just a proposed, gianormous spending plan:

Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.

Congressional Democrats defend the plan by saying the CBO report doesn't examine elements of the plan that would go into action more quickly, such as "$275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits, health care for the poor and other entitlement programs," which Dems say will serve to jolt the economy.

"The new CBO report does not take into account the fastest spending provisions in the bill, leaving the false impression that the overall spend-out rates are slower than they actually are," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

But CBO reports are a force to be reckoned with:

Still, the report from the CBO, the nonpartisan arbiter of congressional spending measures, offers a stark assessment of some of the Democrats' top priorities. For example, of $30 billion in highway spending, less than $4 billion would occur over the next two years. Of $18.5 billion proposed for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would be spent by 2011. And of $14 billion for school construction, less than $7 billion would be spent in the first two years.

David Axelrod suggested on Fox News yesterday that the Obama administration's incoming CBO director disagrees with the current CBO's assessment:

In his interview with Fox News, Axelrod said incoming Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, the outgoing CBO head, has a different view than that of the report put together by CBO under his successor, Robert Sunshine, the acting CBO director.

Axelrod then defended the stimulus, arguing that the government has to act, and act fast. He also said critics were missing the point - "that a lot of these investments are ones that are going to pay dividends in the short term and the long term.

"We should have a discussion and a debate, but we ought to move with all deliberate speed here because we do have a national emergency when it comes to the economy, and that will be our first order of business."

A sizeable chunk of the American public (45%) is on board with Obama's plan, according to Rasmussen, but supporters of the plan are facing an inconvenient bottom line as they try to push it in Congress:

The CBO report's findings suggest that funds authorized by the stimulus could reach the economy just when many expect it to recover in 2010.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Good article, yanked. I'll reinforce again what I said earlier in the thread that spending on infrastructure has already been at very high levels. Everyone should look at this link and see the spending numbers of the past decade in categories like "highway and street", "power", "education", even "manufacturing", and so on. Spending has continued to escalate rapidly even through this downturn, and how has our economy been doing....?

http://www.economagic.com/cenc30.htm#TOT

Note the numbers are seasonally adjusted, so highway and street spending for November, for example, was at a rate of $84 billion a year, education at a rate of $107 billion a year, power $77 billion a year, and so on. The money spent on manufacturing construction (increases in capacity) is very interesting and bodes well for the future of the economy.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

LamontS1 wrote:

Brandt wrote:
We need to spend a lot on infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, High-speed rail, electrical grids, Wind, Solar, Bio Fuel Energy. I would put most of the stimulus package, 600,000,000,000 or so into this. This will create a lot of jobs while the private sector is not and cause a multiplier effect to increase demand on consumer and capital goods. This will cause the private sector to start needing increased capacity and more hiring.

In the long run, these improvements will increase productivity for our economy and allow our economy to be more efficient.

The problem with those projects is that the money takes a long time to filter into the economy as the govt pays the engineering firm first, where projects are often long delayed in the planning stages, then the engineering firm slowly pays money out in the form of salaries and equipment/materials purchases. It could take a few years for all the govt money to get out into the economy. Second, even if the govt spend an extra $300 billion over the next two years on infrastructure spending, construction spending in the US will probably not increase on net. The govt spending, rather, will just compensate for the lower levels of spending by private and state and local sources which occurs in every economic downturn. Note that I do favor increased infrastructure spending. It's just that people need to have realistic expectations as to how much it will reenergize the economy.

I work in said engineering firm, so I've put some thought into all this infrastructure work. There has been A LOT of discussion about this as almost everyone of our clients are looking for projects that are "shovel ready" for this summer. Basically a lot of these projects that are being looked at already have the engineering done, or being done, so the project is ready to go.

One question I've been trying to grapple w/ is after this HUGE infusion of $$$ into construction for a year or two, what is going to happen afterward? Having an understanding of how the whole process works, there will be a boat load of projects this year so every company will be scrabbling to hire crews (some of them back from layoff w/ the downturn) and possible new equipment to do all the work if the timetables to use the money is tight. So in 2009 and 2010 there will be pleniful work, but in 2011 once the well dries up, how are all these companies going to keep all the "stimulus" employees employed who they no longer have remotely the same level of work for? Sure there will be more $$$ in the economy, but construction projects are largely based on municipal and highway work, and when things revert back to the "normal" # of projects, I just don't see this working. The tax base that fuels a project in Madison won't jump significantly, nor will the amount of $$$ the DOT spends every year, so the gain in projects post stimulus won't exist. The construction company part of the economy could take a dive back down, and that is a decent part of the economy.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Gandalf The Red wrote:

LamontS1 wrote:

Brandt wrote:
We need to spend a lot on infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, High-speed rail, electrical grids, Wind, Solar, Bio Fuel Energy. I would put most of the stimulus package, 600,000,000,000 or so into this. This will create a lot of jobs while the private sector is not and cause a multiplier effect to increase demand on consumer and capital goods. This will cause the private sector to start needing increased capacity and more hiring.

