GDP increases 3.5%
- Thread starter sickboy
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
I am actually unsure....holidays are coming up so it is inevitable we will see a spike....happens every year...The first quarter of next year and what happens then will give a better idea of how things are going. If next year's first quarter matches or even increases over this last quarter....I will say things are looking up.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3163529
Lets see if it can repeat next quarter and how much this will be adjusted down. Better than it was to be sure but cash for clunkers and the homebuyers credit caused a spike so it is really hard to say what the overall economy is actually doing.
Some C4C numbers.
This year we're on track to sell 19.6 million cars, vs. 17.4mil last year.
Prior to C4C -- 39% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle. After C4C -- 51% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle
Prior to C4C -- 9% of trade-ins would qualify as clunkers. After C4C -- 39% qualify
http:///forum/post/3163529
Lets see if it can repeat next quarter and how much this will be adjusted down. Better than it was to be sure but cash for clunkers and the homebuyers credit caused a spike so it is really hard to say what the overall economy is actually doing.
Some C4C numbers.
This year we're on track to sell 19.6 million cars, vs. 17.4mil last year.
Prior to C4C -- 39% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle. After C4C -- 51% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle
Prior to C4C -- 9% of trade-ins would qualify as clunkers. After C4C -- 39% qualify
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3163551
Some C4C numbers.
This year we're on track to sell 19.6 million cars, vs. 17.4mil last year.
Prior to C4C -- 39% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle. After C4C -- 51% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle
Prior to C4C -- 9% of trade-ins would qualify as clunkers. After C4C -- 39% qualify
Once C4C ended GM and Chrysler's sales both fell more than 40%. Today Edmunds released a report claiming the true cost to the government was 24K per car actually bought due to the program. Yep, that was a good idea
http:///forum/post/3163551
Some C4C numbers.
This year we're on track to sell 19.6 million cars, vs. 17.4mil last year.
Prior to C4C -- 39% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle. After C4C -- 51% of new car sales involved a trade-in vehicle
Prior to C4C -- 9% of trade-ins would qualify as clunkers. After C4C -- 39% qualify
Once C4C ended GM and Chrysler's sales both fell more than 40%. Today Edmunds released a report claiming the true cost to the government was 24K per car actually bought due to the program. Yep, that was a good idea
stdreb27
Active Member
I think preliminary report. And artificial government intervention.
- Motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.19 percentage point to the second-quarter change.
- Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second. Durable goods increased 22.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 5.6 percent. The third-quarter increase largely reflected motor vehicle purchases under the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (popularly called, “Cash for Clunkers” Program).
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm
- Motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.19 percentage point to the second-quarter change.
- Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second. Durable goods increased 22.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 5.6 percent. The third-quarter increase largely reflected motor vehicle purchases under the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (popularly called, “Cash for Clunkers” Program).
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3163557
Once C4C ended GM and Chrysler's sales both fell more than 40%. Today Edmunds released a report claiming the true cost to the government was 24K per car actually bought due to the program. Yep, that was a good idea
I saw that too and wonder how that is even possible. I don't really wonder I guess, but maybe it is time for a few government employee's who collected paychecks off this to join regular American's in the unemployment line. I was still amazed at some of the so-called clunkers I saw crushed with no effort made to recycle any of the parts. 20,000 thousand on paperwork, because the scrap iron value should have covered them being towed away. A real issue and something the GOP should be holding Obama's feet to the fire over, but instead Rush and Palin are making news this week for the GOP again.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3163557
Once C4C ended GM and Chrysler's sales both fell more than 40%. Today Edmunds released a report claiming the true cost to the government was 24K per car actually bought due to the program. Yep, that was a good idea
I saw that too and wonder how that is even possible. I don't really wonder I guess, but maybe it is time for a few government employee's who collected paychecks off this to join regular American's in the unemployment line. I was still amazed at some of the so-called clunkers I saw crushed with no effort made to recycle any of the parts. 20,000 thousand on paperwork, because the scrap iron value should have covered them being towed away. A real issue and something the GOP should be holding Obama's feet to the fire over, but instead Rush and Palin are making news this week for the GOP again.
