The Watering Hole

Hookbender — Nov 20, 2010Again, the tax payers are not big business bailout companies. We should never be FORCED to do this, ever. For any reason.

Sorry - must have missed the bit where you gave the reasons why - is it because Jesus said so ?

Never ? - Even when it is in the tax payers interests to do so ?
That article makes the case that the action saved the tax payer 19 billion.
If you dispute it - then  make the counter argument, one that exposes the flaws.

Resorting to stating unsupportable dogma and claiming it as truth is pathetic.
Especially confused and hypocritical when you also  argue for a bail out of the housing market,

At least get your principles straight, are you absolute on it like you state ?
No tax payer bailouts at all - let the whole edifice fall and pick up the pieces after.

Else you are no different - just  picking and choosing where you will and will not bail out.
The onlyt difference is smarter people are making the choices.

President Hook policy would be to try to  prop up the housing market with a several trillion bail out while letting the financial system fail.

Good luck with that plan.  :o

Housing bailout? Are you crazy?

I am consistent. But when you and others inject shit in my post, it's not a reflection on me...just a hint.

After GM recovers, it should be sold off in pieces and done away with. So should Chrysler. That way we won't have this argument again in the next few years. History is repeating itself over and over with these car companies. Enough is enough already.

That article was done by an Automotive, slash, car lover biased out the ass, detroit based crock pot.

Good guess. Excellent speculation. Wonder how much money GM, the government, paid for the results.

Actually, the article was done by Bloomberg, a well-respected and impartial financial reporting agency.

The numbers are indisputable.  Apparently, though, your "logic" isn't disputable either.

After we sell our stake in GM, why should we have any influence over what happens to the company?  Parting it out, selling it bit by bit?  What is GM, a monopoly now?  Bell Telephone?  If you believe in capitalism, then once we've sold our stake, GM should do whatever it's shareholders want it to do to remain profitable.

The point of the article, and the point that's lost in your argument, is that the bailout of GM accomplished two things: it saved American jobs (lots of them), and it saved us money.  If you consider saving jobs and saving money a negative, then there is absolutely no way anything this government does financially can please you.

How many more times should tax payers bail out car companies? Who else is gonna call on the government, or tax payers, for some help?  

Hookbender — Nov 22, 2010How many more times should tax payers bail out car companies? Who else is gonna call on the government, or tax payers, for some help?  

As long as it is profitable on balance to do so, governments weigh up the pros and cons and then act.

What do you think they do ?

They considered the "moral hazard" of bail outs and weighed it up with all the other serious implications.

Under Bush it was a major discussion, not ideologically but because congress was beligerently opposed
to a bail out for dogmatic reasons.

The insiders including Bush didn't need to be convinced on the balance, they knew the situation was terminally bad and getting worse by then,
AIG was on the table - as an institution that was too big to fail.

Effectively Lehman had to fail for political reasons, it was destined to by it, the fall out scared the shit out of everyone and congress then bent over.

But if the government could have  - it probably would have saved Lehman - and it would have been a lot cheaper to do so.
But Lehman earnt the right to save AIG which was the big fish that would simply destroy the global financial system.

That is the oddest thing about this whole financial crisis - a total failure of politics,
The executive knew and had long stopped being ideological about things,

But to get the populist politics onside - it required a hugely destructive financial act.

Akin to letting a nuke fall on a major city in order to persuade the population the a nuke deterrent is necessary.

And even now - after all this crap  - you have hook banging on about  money.

Rewind two years - this money you are worried about was in danger of simply devaluing to next to zero in a financial system collapse.

Which would be interesting times.


Someone good needs to write a distaser movie book on a global financial system collapse,

trouble is it has so many scenarios that can play out.
It would be incredibly volatile with countries trying to get some control and get their economies running again.
Wars would be inevitable.

It could be exciting :)
bring it on  ;D

Hookbender — Nov 22, 2010How many more times should tax payers bail out car companies? Who else is gonna call on the government, or tax payers, for some help?  

When companies or industries need help and the government can help, and doing so will save jobs and or prevent calamity, then we do it.  Why the fuck not? I'd much rather have our government help us from financial disaster than allow it.  And no matter what kind of good game you talk, so would you...

charger — Nov 23, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/50#53 date=1290421310]How many more times should tax payers bail out car companies? Who else is gonna call on the government, or tax payers, for some help?  

