₦airaland Forum

@karmaMod,

If someone gives you a million dollars and tells you that the last $100k is given to you on condition that you must spend $200k yearly for the rest of your life on the poor. Would you accept such? Is the issue the $900k or the $100k?

@KarmaMod,

lmao

did you see how much he said he WILL accept of it? Please compare the difference between what will be given to him and what he wants to accept.

If there's any state that should turn its back on assistance, it's definitely NOT Louisana. There are still homeless Katrina victims.

It's not a matter of difference, it is the effect that differnce will have on the long term financial health of the State. Why is that lost in your response? Do you know the strings that Obama attached to that money?

@David and Negro,

California is in the shit it is today because of the free-for-all spending mentality. The State clearly shows you what happens when liberal spending goes on rampage. Now they are going to increase taxes and further plunge the State into more economic abyss. I've been wondering when all these liberal elites who populate the State will start dashing money to the govt to bridge the budget gap. But no way, liberals tend to pose as mr nice guys only when public money (tax payers money) is involved! The Governator is the poster child of Bush. They sacrificed fiscal discipline in an attempt to move to the center. The truth is that the RNC can not be more centered or liberal than the DNC. What will save the RNC is to be distinguished through conservatism.

I believe the only two States that saw real growth the last quarter are Washington DC (which is really not a state), and Louisiana. The case of Washington DC is understandable. It is the seat of power where the govt keeps subsidizing inefficiencies and living above its means. Talk about a real bubble. Louisiana while not immune from the global recession is showing the rest of the states how to govern. The guy has cut taxes up to six times since he became governor and the private sector has responded by creating more jobs.

He recently declared he will be refusing some of the money that Obama is giving to the States declaring that it will create a burden for the States on the long run. many people criticised him for such a move and sme even called it racism. Now, other Republican govenors are toeing this same path and a Democratic governor has expressed Jindal's same setiments. I really think this Jindal guy is a star to be watched!

@pres-elect,

i think the republicans may have wanted jindal to flop so that palin will have easier access in 20I2 and flop he did
of all things to use as an example of how govt should work, it is katrina these republicans are so psychotic . . . . . . delusional and thrive on denial

You obviously lost the plot. The story was meant to show the problem when the govt is utterly relied upon. If Katrina was such a devastating blow to the Republicans, how come a Republican won the seat over the incumbent - a Democrat?

@pres-elect,

hmmn, i really wonder how much u know this woman to be able to read her mind like this

una de try o,

Get used to it my guy. This is politics. Dramatisation and the liberal use of hyperboles are the order of the day!

@Hauwa,

I was watching her too. she clapped so much that day and always the first to get off her seat. it really showed she liked him.

No! It only shows she's excited she has in the White House, someone who will always rubber stamp her every proposal. She is excited for herself, not Obama! Anyone who knows Pelosi enough knows she will sacrifice even her mother on the altar of self-interest!

@topic,

Are we now to trump style over substance? Indeed Palin has got the style, but Jindall has got far more substance. No doubt Jindall did not carry himself or his message well yesterday, but you can't but accept the fact that he is the closest thing to Reagan when you listen to him, say on the radio.

@bawomolo,

I think we all saw this coming. black people would attribute every criticism of Barrack Obama to racism. The white man would always be out to get him as they say,

So right. It was in the news this past week that one Black Democrat accused any Republican Governor who refuse to accept the Federal Govt bailout funds of racism. Here is the story below:

COLUMBIA, S.C.: The highest-ranking black congressman says opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern governors is "a slap in the face of African-Americans."

Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina said Thursday he was insulted when the GOP governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina said they might not accept some of the money from the $787 billion stimulus package. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday he would accept the money.

Clyburn said he was trying to protect black Americans when he added a provision to the stimulus package that would let state lawmakers override governors who oppose it.