Fishtaco
stdreb27
Active Member
I'm absolutely loving the coverage. The recession is over, all is well, Obama has saved us. It is only solidifying my belief that they should ban Journalism as a major, and make them all take economics with an english minor (so they learn how to use the English language) instead.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3163660
I'm absolutely loving the coverage. The recession is over, all is well, Obama has saved us. It is only solidifying my belief that they should ban Journalism as a major, and make them all take economics with an english minor (so they learn how to use the English language) instead.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3163683
And perhaps a logic/debate class or two.
That being said, spending whatever they spent subsidizing cars. Did result in a 2 percent bump in rGDP. Makes you wonder, (now I ask this hypothically) if you're going to lean into a Keynsian economic model. Why the hell did they need a 1 trillion dollar stimulus. They used 3 billion or whatever it will end up costing, and got a 2% bump in rGDP.
http:///forum/post/3163660
I'm absolutely loving the coverage. The recession is over, all is well, Obama has saved us. It is only solidifying my belief that they should ban Journalism as a major, and make them all take economics with an english minor (so they learn how to use the English language) instead.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3163683
And perhaps a logic/debate class or two.
That being said, spending whatever they spent subsidizing cars. Did result in a 2 percent bump in rGDP. Makes you wonder, (now I ask this hypothically) if you're going to lean into a Keynsian economic model. Why the hell did they need a 1 trillion dollar stimulus. They used 3 billion or whatever it will end up costing, and got a 2% bump in rGDP.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3163709
Why the hell did they need a 1 trillion dollar stimulus.
Dunno. I've not been an advocate of the stimuli. I see the stimuli (both Bush and Obama's) more as cronyism than overall beneficial. Lesser empires than ours have failed to borrow themselves to prosperity.
The funny thing I find is that Capitalists tend to ridicule the European and Japanese models because they're currently stagnant. OTOH, our supposedly superior model, is regressing.
I'm no economist, but it seems logical to me that infinite economic growth is contingent upon infinite population growth. If no new consumers are added to the market, then no new products can be profitably produced (hence planned obsolescence and the disposable society.)
We need more consumers to keep this shite going. Whether babies or illegals? Take your pick.
Let's hope we can grow enough food to keep them spending. Infinity is a long time.
http:///forum/post/3163709
Why the hell did they need a 1 trillion dollar stimulus.
Dunno. I've not been an advocate of the stimuli. I see the stimuli (both Bush and Obama's) more as cronyism than overall beneficial. Lesser empires than ours have failed to borrow themselves to prosperity.
The funny thing I find is that Capitalists tend to ridicule the European and Japanese models because they're currently stagnant. OTOH, our supposedly superior model, is regressing.
I'm no economist, but it seems logical to me that infinite economic growth is contingent upon infinite population growth. If no new consumers are added to the market, then no new products can be profitably produced (hence planned obsolescence and the disposable society.)
We need more consumers to keep this shite going. Whether babies or illegals? Take your pick.
Let's hope we can grow enough food to keep them spending. Infinity is a long time.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3163864
Dunno. I've not been an advocate of the stimuli. I see the stimuli (both Bush and Obama's) more as cronyism than overall beneficial. Lesser empires than ours have failed to borrow themselves to prosperity.
The funny thing I find is that Capitalists tend to ridicule the European and Japanese models because they're currently stagnant. OTOH, our supposedly superior model, is regressing.
I'm no economist, but it seems logical to me that infinite economic growth is contingent upon infinite population growth. If no new consumers are added to the market, then no new products can be profitably produced (hence planned obsolescence and the disposable society.)
We need more consumers to keep this shite going. Whether babies or illegals? Take your pick.
Let's hope we can grow enough food to keep them spending. Infinity is a long time.
This is where you're missing the boat. Capitalism didn't cause the recession, government intervention, and bad legislation caused this recession. Capitalism worked. It found a flaw in the system, someone (fanny and freddy) owned a whole bunch of bad loans without properly valuing the risk, and were cooking their books. And it corrected it. Capitalism worked. Government intervention failed...