When companies or industries need help and the government can help, and doing so will save jobs and or prevent calamity, then we do it.  Why the fuck not? I'd much rather have our government help us from financial disaster than allow it.  And no matter what kind of good game you talk, so would you...

Here's the thing Charger. Bailing out, helping out, whatever you call it, why should you do it continuously for the same company? I can see the deal once, but thats it. Now that we saved 2 car companies, we should take measures so that the companies can't be deemed to big to fail. We need to make sure this can't happen again, no matter what it takes.  

Hookbender — Nov 23, 2010[quote author=charger link=1289778639/50#55 date=1290471863][quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/50#53 date=1290421310]How many more times should tax payers bail out car companies? Who else is gonna call on the government, or tax payers, for some help?  

When companies or industries need help and the government can help, and doing so will save jobs and or prevent calamity, then we do it.  Why the fuck not? I'd much rather have our government help us from financial disaster than allow it.  And no matter what kind of good game you talk, so would you...

Here's the thing Charger. Bailing out, helping out, whatever you call it, why should you do it continuously for the same company? I can see the deal once, but thats it. Now that we saved 2 car companies, we should take measures so that the companies can't be deemed to big to fail. We need to make sure this can't happen again, no matter what it takes.  


How many times has the banking system been bailed out?  Are you ready to let it fail?

And I don't think GM is "too big too fail" on the scale of AIG.  I think the president and his economic advisers saw a company that employed somewhere on the order of a million people through the company and its subsidiaries in the US, looked at the economic risks and possible payoffs, and made--the RIGHT call.  As the numbers now prove.  We've already made more than we would have lost JUST ON REVENUES to this point so far.  And, I'm not sure if you can put a price on a million jobs.  You often seem quite concerned about unemployment.  Except when something Obama does has, or might have had, a positive effect on it.

I hate it, but I agree with the AIG thing.

I hate the car industry thing too, and disapprove of any help to a proven failure when the help doesn't include preventative measures to insure tax payers never have to do this again. The difference is the car companies have had this done time after time.

Has little to do with Obama, other than it just happens to be him in charge this time.

I hate to bust your bubble on the economy but......


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fed_forecast


....do these fuckers never get tired of straight up lying to the public?

Hookbender — Nov 24, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fed_forecast


....do these fuckers never get tired of straight up lying to the public?

Huh - That's a recent economic forecast from the fed.

Are you saying they are liars.
That's their best guess - they don't actually know or even pretend to know.
They just make estimates based on the evidence available.

You want liars - go look at the tea party you support - a bunch of fucking economically illiterate snake oil salesmen.

a bunch of dildos

Waiting to be  stuck up sarah palins crack when she becomes President  :-X

Oh, is that it. I don't agree with some policies of the great Obama so I'm a tea party dude. Is that the best ya got?

I guess I better brush up on my Jesus books cause I feel a change coming on. Ya gonna call me a preacher now? ;D

The feds predict it, the media runs with it. As truth.

Regardless, the economy isn't doing so good right now.

It's like a long range weather forecast, it isn't reliable but it is best estimate based on the available data

The media doesn't run it as truth but as a forecast.

They can't help if some people are too stupid to make the distinction  :P

OK, watch fox news.

Well Fox news is targeted to the  dumb  - rightwing political opinion spun as news - it's not news.
Are they reporting it as fact - I don't watch it as it isn't shown over here.
If they are it will be because the relish bad news as their primary objective is to see the Obama administration fail as that hate outweighs your concerns.


That yahoo report was simply factual - but you called them liars for it.

Yer right Hook...Fox news never gets tired of lying to the public!

fingers — Nov 24, 2010Well Fox news is targeted to the  dumb  - rightwing political opinion spun as news - it's not news.
Are they reporting it as fact - I don't watch it as it isn't shown over here.
If they are it will be because the relish bad news as their primary objective is to see the Obama administration fail as that hate outweighs your concerns.


That yahoo report was simply factual - but you called them liars for it.

Whatever. The government misleads, or lies, to the public constantly. Healthcare....the prediction of cost they give...that shit won't be close to actual cost. Obama says unemployment won't get over 8 or so percent. Not even close. Need I continue? Then the media gets it, and liberal media promotes the shit out of it. Its bullshit. Ya can't trust our government at all.