Clyburn's spokeswoman later said he didn't mean that he thought those governors were racially motivated, but rejecting it would hurt large black populations in their states. - http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/19/america/Stimulus-Governors.php

@Dede1,

The cartoon is funny and silly. It is funny because it is a cartoon and silly because Obama did not write the stimulus plan even though he supported it and signed the passage.

Which is an eloquent testimony that Obama was not the primary object of that cartoon! The chaimpazee was a referencfe to the writer of the bill which was most certainly not Obama!!!!

@Busy_body,

Hi honey, that wasn't the case. How can one monkey depict two people  The cartoon could have parodied a school of monkeys round the table if this was the case, don't you agree?

Hello honey pot.  Cartoons can't possibly catch everything.  It only needs to provide a representation.  As long as the cartoonist clearly stated that the object of their art is the writer of the bill, then it totally excludes Obama.  The singular figure could well be the legislative arm of govt.

They knew what they were doing with that inciteful cartoon of theirs  And I bet they got the reaction they wanted, just that the black people that should be up in arms, would be muffling under their breath instead, that at least Obamawhom is one of them is still president.

This explains how clever they are as well.  They indeed left so much room for different interpretations.  That could well be intentional.  

You ignored my submission regarding Bush or are you leaving that discussion for the dinner table?

@topic,

The key to understanding this cartoon is what is written below it: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus."  Everybody out there knows that it was Nancy Pelosi who wrote that Bill, even though Harry Reid tinkered with it.  At best, the cartoon clearly depicts Mrs Pelosi and Mr Reid, and by extension the congress and Senate as Monkeys.

I do agree that the cartoon is subtle but it is a stretch to consider it racist.

And by the way, where was the outrage when Bush was clearly depicted as a monkey?

@Lagosboy,

This terrorist daughter of a terrorist should shut the f*ck up and give up the stolen lands.

What is the meaning of "land of israel" someone should tell her those lands are not recognised my mordern political boundaries, if she wanted to call it that she should have lived 3000 years ago and not now.

So you agree that ancestrally, that land no doubts belong to Isreal. How then can they steal the land that belonged to their forefathers? In my opinion, the thief is the one who knows that the land does not belong to him but is using every means possible to deprive the rightful owners of their inheritance!

Who gave the land to those wandering Arabs? Or did they buy it from the prior occupants?

@Ibime,

So all of una hear the tory too?

Na so I see am o.  To think I can testify that I heard this story too in a fashion closer to the one you attest to.

To this day, this is why India is banned from footie.

Actually, my variation of the story says because of that match, FIFA decided that the Indian national team must not play again with their bare feet.  It was understood that the "juju" was in their feet.  Knowing that their juju will not work while playing with boots, India decided they will rather not play anymore soccer.  That is how the ban stayed in effect. 

Dayo, my version of Thunder Balogun story tells me that Balogun's brother was the goalkeeper. Balogun fired a hard shot that hit his brother in the belly, killing him. From then on, Thunder Balogun was banned from using his left foot by FIFA.

The version I heard went a step further describing how Thunder Balogun buried his brother.  It was claimed that T.B. refused any help with his brother's coffin.  He carried the coffin by himself unto his head and was juggling football on his way to burying his brother.   

Talk about an urban legend!

@Poster,

Don't mind them ojare. They don't believe you made that bike with your bare hands. Afterall, I made the attached airplane with my bare stinking feet.

Wetin! You want me to pose beside the flying plane too?

@Ibime,

I never argued that Bush desired home-ownership for an increasing number of minorities. this was the populist tone he embarked on that got him spending like crazy. However, he still wanted to put some checks and balance in place which the Dems summarily opposed and dismissed these checks. The Dems see such an attempt as an impedement to more housing for minorities. In that sense, both the Dems and Bush shared the same goal but Bush was out to regulate the industry and the Dems would not have it. Bush's restrictions would have cushioned the impact we are now experiencing.