I also find it ironic, you have basically record growth since the early 1980's based. But you're argument that capitalism is in regression would have to throw that out and say we are stagnant because of 1+ of economic decline...
Infinite economic growth is not claimed possible by the freedman model. The concept of growth is easily pictured, like a forrest. If you don't have a periodic fire roll through there to burn off the undergrowth, you'll have a huge fire that kills everything. (that is why they do controlled burns) You're going to get minor corrections, when the market adjusts to an ever changing environment. The problem is basically our fed's policy is basically a growth at any costs policy right now. And eventually you're going to get a major correction. (I think this one is a pretty significant one)
Today's market you can pretty much chalk up growth to increases in Technology. Eventually you'll hit a ceiling, but I don't think that is coming anytime soon.
http:///forum/post/3163864
Dunno. I've not been an advocate of the stimuli. I see the stimuli (both Bush and Obama's) more as cronyism than overall beneficial. Lesser empires than ours have failed to borrow themselves to prosperity.
The funny thing I find is that Capitalists tend to ridicule the European and Japanese models because they're currently stagnant. OTOH, our supposedly superior model, is regressing.
I'm no economist, but it seems logical to me that infinite economic growth is contingent upon infinite population growth. If no new consumers are added to the market, then no new products can be profitably produced (hence planned obsolescence and the disposable society.)
We need more consumers to keep this shite going. Whether babies or illegals? Take your pick.
Let's hope we can grow enough food to keep them spending. Infinity is a long time.
This is where you're missing the boat. Capitalism didn't cause the recession, government intervention, and bad legislation caused this recession. Capitalism worked. It found a flaw in the system, someone (fanny and freddy) owned a whole bunch of bad loans without properly valuing the risk, and were cooking their books. And it corrected it. Capitalism worked. Government intervention failed...
I also find it ironic, you have basically record growth since the early 1980's based. But you're argument that capitalism is in regression would have to throw that out and say we are stagnant because of 1+ of economic decline...
Infinite economic growth is not claimed possible by the freedman model. The concept of growth is easily pictured, like a forrest. If you don't have a periodic fire roll through there to burn off the undergrowth, you'll have a huge fire that kills everything. (that is why they do controlled burns) You're going to get minor corrections, when the market adjusts to an ever changing environment. The problem is basically our fed's policy is basically a growth at any costs policy right now. And eventually you're going to get a major correction. (I think this one is a pretty significant one)
Today's market you can pretty much chalk up growth to increases in Technology. Eventually you'll hit a ceiling, but I don't think that is coming anytime soon.
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3163962
This is where you're missing the boat. Capitalism didn't cause the recession, government intervention, and bad legislation caused this recession. Capitalism worked. It found a flaw in the system, someone (fanny and freddy) owned a whole bunch of bad loans without properly valuing the risk, and were cooking their books. And it corrected it. Capitalism worked. Government intervention failed...
I also find it ironic, you have basically record growth since the early 1980's based. But you're argument that capitalism is in regression would have to throw that out and say we are stagnant because of 1+ of economic decline...
Infinite economic growth is not claimed possible by the freedman model. The concept of growth is easily pictured, like a forrest. If you don't have a periodic fire roll through there to burn off the undergrowth, you'll have a huge fire that kills everything. (that is why they do controlled burns) You're going to get minor corrections, when the market adjusts to an ever changing environment. The problem is basically our fed's policy is basically a growth at any costs policy right now. And eventually you're going to get a major correction. (I think this one is a pretty significant one)
Today's market you can pretty much chalk up growth to increases in Technology. Eventually you'll hit a ceiling, but I don't think that is coming anytime soon.
I'm going to disagree with you on most, and agree with you in part.
I think it is absurd to say that the gov't caused a market bubble. The market caused the market bubble and it was AIDED by the government.
There are major similarities between the tech bubble and housing bubble (or tulip bubble, or any other bubble in the history of capitalism). The Tech bubble was caused by new technology that had "infinite" growth, or in other words, "no risk." Once people realized there was risk, and the bubble burst they looked for something more tangible to invest in, namely real estate. Demand for real estate increased, aided by easy financing. The easy financing came from the gov't backing loans, and
[hr]
officers taking advantage knowing they had "no risk" of holding such loans.