Yeah, those dirty liberals....especially the ones at FOX!

Fox sucks...  Can't stand the yapping.  What's even worse is they're the best that's on TV!  :(

The best comedy mebee or at least the closest to THX tv.

Hookbender — Nov 25, 2010

Whatever. The government misleads, or lies, to the public constantly. Healthcare....the prediction of cost they give...that shit won't be close to actual cost. Obama says unemployment won't get over 8 or so percent. Not even close. Need I continue? Then the media gets it, and liberal media promotes the shit out of it. Its bullshit. Ya can't trust our government at all.

Yeah - when Bush set out his economic policies he forecast that he would wreck the econonomy, but in the short tem tax cuts would get him elected.

You ever wonder about the shock jocks on Fox and elsewhere promotiong Palin as president,
Palin who vowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with North Korea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332876/Sarah-Palins-North-Korea-gaffe-We-gotta-stand-allies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Do you reckon they might be not be honest about their agenda.

Fox does the same thing.

But Palin is an idiot. She doesn't mislead, she's just fucking stupid.

Hookbender — Nov 25, 2010Fox does the same thing.

But Palin is an idiot. She doesn't mislead, she's just fucking stupid.

Fox is not the same...it's closer to a geek show than it is news.  

Can't wait for them to mislead you into voting for Palin.

While Palin is stupid, I do like some things she stands for. Not sure I'd vote for her though. I'd consider it over Obama for sure. He gonna break the country with his spending habits. :o

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hookbender — Nov 25, 2010While Palin is stupid, I do like some things she stands for. Not sure I'd vote for her though. I'd consider it over Obama for sure. He gonna break the country with his spending habits. :o

You should vote for her if she reflects your deep understanding of the issues

btw - if Obama leaves the US still financially bust and then Palin takes over.
Will you be blaming it all on Palin a year into her preisdency ?

I betcha won't  :P

Of course not, Obama doesn't shoot people who disagree with him!  ;) ;D

FOX will not allow that blame to happen on their watch.


"Ever had the feeling you've been cheated?"

fingers — Nov 26, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/50#72 date=1290719443]While Palin is stupid, I do like some things she stands for. Not sure I'd vote for her though. I'd consider it over Obama for sure. He gonna break the country with his spending habits. :o

You should vote for her if she reflects your deep understanding of the issues


Ahhh, now we're getting to the heart of the subject. You see, all you need to do is vote for the person with the most liked issues. She wouldn't be much more than a talking head. If she could let someone write her speeches for her and read a screen like Obama did, she'd probably beat Obama. She would really have to give away the one on one debates and learn to say little, or as little as possible. When she speaks on her own she exposes her stupidity. ;D

I would be more concerned about who she has in her group than her, herself. Who she picks to be on her staff will win or lose it for me.

fingers — Nov 26, 2010btw - if Obama leaves the US still financially bust and then Palin takes over.
Will you be blaming it all on Palin a year into her preisdency ?

I betcha won't  :P

I'd give her 2 years, but yeah. Obama's spent a shit load of money. Gonna take some time to get things under control. I think you'll find I'm very fair in my criticism of government. :D

What do you think she's been doing?  

She just fucks up her parroting...Reagan/Bush 3.0 beta.

Who cares? You live in Alabama. Your state is going red by a large margin. It doesn't matter whether you vote for Obama or Palin or Romney or whoever.  Sure you voted for Obama, and a fat lot of difference that made.  I'm s little sick of your crying and whining.  As if your vote entitles you to something. Honestly, you voted for the guy, then you COMPLETELY REJECTED every tenet of the platform he voted for. Just admit you voted for him to feel good about yourself, alleviate some white guilt, whatever.  Not that you had a fucking clue what his policies were or what you were really voting for.  And next time, PLEASE vote for the damn republican already. Then maybe we won't have to listen to you bitch for four years.

Hookbender — Nov 26, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1289778639/75#75 date=1290731413]btw - if Obama leaves the US still financially bust and then Palin takes over.
Will you be blaming it all on Palin a year into her preisdency ?