It is this attempt by the govt to humanise the market that will continually put us in problem. Lending should be guided by market forces and not by govt legislation and regulations. I can't say this enough.

@Ibime,

I will not respond to your personal attacks - for now.  Let's keep this civil please.

I have just one response to show that you are out of touch with reality.  Below are exceprts of an article written in 2003.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume More, supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea8_1221606601

Is someone crying Barney Frank again?

@topic,

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Well, that didn't take long. Three weeks into the new administration and the Democrats are squandering their advantage and threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Credit House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for getting the ball rolling. Under her leadership, House Democrats excluded Republicans from having any voice in crafting the stimulus package.

Acting like children who hadn't seen Santa Claus for eight years, House Democrats busily loaded up the bill with stuff they had been unable to get for eight years. It was payback time.

Contraception, funding for the arts, restoration of the national mall, stop-smoking programs. All while Americans lose their homes, their jobs, and their savings. It was both childish and disgraceful.

Apparently tone deaf to the disgust and disappointment of Americans with the bailout package for Wall Street and the banks last year, as well as the voters' strongly stated desire for change as represented by the election of Barack Obama, House Democrats set the table for failure -- again.

Not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill, despite efforts by our new president to reach out to the other side. Nancy Pelosi strikes again.

When asked if the lack of Republican support was at least partly her fault, she gave some snotty answer about not being partisan but working for the American people. Right.

My guess is President Obama is busy these days sticking pins in his Nancy Pelosi doll. To his credit, Obama argued against a lot of the pork while stressing that time is our enemy. Pelosi could care less.

As the legislation headed for the Senate amid cries for more stimulus and less pork, the Republicans pounced. Sensing yet another Democratic miscalculation, the Republicans seized the advantage in the debate.

They want more tax cuts and more real stimulus -- stuff that will create jobs now. Not some pie in the sky proposal that may pay dividends years down the road. And they're right.

The real game starts if and when the Senate passes a bill devoid of a bunch of the garbage the House Democrats stuffed into it. Then it goes to a conference committee where the drama will be whether, in a grand twist of irony, President Obama and the Republicans wind up aligned against members of the Democratic Party in an effort to get something realistic on the table before the economy simply slides the rest of the way into a deep crevasse.

Meanwhile, angry voters are jamming Capitol Hill phone lines screaming about the politics as usual that is so far the hallmark of the new administration. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Obama.

When it comes to the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi, what was it Pogo used to say? "We have met the enemy and it is us." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/cafferty.house/index.html

@davidylan,

When will they "correct themselves"? 2014 when the democrats would have been voted out of power by rethuglicans like you who would have accused them of standing by while millions lost their jobs?

Two things. First, this is no time for political posturing. A correction has to take place and it will be painful. You think I find it funny that I have lost almost half a million dollars in real estate value? Second, the current proposals is not guaranteed to solve the problem. So why throw good borrowed money after bad?

Whether they like it or not, the Dems will still find themselves in that unenviable position in 2014. Just as 911 was thrust on Bush, this economic meltdown is Obama's economic 911.

@Davidylan,

What is the republican alternative and what is its long and short term impact? Thank you.

I am not a Republican and will not speak for them.  However, there are two things that will help and that is a combination of leaving the markets alone to correct itself and tax cuts.

Corporate tax is one that needs to be cut to reduce the cost of doing business and freeing up more money for both investment and expansion.  Leaving the market alone to correct itself ensures that there is no bubble that will eventually burst in the near future.  This makes for a stronger economy.

There will be pain in the short term, but we will not be mortgaging our children's future to ameliorate a present problem that does not eliminate the threat but masks it.

So tell me, how does Obama's plan solve the problem?

@davidylan,

more than 60yrs after he created them we now blame FDR?   What next? Blame Washington for founding the country in the first place?

Perhaps Yes!  

But seriously, what is being proposed is unsustainable in the long run.  We are told this stimulus will negatively affect GDP but will permanently increase govt spending.  Now how do you sustain that?