The gov't did help compound the problem, but they did not create the market for housing.
And then you state that capitalism worked b/c it found a flaw and exploited it. I would suggest this is the biggest argument FOR proper government regulation. Capitalism, by its very nature of pursuit of one's self interest is not necessarily aimed in the interest of the country. Proper counter-cyclical monetary policy (and to some extend fiscal policy) is a must to lessen the blow of market bubbles. A look at capitalism's history shows a series of booms and busts, not steady growth, it has a horrible history of self regulation. On the other hand, the government should stay out of things such as housing loans (is
[hr]
still censored?), and only act as a police force, watching but not intervening in most instances.
On the infinite growth idea, Schumpeter saw the possibility for infinite growth through creative destruction, though there is not a model to show or predict this trend....
http:///forum/post/3163962
This is where you're missing the boat. Capitalism didn't cause the recession, government intervention, and bad legislation caused this recession. Capitalism worked. It found a flaw in the system, someone (fanny and freddy) owned a whole bunch of bad loans without properly valuing the risk, and were cooking their books. And it corrected it. Capitalism worked. Government intervention failed...
I also find it ironic, you have basically record growth since the early 1980's based. But you're argument that capitalism is in regression would have to throw that out and say we are stagnant because of 1+ of economic decline...
Infinite economic growth is not claimed possible by the freedman model. The concept of growth is easily pictured, like a forrest. If you don't have a periodic fire roll through there to burn off the undergrowth, you'll have a huge fire that kills everything. (that is why they do controlled burns) You're going to get minor corrections, when the market adjusts to an ever changing environment. The problem is basically our fed's policy is basically a growth at any costs policy right now. And eventually you're going to get a major correction. (I think this one is a pretty significant one)
Today's market you can pretty much chalk up growth to increases in Technology. Eventually you'll hit a ceiling, but I don't think that is coming anytime soon.
I'm going to disagree with you on most, and agree with you in part.
I think it is absurd to say that the gov't caused a market bubble. The market caused the market bubble and it was AIDED by the government.
There are major similarities between the tech bubble and housing bubble (or tulip bubble, or any other bubble in the history of capitalism). The Tech bubble was caused by new technology that had "infinite" growth, or in other words, "no risk." Once people realized there was risk, and the bubble burst they looked for something more tangible to invest in, namely real estate. Demand for real estate increased, aided by easy financing. The easy financing came from the gov't backing loans, and
[hr]
officers taking advantage knowing they had "no risk" of holding such loans.
The gov't did help compound the problem, but they did not create the market for housing.
And then you state that capitalism worked b/c it found a flaw and exploited it. I would suggest this is the biggest argument FOR proper government regulation. Capitalism, by its very nature of pursuit of one's self interest is not necessarily aimed in the interest of the country. Proper counter-cyclical monetary policy (and to some extend fiscal policy) is a must to lessen the blow of market bubbles. A look at capitalism's history shows a series of booms and busts, not steady growth, it has a horrible history of self regulation. On the other hand, the government should stay out of things such as housing loans (is
[hr]
still censored?), and only act as a police force, watching but not intervening in most instances.
On the infinite growth idea, Schumpeter saw the possibility for infinite growth through creative destruction, though there is not a model to show or predict this trend....
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3164148
I'm going to disagree with you on most, and agree with you in part.
I think it is absurd to say that the gov't caused a market bubble. The market caused the market bubble and it was AIDED by the government.
There are major similarities between the tech bubble and housing bubble (or tulip bubble, or any other bubble in the history of capitalism). The Tech bubble was caused by new technology that had "infinite" growth, or in other words, "no risk." Once people realized there was risk, and the bubble burst they looked for something more tangible to invest in, namely real estate. Demand for real estate increased, aided by easy financing. The easy financing came from the gov't backing loans, and
[hr]
officers taking advantage knowing they had "no risk" of holding such loans.
