Let me blow up an important point from Ibime . . .

Ibime:

[size=19pt]All of you shut the phock up!

Deal with the phocking issues, not some tribalised celebration of moronic mindless drivel.[/size]

I am glad you used the word volatile, unlike Sean Hannity who falsely claimed that Bill Clinton left in a recession. . . . the cause of such volatility was from the burst of the dotcom bubble and nothing to do with Government. . . . even the slowest idiot knows that Financial markets control their own cycles, not Governments. . . ,  . infact, the US economy only entered the recession in 2001 after September 11th. . . . yet, the least one could expect is that the Government is prepared for a recession when it hits. . .  

. . no one here is blaming George Bush for the subprime collapse and the credit crunch which followed. . . . we are blaming him for not having enough cash to protect American industries having spent it all on the war and God knows what elseif the Republicans could run up a deficit during a time of plenty, what will they do during a time of recession?  

Its complex and there is no one rule that can fix it all.  Here is the problem - the government will love to regulate all companies, private or public, however the constitution says that privacy of individuals and entities must be respected and the government cannot intrude into it.  

Well, if I set up a private company like a ABC.com, then I am expecting that my dealings, outside of declared and published profit and loss reports are completely out of reach of the government.  So there is a loop hole and what I choose to do in the privacy of my business and how I run it can be legal-proofed against the intrusion of government.  I can scam the public and use legal language to legitimize what ordinarily is a fraud.  

When you have companies from ABC.com to XYZ.com decend on the free market with false claims smartly wordsmithed to evade consumer scrutiny, then you have to wonder who is looking out for the consumers?  This is where consumer advocate groups come in and the news media and the community faith based organizations to educate and raise awarenes.

I agree with you to a point, the government cannot be blamed.  This is free market at play.  But again, tehre are ways, without intruding into company privacy that government can regulate them and protect consumer.  

Ibime, I applaud your interest in that subject. This is an issue that the politicians must talk about but what they are doing is lying to the populace.  They say too much regulation will suffocate economy; lie, lie, lie!  It will shift the powers of demand and supply and the consumers will have the upper hand in demanding what they want,  how they spend, where they spend, and can collectively boycut a company that doesnt meet their needs by using dollar power to shut it down.  In all of that there will be a lesson for producers to give us what we want for its value, instead of enslaving us to their greed for profit and unaccountability.

@KarmaMod,

How about you practice what you preach, agbaya.

We are talking about Fox News, you are bringing up nonsense like The View. Na by force you reply me sef since you have nothing better to say. Take your condecending bs away from here and ignore me since you can't act your age.

Someone needs to go refill their medications. You are obviously experiencing a meltdown.

I think Meet The Press is fine with news. Hannity & Colmes is garbage under the guise of "fair and balanced". You bringing up "The View" is just one of the many reasons why I think you're a sexist chuvanistic hog.

When I mention Palin, I am no sexist, but I am one when I reference the VIEW. You obviously don't have the ability to reason beyond skirts and trousers. Someone here has rightoy said, you should go back to the Romance Section where you will definitely feel at home.

If I was discussing with someone who has the ability to reason properly, I would have asked you to parallel the two situations that I compared and see if there was anything there that remotely suggests sexism. Since reasoning is alien to you, I will not wear you down with such a burden.

O’reilly did not demean Obama

Kobojunkie, please watch that interview again. It is worse than what he experienced with the saddleback interview.

Interview is not a demand for your subject to account. It is a opportunity to express views. O'reily did not interview Obama, he scrutinized him. Thats disrespectful for a politician at his level.

You scrutinize John Edwards, you scrutinize Mark Foley, you scrutinize Ted Stevens. You scrutinize politicians that have squandered their public trust, not politicians that have upheld theirs.

When I mention Palin, I am no sexist, but I am one when I reference the VIEW

Lmao. You are such a joke. Take your Alhemizers meds, grandpa. You're proud of mentioning The View. The reason for which you mentioned the view is WHY you are a sexist lunatic not the reason why you're NOT. After all I'm not the only one who complained about H&C, why quote me then to make that dumb comment

The hell does the View have to do with anything. You think you're being clever by claiming this and that. I see right through you

and since it's OBVIOUS your chuvanistic self has a problem with me being here, IGNORE ME. Na by force you reply my comments?

O'Riley is obnoxious but there are worse people on that channel. Seriously.