@bawomolo,

would you have given FDR this advice?

You wonder why almost all of FDRs pet projects are in trouble today and part of the trouble of the economy - FHA, Fannie Mae and Social Security.

the thing is after the big boys like Caterpillar collapse, there would be nothing left. Where would the upstart companies to replace them get financing??

Wellsfargo bought Wachovia. Buffet basically bought Goldman Sachs. The truth is that recessions provides opportunities for redistribution of wealth. The question is will the redistribution favour govt or the citizens?

Let me try and answer all you guys in one swoop.

First to Ibime. Can you kindly tell us what the purpose of the bank bailout is? You are here telling us what it has supposedly achieved and you cannot tell us if it achieve the intended aim - credit flow. Abegi.

@pres-elect,

You talk as if govt surplus is the only yardstick for measuring a govt's success. If that is the case, then Obama is already a failure becuase he is going to have a greater budget deficit than Bush even in his first year. Now to the issue of Bill Clinton. Everyone knows the subprime mortgage was initiated during Clinton's era. That is the foundation for the crisis today. Sitting there and talking about surplus as if it nullifies the market anomaly that Clinton initiated is at best self-deceit.

@Davidylan,

Bush's spending was on much more than the war. Go get your facts. It is unfortunate that while calling for tax cuts, he countered the effects thrrough run-away spending. Do you call $4.1 billion to ACORN an economic stimulus? What about the $600 million to buy cars for govt employees? How about the money for digital converters for television?

@Ibime,

I am aware that while the subprime mortgage problems is the foundation, the fact that wall street basically initiated investments on these mortgages compounded the problem. Why do I blame Dems? Becuase they initiated the subprime mortgage mess which is nothing but a manipulation of the markets. Bush tried to curtail this situation and was resisted by the Dems. McCain also warned about this issue in a bill he co-sponsored but never passed the Senate because of you-know-who. On top of that, they promoted govt backing up these mortgages against failure. What that says to Wall Street is that no matter how screwed up the investment, the govt will bail them out. It was an investment that says you either make profit or you break even. Who won't do that?

This is why I have always maintained that the govt should leave the markets alone. Intervention screwed this thing up and more intervention will not solve it. Even countries with heavy govt involvement and retrictions are facing this global financial meltdown. So why are we asking for more govt intervention.

The most annoying part of this whole deal is this. No one has come out to say they are sure that the money being spent will solve the problem. So what is the use of throwing money at it?

@topic,

Abuja is a really nice place which I will definitely relocate to if I were planning to go back to Nigeria.  I lived in Abuja for almost 4 years before moving to the US.  To say I miss the place is an understatement.  I stayed briefly with my aunt in Asokoro, and moved out to live in hotels for almost two years.  My aunt was always scared and apprehensive because I travelled a lot.  I just had to move out to give her some peace of mind.  

I spent my last 18 months in my own house in Lugbe and even though it was safe, you usually hear the sound of gun shots now and agin at nights.  I think the place was becoming relatively unsafe at the tail end of my stay.

While Abuja can be an expensive place to live in, you can also make money like no man's business there.  I wasn't into business in Abuja and so cannot advise.  However, I was a professional doing a lot of construction work. I think civil and structural engineers will have a field day in Abuja.

But I do have some concerns though.  I bought a piece of land in Apo and I am yet to get my C of O.  I understand my property is among the ones shared by some lawmakers and that they will be giving me another land to replace the one I bought.  It is this kind of issues that really puts you off about the country.  I had all my papers and bought the thing legitimately but you have people in power disregarding all protocols. Hopefully, I'll have all that sorted out later this year.  It's dragged on for too long already.

I wish you good luck with your decision.

@bawomolo,

You guys are not in tune with reality. Companies like John deere and Caterpillar who depend on the US construction industry and exports to china are in need of these stimulus projects. how do you think caterpillar would fix itself if nobody is building new houses, malls, restaurants etc?? consultancy companies like Accenture etc are in big trouble too.