The gov't did help compound the problem, but they did not create the market for housing.
And then you state that capitalism worked b/c it found a flaw and exploited it. I would suggest this is the biggest argument FOR proper government regulation. Capitalism, by its very nature of pursuit of one's self interest is not necessarily aimed in the interest of the country. Proper counter-cyclical monetary policy (and to some extend fiscal policy) is a must to lessen the blow of market bubbles. A look at capitalism's history shows a series of booms and busts, not steady growth, it has a horrible history of self regulation. On the other hand, the government should stay out of things such as housing loans (is
[hr]
still censored?), and only act as a police force, watching but not intervening in most instances.
On the infinite growth idea, Schumpeter saw the possibility for infinite growth through creative destruction, though there is not a model to show or predict this trend....
This is where you're wrong, Government created organizations which absorbed risk. Fanny and Freddy. They took over a market for high risk loans. By purchasing them at low interest rates. In effect, subsidizing what the market would have offered the loans at.
The lower rates, that the banks in turn offered (since they knew that the government would purchase them, and needed to comply with Equal Housing laws) allowed a high risk borrowers to borrow for much less than they would have, if a private underwriter was underwriting the loan.
Had the government not created and expanded Fanny and Freddy, private underwriters would NOT have been willing to purchase loans at such low rates. And those people would have been priced out of the market. (and that is why private underwriting almost completely left that market)
So the loans were priced to value the risk the Bankers took on. Which was virtually nothing, since all they had to do was turn around and sell the loan to a GOVERNMENT created corporation... That corporation in turn cooked their books, and sold those loans in the form of securities. And companies, purchased those security as a form of Liquid assets. Because according to the GOVERNMENT created corporation, it was VERY secure...
If ANYTHING needs to be policed, it was the government created corporations. As an industry the banks operated in the market environment that the government created.
This whole argument saying that lack of government oversight caused the completely 180 degrees out of phase.
http:///forum/post/3164148
I'm going to disagree with you on most, and agree with you in part.
I think it is absurd to say that the gov't caused a market bubble. The market caused the market bubble and it was AIDED by the government.
There are major similarities between the tech bubble and housing bubble (or tulip bubble, or any other bubble in the history of capitalism). The Tech bubble was caused by new technology that had "infinite" growth, or in other words, "no risk." Once people realized there was risk, and the bubble burst they looked for something more tangible to invest in, namely real estate. Demand for real estate increased, aided by easy financing. The easy financing came from the gov't backing loans, and
[hr]
officers taking advantage knowing they had "no risk" of holding such loans.
The gov't did help compound the problem, but they did not create the market for housing.
And then you state that capitalism worked b/c it found a flaw and exploited it. I would suggest this is the biggest argument FOR proper government regulation. Capitalism, by its very nature of pursuit of one's self interest is not necessarily aimed in the interest of the country. Proper counter-cyclical monetary policy (and to some extend fiscal policy) is a must to lessen the blow of market bubbles. A look at capitalism's history shows a series of booms and busts, not steady growth, it has a horrible history of self regulation. On the other hand, the government should stay out of things such as housing loans (is
[hr]
still censored?), and only act as a police force, watching but not intervening in most instances.
On the infinite growth idea, Schumpeter saw the possibility for infinite growth through creative destruction, though there is not a model to show or predict this trend....
This is where you're wrong, Government created organizations which absorbed risk. Fanny and Freddy. They took over a market for high risk loans. By purchasing them at low interest rates. In effect, subsidizing what the market would have offered the loans at.
The lower rates, that the banks in turn offered (since they knew that the government would purchase them, and needed to comply with Equal Housing laws) allowed a high risk borrowers to borrow for much less than they would have, if a private underwriter was underwriting the loan.
Had the government not created and expanded Fanny and Freddy, private underwriters would NOT have been willing to purchase loans at such low rates. And those people would have been priced out of the market. (and that is why private underwriting almost completely left that market)
So the loans were priced to value the risk the Bankers took on. Which was virtually nothing, since all they had to do was turn around and sell the loan to a GOVERNMENT created corporation... That corporation in turn cooked their books, and sold those loans in the form of securities. And companies, purchased those security as a form of Liquid assets. Because according to the GOVERNMENT created corporation, it was VERY secure...