I betcha won't  :P

I'd give her 2 years, but yeah. Obama's spent a shit load of money. Gonna take some time to get things under control. I think you'll find I'm very fair in my criticism of government. :D


So you would give her two years, very generous as you gave Obama only one
after inheriting the biggest financial crisis and economic meltdown since the depression.

Well Palin won't inherit anywhere near as big a mess.
She will cut taxes and you'll wave as she doubles your national debt -again- like Bush.

You don't worry about debt when a republican is in power
you seem  to be a hypocrite.

charger — Nov 26, 2010Who cares? You live in Alabama. Your state is going red by a large margin. It doesn't matter whether you vote for Obama or Palin or Romney or whoever.  Sure you voted for Obama, and a fat lot of difference that made.  I'm s little sick of your crying and whining.  As if your vote entitles you to something. Honestly, you voted for the guy, then you COMPLETELY REJECTED every tenet of the platform he voted for. Just admit you voted for him to feel good about yourself, alleviate some white guilt, whatever.  Not that you had a fucking clue what his policies were or what you were really voting for.  And next time, PLEASE vote for the damn republican already. Then maybe we won't have to listen to you bitch for four years.

I don't live in Alabama anymore. I'm in Georgia, Atlanta.

And I voted for Obama, in part, because of the other choice. My vote does entitle me to something.

You sound like a little kid after his mother takes his candy away.

fingers — Nov 26, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/75#79 date=1290742188][quote author=fingers link=1289778639/75#75 date=1290731413]btw - if Obama leaves the US still financially bust and then Palin takes over.
Will you be blaming it all on Palin a year into her preisdency ?

I betcha won't  :P

I'd give her 2 years, but yeah. Obama's spent a shit load of money. Gonna take some time to get things under control. I think you'll find I'm very fair in my criticism of government. :D


So you would give her two years, very generous as you gave Obama only one
after inheriting the biggest financial crisis and economic meltdown since the depression.

Well Palin won't inherit anywhere near as big a mess.
She will cut taxes and you'll wave as she doubles your national debt -again- like Bush.

You don't worry about debt when a republican is in power
you seem  to be a hypocrite.


As I've said before, the more I learn about politics, the more my opinion changes. That will probably continue, so get used to it. Seems like you liberals have a strange way of looking at debt. You bitch about Bush and the debt he created, then Obama does the same damn thing and you say we always will have debt, its acceptable. I'm not the hypocrite here. But you can use that if it makes you feel better.

He voted himself a whipping boy to absorb the sins of his party and big business....get down wif yo badself crackahman!!!!!

Well. The deal is this.

Way back when we had all this critical thinking type arguments and I had big changes to make cause I saw my flaws. They promoted, they as in Charger, Trip etc, all this ability to change your thinking as more info was gathered. Now thats being done or practiced by myself and they don't like it because I didn't form the same opinion as they did. Well tough shit. They know all this spending is out of control no matter who's doing it. It was bad when Bush did it but ok when Obama does it. The bias is evident here. It's protect the liberal stance to the death. Even if it's wrong. All logic to the shit basket its the great Obama. How dare you go against him. Fuck that. Thats the reason political points or problems never get solved. People chose a side and fight to the death for it wrong or right. A bunch of puppets on a string. But you really can't blame them, it's all they know. Takes to much courage to change....as we see the failure of Obama's change. Even the great one can't step outside the box and that's what got him elected. The so called desire to change. When people decide to really change and hold politicians responsible for their actions, maybe we'll get somewhere.

Hookbender — Nov 26, 2010

As I've said before, the more I learn about politics, the more my opinion changes. That will probably continue, so get used to it. Seems like you liberals have a strange way of looking at debt. You bitch about Bush and the debt he created, then Obama does the same damn thing and you say we always will have debt, its acceptable. I'm not the hypocrite here. But you can use that if it makes you feel better.

Less your opinion changes more like.

The scale of the economic mess of the US economy in 2008,  with a huge recession, the direction of the growth of the deficit was set. It would not be sorted out in less than two years by anyone.

If you understood the first thing about economics you would know that deficits grow in recessions, a country is supposed to run a surplus in the good years which combined with GDP growth reduces the size of the debt.
Last president to do that was Clinton. Do you remember the graph?

You don't have a clue about what is going on or how it should be solved.
No answers only blank rhetoric - stop spending, get more jobs,  make the economy better, get house prices up.