So what is your take? that the govt should go bail them out too? How many people will the govt bail out? Where does it end? Should the govt come bail me out for almost half a million dollars in lost values of my real estates? The reality is that the govt can't bail everybody out, and should not even try!

yes it's their faults they can't find financing for their interest payments or their markets dried up due to circumstances beyond their control

The nature of markets is that the strong survives and the weak either die or are taken over by the strong. Why do you guys accept the principles of natural selection by Darwin but ignore it in the market place?

@topic,

Some have graduated from throwing shoes to throwing underwear - pink ones to be exact. India is the leading exporter of that one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7880377.stm

@Davidylan,

Bush inherited a budget surplus. For all we criticize Clinton for he did his best.

But he sowed a seed that has come to bloom now.  Even when Bush and some Republicans tried to make changes, the Dems in the Senate won't hear it.

Now the bailoout is Obama's fault? Didnt McCain suspend his campaign to go "work for Americans"?

Didn't you read my response?  I said all the rogues in the House and the Senate are inclusive.  The two you mentioned are just the firsts among equal rogues.

This is not a republican "learning from mistakes" . . . it is a party looking to use this opposition to breath fresh air to a dying party.

Maybe you are right, and maybe not.  But the Republicans lost their way under Bush with massive govt spending.  It has brought them to where they are today.  they must be very stupid to not use this opportunity to steer themselves back as a Party towards fiscal conservatism. 

And by the way, don't you think the DEMS are using this opportunity to fund thier pet projects? That is more nauseating than anything else you can imagine.  Obama promised during the campaighn that he will veto every bill line by line to rid it of all porks.  And as typical, he is proving himself to be a hypocrit in this one.

this recession we inherited from Bush hasnt ended yet . . . even with tax cuts?

Unlike the other two, Bush responded to this recession by spending.  He was under so much pressure to do so from the Dems who vowed to not just make his tax cuts permannet but repeal them altogether.

Spending $10bn a month in Iraq since 2003 is way more than the stimulus will be costing the US. Thanks Rethuglicans . . .

War is a differnet scenario that must not be waged based on economics.  I think it was Winston Churchill who was being criticised for the way he waged a war. His response? "When I win, no one will criticize but when I lose, there will be no one left to criticize"  On the other hand, defense spending is mostly spent on the American economy.  The only portion of the money that is spent in Iraq is that for rebuilding.  Money for the tanks and ammunitions are spent on American companies and not elsewhere.  So that defeats your charges about the mony being drained from America becuase it eventually ends up there.

@Ibime,

Really? What was it intended to do? Enlighten us please!

It was intended to get credit flowing again. Where is that credit naa?

@Davidylan,

1. The republicans are the reason we are here in the first place so shut up.

That is not true. The problem has its roots in the Clinton's era. How soon we forget history.
'

2. Introducing a salary cap for execs may not be the best thing to do but its far better than Bush giving bailed out companies billions so they can pay themselves $18m in bonuses.

Was that why he gave the money? Wasn't his plans approved by Obama and all the rogues in the Senate and House?

3. Republicans have refused to back the stimulus bill (dont forget these same idiots backed McCain when he wanted a $750b bailout for car companies that is today dead in the water) . . . not because they have a workable alternative (if not we wont be here today anyway) but because opposing it is the only left to energise a defeated party.

Maybe they've come to realise it is a bad idea. Afterall, the first bailout hasn't done what it was intended to do. Only a foolish person that never learns from his mistakes.

4. Besides bashing the government, what has the OP suggested we do?

Just try and do some research. Google will help you a lot here.

5. Pls dont give me tax cuts, we've tried them in the past . . . if they worked we wont be suggesting it as another alternative again.

The same tax cuts ensured two recessions under Bush were the shortest ever. Have you ever wondered why the US economy did not collapse after 911? And haven't we tried throwing money at the problem? What is the result?