If ANYTHING needs to be policed, it was the government created corporations. As an industry the banks operated in the market environment that the government created.
This whole argument saying that lack of government oversight caused the completely 180 degrees out of phase.
stdreb27
Active Member
The reason capitalism worked, is that it tried to correct the problem. Fanny and freddy wouldn't exist today had it not been for outside moneys in the form of subsidies coming into rescue it. Had capitalism been allowed to run its course. Those government created corporations would be gone. And leaving a vacuum for new companies to begin underwriting loans. And hopefully they'd properly value the risk they take on when they loan money...
Capitalism isn't going to be smooth sailing. It doesn't claim to be. It will correct problems. Not everyone is business savvy. Some times you'll lose the wainwright. When Henry Ford comes to town. You will have a Forrest fire. The difference it, the corrections will be MUCH smaller, than if you artificially let government prop up business. Because eventually like in this case, their is just not enough money to keep on dumping into it..
It isn't growth, it is sustainability that is the desired goal.
Capitalism isn't going to be smooth sailing. It doesn't claim to be. It will correct problems. Not everyone is business savvy. Some times you'll lose the wainwright. When Henry Ford comes to town. You will have a Forrest fire. The difference it, the corrections will be MUCH smaller, than if you artificially let government prop up business. Because eventually like in this case, their is just not enough money to keep on dumping into it..
It isn't growth, it is sustainability that is the desired goal.
V
vinnyraptor
Guest
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3163526
what do you think?
i think its hilarious how all of the Obama haters come out and say oh its cause of this or its because of that. or it wont last, or even make remarks that we are now killing inovation and are Marxist, Communists, etc. Obama preaches inovation, science, and new technology. its typical of any thread on this site. if something good happens it wont last or it wasn't really good. and anything that bad happens it's all Obama's fault. it's sad, wait till the health care bill passes and in a few years health care is more affordable and effective, i cant wait to see what you guys say then....
http:///forum/post/3163526
what do you think?
i think its hilarious how all of the Obama haters come out and say oh its cause of this or its because of that. or it wont last, or even make remarks that we are now killing inovation and are Marxist, Communists, etc. Obama preaches inovation, science, and new technology. its typical of any thread on this site. if something good happens it wont last or it wasn't really good. and anything that bad happens it's all Obama's fault. it's sad, wait till the health care bill passes and in a few years health care is more affordable and effective, i cant wait to see what you guys say then....
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3164297
i think its hilarious how all of the Obama haters come out and say oh its cause of this or its because of that. or it wont last, or even make remarks that we are now killing inovation and are Marxist, Communists, etc. Obama preaches inovation, science, and new technology. its typical of any thread on this site. if something good happens it wont last or it wasn't really good. and anything that bad happens it's all Obama's fault. it's sad, wait till the health care bill passes and in a few years health care is more affordable and effective, i cant wait to see what you guys say then....
All we heard out of you leftists was Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad, now you whine because the other side has the same opinion of Obama? Hopefully the few sensible Dems left will put the death hold on the socialist health care provision and maybe, just maybe we can get real solution like tort reform and buying across state lines once the Republicans take congress back in 2010.
http:///forum/post/3164297
i think its hilarious how all of the Obama haters come out and say oh its cause of this or its because of that. or it wont last, or even make remarks that we are now killing inovation and are Marxist, Communists, etc. Obama preaches inovation, science, and new technology. its typical of any thread on this site. if something good happens it wont last or it wasn't really good. and anything that bad happens it's all Obama's fault. it's sad, wait till the health care bill passes and in a few years health care is more affordable and effective, i cant wait to see what you guys say then....
All we heard out of you leftists was Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad, now you whine because the other side has the same opinion of Obama? Hopefully the few sensible Dems left will put the death hold on the socialist health care provision and maybe, just maybe we can get real solution like tort reform and buying across state lines once the Republicans take congress back in 2010.