In the long run, these improvements will increase productivity for our economy and allow our economy to be more efficient.

The problem with those projects is that the money takes a long time to filter into the economy as the govt pays the engineering firm first, where projects are often long delayed in the planning stages, then the engineering firm slowly pays money out in the form of salaries and equipment/materials purchases. It could take a few years for all the govt money to get out into the economy. Second, even if the govt spend an extra $300 billion over the next two years on infrastructure spending, construction spending in the US will probably not increase on net. The govt spending, rather, will just compensate for the lower levels of spending by private and state and local sources which occurs in every economic downturn. Note that I do favor increased infrastructure spending. It's just that people need to have realistic expectations as to how much it will reenergize the economy.

I work in said engineering firm, so I've put some thought into all this infrastructure work. There has been A LOT of discussion about this as almost everyone of our clients are looking for projects that are "shovel ready" for this summer. Basically a lot of these projects that are being looked at already have the engineering done, or being done, so the project is ready to go.

One question I've been trying to grapple w/ is after this HUGE infusion of $$$ into construction for a year or two, what is going to happen afterward? Having an understanding of how the whole process works, there will be a boat load of projects this year so every company will be scrabbling to hire crews (some of them back from layoff w/ the downturn) and possible new equipment to do all the work if the timetables to use the money is tight. So in 2009 and 2010 there will be pleniful work, but in 2011 once the well dries up, how are all these companies going to keep all the "stimulus" employees employed who they no longer have remotely the same level of work for? Sure there will be more $$$ in the economy, but construction projects are largely based on municipal and highway work, and when things revert back to the "normal" # of projects, I just don't see this working. The tax base that fuels a project in Madison won't jump significantly, nor will the amount of $$$ the DOT spends every year, so the gain in projects post stimulus won't exist. The construction company part of the economy could take a dive back down, and that is a decent part of the economy.

The idea is to increase capital spending and employment through the government funded work. This allows people with these jobs to spend more money and also the government will be buying lots of materials to get these jobs done. This in hopes will cause companies not related to these projects increased demand for their products and services to need new employees themselves. So when the money stops flowing the private sector will be ready to step up in an expansion phase.

My Recent Posts · 01/22/09

Brandt wrote:

The idea is to increase capital spending and employment through the government funded work. This allows people with these jobs to spend more money and also the government will be buying lots of materials to get these jobs done. This in hopes will cause companies not related to these projects increased demand for their products and services to need new employees themselves. So when the money stops flowing the private sector will be ready to step up in an expansion phase.

Commercial real estate is bloated while retail is slumping. The oversupply will easily cover an uptick in the economy - that means no new building. Home construction will stay low....enormous inventories remain. Manufacturing is shrinking thanks to technological advances. The auto industry couldn't make money selling high margin SUV's/trucks. While I agree with your premise my suspicion is that we spend a couple trillion dollars and return to this point in three years....with all the extra debt. The problem is we are just gonna mask all the bad debt - it only works until the next slowdown. I'm not convinced business is gonna extend money with the thought of inflation and higher taxes right around the corner. Why extend payroll or capital expenditures if uncle sam is sure to rob you blind in two years? Its an easy way to get turned upside down and the worst part is, Obama is pressing for it. He's asking business to spend so he can take later. Its a bad investment. Shrink payroll and find efficiency in new places. Make no capital expenditures unless a favorable tax plan is in place to justify the expenditure. Spending out of civic duty at a time like this is irresponsible long term and just plain stupid short term.

My Recent Posts · 01/23/09

1. How do we destroy debt? What's the mechanism?

I'd start with the BKX stuff, walk in and say thanks equity & debt holders have a nice day. But that's just me

2. What does the Fed do about interest rates? Short term? Long term?

Raise short term and increase later, folks need to have a reason to save.

3. Which leaders? Public sector? Private sector? Who should be a new leader?

Leader of economic policy, sorry our new Sec of T shouldn't be part of it he's part of the problem. I'll nominate me

4. If creating more debt is NOT the answer, what is the answer?

Destruction as it will in the end .. do it short or do it long.

5. Cash becomes worth less. Isn't that inflation? How do we approach that?

Destroy debt

6. National Debt? Pay it off? How?

Not gonna happen but doesn't need to expand.

7. Entitlements are out? Savings are in? Food and shelter take a big hit?

Entitlements will continue because we've become a nation of what can the government do for me. Local news ran a bit with school kids asking them what the new President could do for them, without fail all had something for them not the nation.

Savings beget growth.

Food/Homes: food not really, homes can't be bought by people that can't afford them. the old water seeks it's own level.