A list of  wants - with no idea how to achieve them - except Vote for Palin - good luck with that.

Hookbender — Nov 26, 2010Well. The deal is this.

Way back when we had all this critical thinking type arguments and I had big changes to make cause I saw my flaws. They promoted, they as in Charger, Trip etc, all this ability to change your thinking as more info was gathered. Now thats being done or practiced by myself and they don't like it because I didn't form the same opinion as they did. Well tough shit. They know all this spending is out of control no matter who's doing it. It was bad when Bush did it but ok when Obama does it. The bias is evident here. It's protect the liberal stance to the death. Even if it's wrong. All logic to the shit basket its the great Obama. How dare you go against him. Fuck that. Thats the reason political points or problems never get solved. People chose a side and fight to the death for it wrong or right. A bunch of puppets on a string. But you really can't blame them, it's all they know. Takes to much courage to change....as we see the failure of Obama's change. Even the great one can't step outside the box and that's what got him elected. The so called desire to change. When people decide to really change and hold politicians responsible for their actions, maybe we'll get somewhere.

You've got the critical part...now work on the thinking.




Hey, were you playing basetball wif BamBam earlier?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

fingers — Nov 26, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/75#84 date=1290791787]

As I've said before, the more I learn about politics, the more my opinion changes. That will probably continue, so get used to it. Seems like you liberals have a strange way of looking at debt. You bitch about Bush and the debt he created, then Obama does the same damn thing and you say we always will have debt, its acceptable. I'm not the hypocrite here. But you can use that if it makes you feel better.

Less your opinion changes more like.

The scale of the economic mess of the US economy in 2008,  with a huge recession, the direction of the growth of the deficit was set. It would not be sorted out in less than two years by anyone.

If you understood the first thing about economics you would know that deficits grow in recessions, a country is supposed to run a surplus in the good years which combined with GDP growth reduces the size of the debt.
Last president to do that was Clinton. Do you remember the graph?

You don't have a clue about what is going on or how it should be solved.
No answers only blank rhetoric - stop spending, get more jobs,  make the economy better, get house prices up.

A list of  wants - with no idea how to achieve them - except Vote for Palin - good luck with that.





Answers??? I'm supposed to solve economic problems in the U.S.? Someone without a degree in college?

Well even I can do the basic pp&l statement and the one in question isn't working and will never work.

Isn't it the Presidents and his peeps job of solving problems? Educated people that are a mere reflection of the President?

I don't have to provide answers. All I have to do is present the current status of our economy now and 2 years ago as evidence of the failed economic agenda.

Its not up to me to provide answers.

I didn't say I was voting for Palin. I said I'd consider it.

If she doesn't run for President would I vote for her anyway? :D

You are working on a ludicrously short and naive timescale,

You want to understand politics and who you should vote for you need to look over a decade or more to make any sense of it.

You don't have to solve the problems, just realise they exist and what the solutions entail and what the risks and tradeoffs are.
Basically be informed enough to judge the experts credentials.

At the moment you are at the stage where if you were going to chose a doctor -

you can't tell the diffference between a witch doctor shaking some bones at you or a surgeon from Princeton.

The witch doctor seems to be a bit of an idiot, but claims to cure you over night and that's good enough.

fingers — Nov 26, 2010You are working on a ludicrously short and naive timescale,

You want to understand politics and who you should vote for you need to look over a decade or more to make any sense of it.

You don't have to solve the problems, just realise they exist and what the solutions entail and what the risks and tradeoffs are.
Basically be informed enough to judge the experts credentials.

At the moment you are at the stage where if you were going to chose a doctor -

you can't tell the diffference between a witch doctor shaking some bones at you or a surgeon from Princeton.

The witch doctor seems to be a bit of an idiot, but claims to cure you over night and that's good enough.

Thats funny. And wrong. And you know it. Which is again, funny.

What's wrong ?

I can't see it - you seem a typical knee-jerk

Doesn't "seem" anything. You assume. Assume away.

But mark my words. Save my post. The actions of Obama to help this economy, in the long run, are gonna hurt America. Bad.

Yeah sure - if the US goes down the shitter - I can assure you it won't be down to him, it will simply be it wasn't politically possible to save it.

Given people like you who want deficit cuts and tax cuts, spending cuts and spending - you just want.