Kelth Olbertman on MSNBC is pretty amusing but can exaggerate alot at times and he leans to the left.

@karmaMod,

Lmao. You are such a joke. Take your Alhemizers meds, grandpa. You're proud of mentioning The View. The reason for which you mentioned the view is WHY you are a sexist lunatic not the reason why you're NOT. After all I'm not the only one who complained about H&C, why quote me then to make that dumb comment

The hell does the View have to do with anything. You think you're being clever by claiming this and that. I see right through you

Once again, a senseless post from the most obvious person to make one - Karma Mod.

and since it's OBVIOUS your chuvanistic self has a problem with me being here, IGNORE ME. Na by force you reply my comments?

Ignore you? You wish. How can I ignore you when I have the option to not take you seriously

O'reilly does not always conduct interviews. He conducts debates arguments between himself and people with opposing views. Interviews are reserved for people who share his views.

How can it make sense to you when you're senile? Elede ni e. simple.

no worries some day when we get to the point of free healthcare, you'll be able to afford your much needed meds

CHANGE IS ON THE WAY

hehehe

@karmaMod,

How can it make sense to you when you're senile? Elede ni e. simple.

no worries some day when we get to the point of free healthcare, you'll be able to afford your much needed meds

CHANGE IS ON THE WAY

hehehe

Watch out all. Ignorance has being set on rampage on nairaland. The Ignorance is personified in no other than the most capable ignoramus - KarmaMod.

Oh look he's being 'funny" again.

Negro_Ntns:

Kobojunkie, please watch that interview again. It is worse than what he experienced with the saddleback interview.

Interview is not a demand for your subject to account. It is a opportunity to express views. O'reily did not interview Obama, he scrutinized him. Thats disrespectful for a politician at his level.

You scrutinize John Edwards, you scrutinize Mark Foley, you scrutinize Ted Stevens. You scrutinize politicians that have squandered their public trust, not politicians that have upheld theirs.

I just saw it last yesterday and watched playback of some portions online. It was O'reilly as usual. A politician as his level? LMAO!!!! Come on!!!! It was more of two people having a serious tit for tat on issues.

Negro_Ntns:



Its complex and there is no one rule that can fix it all.  Here is the problem - the government will love to regulate all companies, private or public, however the constitution says that privacy of individuals and entities must be respected and the government cannot intrude into it.  

Well, if I set up a private company like a ABC.com, then I am expecting that my dealings, outside of declared and published profit and loss reports are completely out of reach of the government.  So there is a loop hole and what I choose to do in the privacy of my business and how I run it can be legal-proofed against the intrusion of government.  I can scam the public and use legal language to legitimize what ordinarily is a fraud.  

When you have companies from ABC.com to XYZ.com decend on the free market with false claims smartly wordsmithed to evade consumer scrutiny, then you have to wonder who is looking out for the consumers?  This is where consumer advocate groups come in and the news media and the community faith based organizations to educate and raise awarenes.

I agree with you to a point, the government cannot be blamed.  This is free market at play.  But again, tehre are ways, without intruding into company privacy that government can regulate them and protect consumer.  

. . . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . . if the market crumbles, that is the markets making. . . . neither Republicans nor Democrats can do anything about that short of cutting interest rates. . . .still, Governments should have strong enough receipts to support companies in financial crises by handing out tax rebates or loans at a federal funds rate which is much lower than the LIBOR rate. . . .  the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

Negro_Ntns:

Ibime, I applaud your interest in that subject. This is an issue that the politicians must talk about but what they are doing is lying to the populace.  They say too much regulation will suffocate economy; lie, lie, lie!  It will shift the powers of demand and supply and the consumers will have the upper hand in demanding what they want,  how they spend, where they spend, and can collectively boycut a company that doesnt meet their needs by using dollar power to shut it down.  In all of that there will be a lesson for producers to give us what we want for its value, instead of enslaving us to their greed for profit and unaccountability.  

If I am correct, regulation is more of a Democratic tenet than a Republican tenet. . . . .Republicans always favour less regulation, which is why we must always have a boom and bust scenario before they see the need to tighten regulation.

Dude, wars arent cheap esp uncalled for ones.

. . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . . if the market crumbles, that is the markets making. . . . neither Republicans nor Democrats can do anything about that short of cutting interest rates. . . .still, Governments should have strong enough receipts to support companies in financial crises by handing out tax rebates or loans at a federal funds rate which is much lower than the LIBOR rate. . . . the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

*Government should support companies in financial crises* How is that a free market? Beside, what do you call tax exemption on exports, as well as tax incentives for business expansion, how about write offs on capital depreciation, what about tax waivers on offshore assets, ;what should we call these benefits to American enterprises?

If I am correct, regulation is more of a Democratic tenet than a Republican tenet. . . . .Republicans always favour less regulation, which is why we always have a boom and bust scenario before they see the need to tighten regulation.

True but even for Democrats, it has not been a consistent program, even though that is one of their strongest claim against Republicans. They need to consistently make it a platform theme for successive administrations.

Negro_Ntns:


*Government should support companies in financial crises*  How is that a free market?

lol. . . . you should argue that one with a communist like RichyBlack. . . . I am sure he will like to argue that one with you to prove that there is no such thing as a free market. . . .the truth is a free market is no longer a free market when it clashes with strategic national interests. . . .just ask the Dubai Group who wanted to take over the American ports. . . . .  and the economy is of strategic interest.

Negro_Ntns:

Beside, what do you call tax exemption on exports, as well as tax incentives for business expansion, how about write offs on capital depreciation, what about tax waivers on offshore assets, ;what should we call these benefits to American enterprises?

The success of these policies are measured in the unemployment rate and the GDP. . . . for example, is it worth spending say $10trn in return for an extra 1 million jobs?

why Government ran a $57trn deficit

Bush ran an unecessary war and he would never be forgiven for that, and should not!  Nonetheless, he ran a wartime budget, not a peacetime treasury like Clinton.  

Thats where the disparity is, in addition to the fact that Bush's administration was top loaded with veteran Washington egg heads that for most part were suddenly alarmed at the rate at which the American social landscape was changing and were uncomfortable with the momentum of change. So they needed to reverse the gains and return America to the constraints of their myopic view that they falsely refer to as conservative values.

Conservation of culture is admirable and noble but not when it is ill defined and pursued with the thirst for blood of those that stand inyour way.

. .the truth is a free market is no longer a free market when it clashes with strategic national interests. . . .just ask the Dubai Group who wanted to take over the American ports. . . . . and the economy is of strategic interest.

EXCELLENT point Sir!! Free market is free. . . . . until . . . the future of your nation and your children is at risk of a take over. High five to you!!

Ibime:

. . . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . .  the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

It could just be,just a thought,that the reason Negro can't explain why the Bush administration ''ran a $57trn deficit" is simply because,they never ran a $57trillion deficit. I mean,it's like wondering why someone can't explain why Chelsea finished 7th last season in the EPL. It's hard to explain fiction.

There was an interesting argument earlier about whether the Bush administration "inherited" a recession. A lot of it depends on how you define a recession. The NBER tends to define it as a significant decline across all sectors of the economy,as opposed to the pedestrian definition of 2 consecutive quarters of contraction.

Anyway,according to the NBER,the '01 recession began in March 2001. Unless you are a rabid Bush hater,you can't claim it was Bush's fault that the economy sank into a recession barely 2 months into his reign. By September,the US suffered the 9-11 attacks and the rest is history.

I noted earlier in some other thread that the halcyon post-Cold War economic boom is a once in a lifetime phenomenon.Such anomalous economic booms are a rarity and are always followed by depressed growth.

In fact on the $57trn I gave him a response without going into the specifics. I hope he was not asking for specifics or I may have to refer him to OBM - Office of Budget & Management.

What he has simply done is cite the estimated unfunded costs of health care and social security and quoted it as deficits run by Bush.

He was asking how Bush spent $57 trillion,his curiosity in this regard is no where near mine giving that the Fed budget only just hit $3trillion. Total Fed expenditure over the past 8 years is barely half that,never mind deficits of $57 trillion.

4 Play:

It could just be,just a thought,that the reason Negro can't explain why the Bush administration ''ran a $57trn deficit" is simply because,they never ran a $57trillion deficit. I mean,it's like wondering why someone can't explain why Chelsea finished 7th last season in the EPL. It's hard to explain fiction.

Don't blame me. I heard it on Fox News on Hannity and Colmes. It shows the level of journalism on Fox, that Sean Hannity could not correct that misstatement and allowed such disinformation to seep into the public domain.