Sorry for the delayed response but y'day was dog training and hog hunting day on a beautiful day in TX. New puppy is coming from S.D. late Feb.... (looking for warmer weather I think)

My Recent Posts · 01/23/09

Gandalf The Red wrote:

One question I've been trying to grapple w/ is after this HUGE infusion of $$$ into construction for a year or two, what is going to happen afterward? Having an understanding of how the whole process works, there will be a boat load of projects this year so every company will be scrabbling to hire crews (some of them back from layoff w/ the downturn) and possible new equipment to do all the work if the timetables to use the money is tight. So in 2009 and 2010 there will be pleniful work, but in 2011 once the well dries up, how are all these companies going to keep all the "stimulus" employees employed who they no longer have remotely the same level of work for? Sure there will be more $$$ in the economy, but construction projects are largely based on municipal and highway work, and when things revert back to the "normal" # of projects, I just don't see this working. The tax base that fuels a project in Madison won't jump significantly, nor will the amount of $$$ the DOT spends every year, so the gain in projects post stimulus won't exist. The construction company part of the economy could take a dive back down, and that is a decent part of the economy.

The new infrastructure spending will mostly just compensate for the normal cyclical drop off in such spending during economic downturns, so on net there will be no increase or maybe only a slight increase in total infrastructure spending. Commercial construction, for example, is already collapsing so that's one area the new infrastructure spending will fill in for.

My Recent Posts · 01/23/09

Gandalf The Red wrote:
One question I've been trying to grapple w/ is after this HUGE infusion of $$$ into construction for a year or two, what is going to happen afterward? Having an understanding of how the whole process works, there will be a boat load of projects this year so every company will be scrabbling to hire crews (some of them back from layoff w/ the downturn) and possible new equipment to do all the work if the timetables to use the money is tight. So in 2009 and 2010 there will be pleniful work, but in 2011 once the well dries up, how are all these companies going to keep all the "stimulus" employees employed who they no longer have remotely the same level of work for? Sure there will be more $$$ in the economy, but construction projects are largely based on municipal and highway work, and when things revert back to the "normal" # of projects, I just don't see this working. The tax base that fuels a project in Madison won't jump significantly, nor will the amount of $$$ the DOT spends every year, so the gain in projects post stimulus won't exist. The construction company part of the economy could take a dive back down, and that is a decent part of the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ian_Business_Cycle_Theory

As much as many make fun of the Austrians here, they have the boom/bust cycle figured out as you have touched on. There eventually will be a bust to reckon with after the stimulus hits, just like a junkie feels after taking a hit of their favorite drug.

My Recent Posts · 01/24/09

One start would be to establish more economic/financial responsibility/accountability for individuals businesses government etc.How to do this? Not sure but more financial education in the schools might help.

Encourage those with money to spend it. In a supply/demand situation I think you'd want to start by establishing demand. Give someone like Warren Buffett a tax break if he buys a qualified person a new car for instance.

How to eliminate debt? The only effective way is by Presidential or Government decree that certain types of debt will just be wiped out. Start over; kinda like instant bankruptcy. Some people owe so much there is no way they can ever pay it off, and there isn't even incentive to do so. Its hard to get people to spend when they owe so much or are unemployed or aren't secure in their employment status.

My Recent Posts · 01/25/09

TxBadger wrote:
1. How do we destroy debt? What's the mechanism?

I'd start with the BKX stuff, walk in and say thanks equity & debt holders have a nice day. But that's just me

2. What does the Fed do about interest rates? Short term? Long term?

Raise short term and increase later, folks need to have a reason to save.

3. Which leaders? Public sector? Private sector? Who should be a new leader?

Leader of economic policy, sorry our new Sec of T shouldn't be part of it he's part of the problem. I'll nominate me

4. If creating more debt is NOT the answer, what is the answer?

Destruction as it will in the end .. do it short or do it long.

5. Cash becomes worth less. Isn't that inflation? How do we approach that?

Destroy debt

6. National Debt? Pay it off? How?

Not gonna happen but doesn't need to expand.

7. Entitlements are out? Savings are in? Food and shelter take a big hit?

Entitlements will continue because we've become a nation of what can the government do for me. Local news ran a bit with school kids asking them what the new President could do for them, without fail all had something for them not the nation.

Savings beget growth.

Food/Homes: food not really, homes can't be bought by people that can't afford them. the old water seeks it's own level.

Sorry for the delayed response but y'day was dog training and hog hunting day on a beautiful day in TX. New puppy is coming from S.D. late Feb.... (looking for warmer weather I think)

Pithy responses to pithy questions, but right on target.

Magic acts that brought us the new economy/dot.com bubble, real estate/housing bubble and financing bubble have to be relegated to the dustbin. My fear is that we're in for a few more magic acts before some of the most arrogant people on Earth, running our financial systems from Wall Street, Washington and beyond, truly get what they have coming to them. From where I've been sitting in the cheap seats, the bubbles have just gone from sector to sector without any real acknowledgement of responsibility for failure from either our government or our private sector. Passing a "bailout" buck onto taxpayers remains extraordinarily irresponsible in my view. Both the government and the finance sector could have used a big shave instead of more bloating.

Yuku free message boards

Thoughts on how to fix Our economic mess

Thoughts on how to fix Our economic mess

Quick Reply