@Davidylan,

But they nor you tell us what the ramifications for leaving the market alone would mean for the recession, the millions who are out of jobs, the crashing banks, plunging stocks, poor healthcare and home foreclosures.

For your information, we are already in a recession. Tough times come upon people as individuals and upon nations as a whole. Tough times are indications that something is not right with the status quo, and unfortunately we are getting more of the same with Obama. Never mind what they will make us believe. The truth is that people will suffer, hopes will be dashed and fortunes will be lost and won. I know what I am talking about. I have lost up to $500,000.00 in real estate value since this wahala began and i am not sure it is not going to be more.

The market by definition does not rely on human emotions and empathy for it to operate at its optimum level. Infact, putting this into considereation kills the market, and that is what happened during Clinton's administration that Bush eventually inherited. Democrats insisted on giving loans to people not based on market dictates but on what is supposedly human empathy. See where that has brought us now. It is unfortunate that this human side is being brought into it again. The same people who caused the problem are now the people left to find a solution. It is so scary!!!!!!!

Isnt it just easier to pontificate from our bedrooms?

This is not pontification, it is common sense. Minimal govt intervention brought about this mess. Now imagine what would happen with greater govt intervention!

@pres-elect,

I thought we were finally having a discussion on nairaland where ideas though conflicting, have not and will not lead to personality clashes.  But of course, it was too much of me to expect such a lofty ideal in a debate participant such as pres-elect. 

What you have done is nothing short of clouding your ignorance.  I am not really surprised anyway.  It is easier to manufacturer expletives than to come up with ideas.  I have explained why I think the market should be allowed to correct itself, but you are yet to explain how Obama's plan or any other one out there will stop the madness. 

You have outrightly condemned the report of the CBO which is an organisation set up to evaluate the consequences of legislation against it's intended impact.  You sure position yourself as one who ignores facts to glorify foolishness.  I am not one of those.

Now to the issue of govt action being required.  Wisdom sometimes dictates that all the action needed atimes is inaction.  The govt has actively guided the market in recent times and the market is pushing back.  It only makes sense that the market should be allowed to attain a balance that is sustainable on the long run.  Govt intervention will do nothing but create a bubble that will eventually burst.  What we are creating for the future will be worse than what is happening now.

The CBO just mentioned that the GDP will be negatively affected by Obama's stimulus package. Everyone knows that part of the stimulus package was to help create more govt infrastructure.  Govt infrastructures will need to be maintained with money.  The resulting effect is that there will be more competition for the less resources generated because of the reduction in GDP.  You wanna chart the way out of that?  That is probably too much to ask from you.  I should leave the assignment to more intellectually inclined people in your court such as bawomolo.

@pres-elect, bawomolo and Davidylan,

Tinkering with the market got us in this problem in the first place. So to think that further tinkering will solve the problem is to me, foolsih and stupid. Bush spent more money than any govt in US history and $800 billion was allocated to reverse bank failures and yet we see no effect but things have steadily grown worse. To now think more govt spending and manipulation of markets will solve this problem is fool-hardy.

Can you all say for sure that this plan will work? Obama is beginning to sound like Bush when this wahala started. "If the bill is not passed at so and so time, we will be faced with dire consequences." Using fear to manipulate people and promote govt spending that isn't sure of solving the problems is criminal in my opinion. And bothe Bush and Obama are just as guilty.

@pres-elect,

Did you read the article at all? They compared Obama's plan to what will happen if they left the market alone. That is what I have always said. Leave the market alone. I cannot invest when there is the possibility that I will be competing against a govt bailout.

You might want to find out what the CBO is all about. Of course other sources in the tank for Obama won't print the story. Anything to cast doubt on the Messiah's actions must be summarily dismissed. And by the way, There was not a single line in the article that represents the Post's opinion. This was outright reporting on an event which is what others find it difficult to do.