On closer inspection, I think this is what they were alluding to:

As of September 2008, the total US. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per US. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


Anyway, back to my point. Let us agree that US debt is circa $10bn or 37.9% of GDP compared to circa 35% inherited from Bill Clinton.

Having spent $1.35 trn on tax cuts, how many jobs did George Bush add to the economy? GDP grew at a slower rate under George Bush than Bill Clinton and September 11 not withstanding, Bush was never able to pull unemployment down to the 4.2% he inherited from Clinton. Infact, the best he managed was 4.5%. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton also took over in the immediate aftermath of a recession.

4 Play:

There was an interesting argument earlier about whether the Bush administration "inherited" a recession. A lot of it depends on how you define a recession. The NBER tends to define it as a significant decline across all sectors of the economy,as opposed to the pedestrian definition of 2 consecutive quarters of contraction.

Anyway,according to the NBER,the '01 recession began in March 2001. Unless you are a rabid Bush hater,you can't claim it was Bush's fault that the economy sank into a recession barely 2 months into his reign. By September,the US suffered the 9-11 attacks and the rest is history.

Nobody blamed George Bush for the recession. As I said before, markets control their cycles, not Government.

Coming back to your NBER definition, recession is widely recognised as a recession and that is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Choosing NBER's definition to suit your views is a bit of a low blow and would not be recognised in a court of law. Are we in a recession now? Not while GDP is still growing although barely. Could we be in a recession next year? Quite likely. I understand where you are coming from. . . . but lets argue with worldwise recognise facts.

Infact the dotcom bubble did not cause the recession, September 11 did. The economy had shown signs of recovery and GDP posted positive growth in the second quarter of 2001 although a small percentage. No doubt the economy would have recovered but for Setember 11. Infact, a 1% drop in interest rates was all it took to stabilise the economy after the dot com bubble compared to the 3.25% cuts we have seen for the credit crunch with economic problems still pending. Infact, cutting interest rates for the dotcom bubble was what caused the irresponsible lending that led us to the crisis we see today. So getting back to politics, the significance of the dot com burst is understandable, but if not for September 11, it is unlikely that Republicans would be saying now that Clinton left in a recession.

ROFLMAO!! How easy it is to blame all on the side we are against even when it is clear we are the one in error. ROFLMAO!!

Kobo, STFU if you have nothing significant to contribute. Where grown ups are talking, you should stay quiet. Go on youtube and find Hannity and Colmes show from yesterday if you think I am lying.

Ibime:

Kobo, STFU if you have nothing significant to contribute. Where grown ups are talking, you should stay quiet. Go on youtube and find Hannity and Colmes show from yesterday if you think I am lying.

It is ok if you want to believe you are a grown up talking. I wonder how many actual grown ups feel the need to cuss when trying to make a point. Does cussing validate points, even when they are based on untruths and bias?

Always good to have those beliefs to make you feel good even, right?? LoL. I thought, according to you, I am the FOX expert here?? I didn't realize that fox's website is now wikipedia.

this election is not about issues the republican masters wont let that be. why should they? this election is about winning the election.period.

today the issue is lipstick , yesterday McCain and Obama were struggling to define change
last month the issue was paris hilton

confuse everybody and win the election , that is the republicans for you those guys know americans very well. in a country where paris hilton is a celebrity how do you think the voters will vote? with their brains

anyway, pallin selection was a master stroke. i said it then. it is clear now. obama camp is shaken to its very roots.

McCain all the way a war hero should be rewarded

@ Kobo. . .


Should I get into an argument with you about how I appropriated miscorrect information from a News Network or should I ask for your forgiveness for misrepresenting facts due to a genuine error. . . .  or should I just ignore you so that you don't derail this thread as you usually do? I will do the latter.

You are quite good at cheerleading from the sidelines. The fact is that my incorrect information has been on the thread all day and you had not the nous to correct it. Therefore you are complicit in my crime just like I was complicit in Sean Hannity's crime who was also complicit in Chuck Norris' crime. It is only when a qualified man like 4Play shows up that you have mouth to talk. He is the only person I am accountable to for my mistake, not you.

Please just hold on until the big boys come back to play unless you have something factual to discuss. No need to derail the thread now.

I love that,  big boys talk!!! have the boys back in Nigeria revived that old slang? yes,  let the big boy continue to throw tantrums in the name of debating ideas. Anywho, please carry on,  no need to pay any attention to me and my laughs,  I have been at it from the beginning of the thread,  funny how you only noticed now and decided to go for the bait.   


