Sad day for America

That's one opinion.

Foreign affairs experience, your kidding right? The only thing they did right was send more troop to Afghanistan, everything else they have the done with foreign affairs has been screw up. From bowing to kings and dictators to fighting with the Israelis.

Unfortunately for us the voters SHOULD have considered the ONE person, of the four running for most important EXECUTIVE positions in the world President and Vice President of the United States, who had far MORE EXECUTIVE experience than all THREE of the others COMBINED.

Perhaps if they had considered EXECUTIVE experience the country world not be in the mess that the two with NO EXECUTIVE experience, have gotten it into.

Everything has gotten worse ever since Bush left office and the Dims called him a dummy. What does that make those two bozos who are destroying the economy and spending the county into bankruptcy to buy votes, and the dummies like you think that's a good thing. LOL

I guess at your age it's easy to forget that Obama inherited this failing economy from Bush.

In message , charlesgrozny writes

Do you know anything about "netequette", top posting says no.

While that is true, it's time to start judging Obama based on what he has accomplished. The Cash for Clunkers program did little to help the environment and made used cars more expensive. He doesn't have a space exploration plan. On the other hand, he got the health car plan passed and helped prevented employment from dipper further. And he's thinking (something Bush rarely did) about what is good for American education (hint: Nothing will make kids enthusiastic about science as people exploring space).

Jeff

Mostly, it was a bailout program designed to hand money to the auto manufacturers...and most significantly to Ford since they made, by far, the most 'clunkers'.

Yep, we know Obama is a liberal and that means it is always someone elses fault.

I agree with this. The overwhelming desire to keep the snowball rolling is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike...and fueled by a consumer that always wants more than they can actually afford.

I'm not sure why you assign the '401k' to a Democrat philosophy. If anything, I'd assign it to a Republican philosophy while company pensions are more in tune with a Democrat philosophy. In either case, lets all be really glad that the government didn't succeed in getting Soocial Security funds into the stock market investing game a few years ago.

Not sure what this has to do with 401k. Americans are content to offshore jobs as long as the job isn't theirs and as long as the result will be cheaper products for them to buy here in America.

I don't know about that, but I am one of those that believes that a global economy is one of the best ways to avoid global warfare...and all the expenses that go along with destroying rather than building.

If there is a line in the sand where you can point and claim that America suddenly felt this way (as opposed to always feeling this way), I'd point at the 1980s, not the 1990s.

The money went to the owners of clunkers, not the car makers. However, Ford makes cars people want to buy, so a lot of people bought Fords with their money.

Jeff

GM (as well as Ford and Chrysler) have been bankrupt for decades due to irresponsible demands/contracts with unions. There is no real value in any of these companies due to the pension promises.

If a bus drives over a cliff and the driver suddenly turns over the steering wheel to someone else as the bus plunges towards the ground, do you blame the new guy for the impact?

The Cash for Clunkers program was designed to spur people to buy new vehicles when they would have otherwise NOT bought at all. The government 'cash' may have gone to the consumer (wink wink), but the purpose odf the program was to provide yet another form of bailout to the auto industry.

Ford makes the cars that people most wanted to get rid of. The fact that many of them went back to Ford and said 'thank you sir, may I have another', is a really sad commentary on American consumers.

Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were likely out of luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that you would have had to buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to see a 'clunkers' qualifying level of improvement.

I don't ascribe 401k's to political parties. It was the means to get many Americans to believe that the interests of Wall Street coincided with their own. That's a fairly recent phenomenon, and a fallacy. I note that many Democrats are for "change" - as long as it doesn't affect their personal 401k. There is a hypocrisy there.

Sure. They always think they're safe. Part and parcel with "American Exceptionalism." Personally, I never felt I was better than a Chinaman. And here we are. Content?

Global economy and keeping one's own infrastructure and job market strong are not incompatible. Our politicians and policy makers couldn't manage that.

Perhaps you're right. I noticed it more in the '90's. On magazine covers mostly. First time pure pencil pushers became lionized. The history of hedge funds is a good guide to map the increasing fraud on Wall Street.

Hasn't that been the Republican party platform for the last 3 decades? (if it is good for big business, it is good for you)

I'm not sure why you apply that hypocricy to the Democrats. I think the 'change is only good if it benefits me' is a universal theme.

This week it is hedge funds...a few decades ago it was Savings &Loans. the late 1920s and the 1930s had their own issues. ebb and flow...and bubbles will always be unavoidable...but the government needs to be more vigilant about managing the size of the bubbles.

Perhaps but everything he has done since is added trillions to the counties debt, because he was to stupid to learn from history.

The way to grow an economy is to cut tax RATES, not spend trillion we do not have to try to buy votes. Cutting tax RATES worked to turn around the economy EVERY TIME it was done, by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush and even way back in the twenties!

Get real, more money was spent by the feds under Bush than ever before. Do a compatent search for a change, WBMA LOL

You are correct, but one the reason was Ford was selling around 400,000 Explorers, per year for around five years, during the mid eighties and they had been in service for nearly 20 to 25 years. The average mileage on them was close to 400,000, no wonder the owners purchased another Ford!

What color is the sky in YOUR world? Most 25 year old Toyotas are in the junk yards as rusted hulks LOL