The last guy you voted in wrecked your economy -  but keeping the imbicile happy was the right thing to do for votes.

The only thing markable about your words is as a record of your inane ignorant imbecility.

Hookbender — Nov 26, 2010
Answers??? I'm supposed to solve economic problems in the U.S.? Someone without a degree in college?

Well even I can do the basic pp&l statement and the one in question isn't working and will never work.

Isn't it the Presidents and his peeps job of solving problems? Educated people that are a mere reflection of the President?

I don't have to provide answers. All I have to do is present the current status of our economy now and 2 years ago as evidence of the failed economic agenda.

First. explain how the state of the economy now and the state 2 years ago is evidence of a failed economic agenda.  We were in recession two years ago.  My lord, you have a short fucking memory, and you seem to have no clue what is happening from day to day.  Are we in recession today?  If you answer yes, then, as I have said about twenty times now, I can't help you.  If you truly think we are doing worse today than we were in 2008--when we were shedding over a million jobs per quarter!!! I can't help you.

Second... you are willing to vote for people who have no problem identifying the proble--too much spending--and not a single solution to that problem.  These are people who say "we've got to stop spending" and then offer as their platform CUTTING TAXES and CUTTING PROGRAMS THAT SAVE US MONEY.  You have no clue how to get us out of this mess, but the fact that you are willing to vote for people who have even less of a clue, and have already professed that they won't cut anywhere that actually matters, means your statements of economic policy are ludicrous at best.  You have no fucking IDEA what to do, you just see anything that gets done as the wrong thing, and thats what you'll keep seeing until the economy recovers--thanks to the economic policies of Barack Obama.

Georgia--I rest my case.  Vote for fucking Bush as a write-in.  Maybe he'll give you an autographed copy of his memoirs, and you'll finally have some decent whack material.

;D ;D ;D

Wow. Thats all I can say to those post. ;D

If ya can't even see through FOX news, yer doomed to be a rube.

charger — Nov 27, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1289778639/75#89 date=1290806811]
Answers??? I'm supposed to solve economic problems in the U.S.? Someone without a degree in college?

Well even I can do the basic pp&l statement and the one in question isn't working and will never work.

Isn't it the Presidents and his peeps job of solving problems? Educated people that are a mere reflection of the President?

I don't have to provide answers. All I have to do is present the current status of our economy now and 2 years ago as evidence of the failed economic agenda.

First. explain how the state of the economy now and the state 2 years ago is evidence of a failed economic agenda.  We were in recession two years ago.  My lord, you have a short fucking memory, and you seem to have no clue what is happening from day to day.  Are we in recession today?  If you answer yes, then, as I have said about twenty times now, I can't help you.  If you truly think we are doing worse today than we were in 2008--when we were shedding over a million jobs per quarter!!! I can't help you.

Second... you are willing to vote for people who have no problem identifying the proble--too much spending--and not a single solution to that problem.  These are people who say "we've got to stop spending" and then offer as their platform CUTTING TAXES and CUTTING PROGRAMS THAT SAVE US MONEY.  You have no clue how to get us out of this mess, but the fact that you are willing to vote for people who have even less of a clue, and have already professed that they won't cut anywhere that actually matters, means your statements of economic policy are ludicrous at best.  You have no fucking IDEA what to do, you just see anything that gets done as the wrong thing, and thats what you'll keep seeing until the economy recovers--thanks to the economic policies of Barack Obama.

Georgia--I rest my case.  Vote for fucking Bush as a write-in.  Maybe he'll give you an autographed copy of his memoirs, and you'll finally have some decent whack material.

I have no clue? Well, then....Obama and the democrats must be pretty clueless also. Are they wanting to continue doing the same thing Bush did? And they bitched about the Bush tax cuts, right? Yeah, they did. And, bring back tax cuts for the middle class and business? Kinda like Bush did, right?

I hate to tell you this, but I'm kinda wondering if maybe the reason Bush is so quiet is because he's busy advising Obama to do the same as he did. Kinda looks like it, don't it? :D

The difference is, Obama waisted billions and billions of dollars in government handouts, then gets in the mix of cutting taxes on top of that. Way to go Mr. Hope and Change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tax_cuts

Right, we get it, Bammer = Bush.....now what?