By the way, I don't think you have been debating. You seem more like you have been throwing a tantrum, considering your logic seems to be that all those who do not share your view need to be condemned, and blamed for all the wrong. Now they need to explain themselves even when you do not have any facts on where one actually stand on issues.

McCain all the way a war hero should be rewarded

The same war hero that voted for veteran benefits to be slashed?

I am hoping that people go this time to the polls educated on the choices and understand facts, rather than cast votes out of bitterness for one side or the other.

Kobo,

Who is throwing tantrums? You better believe foul language is not alien to me. I specialise in turning the air blue when the mood takes me.

Anyway, back to you . . . The purpose of debate is to sharpen minds. Writing down incoherent moral edicts on how I should conduct myself on a public forum does nothing for me. Neither does ROFL your ass off all over the thread. The value of any communication with you is measured in the amount of information you bring. If I want to engage in trivial frivolities, I will take myself to the Romance section - and if I want to engage in banter, I will be in the football section - so shut the Hare Krishna up and stop distracting me like Republicans do Obama. 



Anyway, back to the issue. . .  out of a geuine spirit, I grossly misrepresented the level of US debt. . . . however, all my economic arguments still stand. . .

Bush cut taxes by a large amount but still never managed to achieve the unemployment rates that Clinton left him with. . . Clinton created 19 million jobs net, Bush has created less than 4.5million net despite $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. . . based on this, it would take him more than $6 trillion in tax cuts just to create the amount of jobs that Bill Clinton created for free. . . . .divide $1.35trillion by 4.5million, lets see how much it takes to create one job. . . . that is almost $400,000 in tax cuts for every job created. . . . why didn't he just dash the 4.5 million people $400,000 each and let them go on holiday to Cancun?  . . . . even if we argue that the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts will not be fully expended till 2012, on current form, each job would cost more than $200,000 to create. . . . Clinton created jobs whilst raising taxes. . . . . . infact, you have to add job creation during Reagan, Ford and Bush Senior to equal Clinton alone. . . of course, Republicans don’t recognise this because they are mind programmed into worrying about abortion, moose hunting and such. . . .GDP growth on average under Bush was less than Clinton’s. . . poverty rates have increased under Bush. . . He has turned a $5.6 trillion deficit into a $9.7 trillion deficit. . . . take (9.7-5.6)/8 = 500bn. George Bush runs an average 500 billion budget deficit every year, all on a phony war and tax cuts which produce little jobs and GDP which does not grow as fast as Clinton’s did. . . .Clinton ran a budget surplus for the last 4 years of his presidency. . . .tick any box, the Republicans have committed enough sins to be voted out for another 8 years at least. . .  .

Applying Laffer’s model of tax cuts during the recession was sensible but Bush’s mistake was to extend those tax cuts to 2012. . . .the economy needed short-run stimulus without increasing the long-run deficit . . . . it has left George Bush little room to manoeuvre during the current crisis because taxes are already quite low and budgets quite strained. . . not to mention that the cost of borrowing to fund budget deficits has increased.

The truth is that fiscal policies such as tax cuts are supposed to work in a countercyclical fashion. . . . like everything else, tax-stimulus suffers from the laws of diminishing returns - especially as market saturation kicks in. . . .  . Obama wants to raise corporate tax which is wrong but McCain wants to keep corporate tax at Bush’s rates until 2012 (and then probably extend it) which is just as bad if not worse. . . . tax rates need to be cut in the short term and brought back up once the economy recovers. . . if there is anything I have learnt in life, it is that bullish economies take care of themselves and do not need Government tax cuts to help them. . . it is better for Government to save during a bullish cycle and spend during a bearish cycle as Okonjo-Iweala pointed out to Obasanjo. . . .George Bush failed woefully in this. . . . . unfortunately, politicians tend to take leave of common sense and tow partisan lines when it comes to the economy. . . .there is no such thing as a clear dichotomy between tax cuts being good and tax rises being bad as 4Play once suggested. . . . . .

In the end, every fiscal policy is judged on its performance. . . .so that leads me to ask: where is the value for money in the Bush tax cuts?. . . . the returns under the Bush administration do not justify the expenditure and his reign has been at worst, an economic failure, or at best, indifferent.