This should really go without saying.

I (or "we," since you're being passive aggressive) didn't think enough of it to have a "hissy fit."

A lot of the criticisms are coming from people who voted for Obama. I voted for Obama but I agree with commentators who feel Obama is trying to tackle too much and may have a lot of empty promises (which every POTUS has, although supporters of presidents are in denial about that).

You certainly thought enough of it to comment when it was originally posted...

I totally understand what you are saying. :) And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

There are a few things that really are quite obvious:
1) Nobody wants the economy to tank
2) If there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented already
3) It's such a complicated issue that nobody really knows how to fix it

I'm starting to get really pessimistic about the whole thing. I wholeheartedly believed that GM was going to survive with the first loan but I no longer believe that. I thought when they gave the banks the bailout money that it would ease up the credit crisis, but I no longer believe that. I'm starting to believe that this is simply going to happen as part of an economic cycle from our standard living and growth being way too high to continue as it was and we are all simply going to have to adjust. College kids cannot expect to make $60K in their first job out of school. Retirees cannot expect their employers to provide them health care and retirement funds to last them into their 90's when they retire at 65. We may not be able to have more computers and TVs than people in our family. We (society) has to stop living on credit and start living within our means. We can't keep pulling equity out of our houses to get more and more stuff. Corporate execs can't expect the perks that they have gotten used to. Things are bad, really bad and it's not going to change over night. We have to adjust. Nobody is willing to admit that we are all responsible for this mess. We want to blame greedy corporations or people who were stupid to buy more house than they could afford, but seriously, most of society spends a lot of time trying to "keep up with the Joneses" and we have to stop because the Joneses are going bankrupt and losing their houses.

Absolutely - it's a cycle that has gone on throughout history. All you have to do is look back at the 20s and the immense spending (and lack of saving) that went on before the Great Depression. The economy runs in cycles, and I firmly believe that there's not a whole lot that the government can do about it. In any economy though, bad or good, people have to be honest with themselves about what they can expect to earn, and the lifestyle they can afford.

That said...I don't think throwing money at it is the answer, and I have faith that the market (and big businesses) will self-correct at some point.

I'm not trying to come at this from some ivory tower; I have some family members who are in pretty bad shape right now.

Well said.:)

Well, to be fair, you said this:

Which, if you'll be honest with yourself, comes off as a bit condescending.

At the same time, we play this blame game, even if it's a cyclical inevitability and I think that blame game hurts us more than anything. We also tend to want a quick fix for EVERYTHING (from weight loss to health care to the economy) so we keep expecting someone to come in and fix it for us when the reality is that there may not be a fix. Which party is going to win on a platform of "We can't fix it so deal with it"?

I came to some of those conclusions just tonight as my ex-husband ( a very staunch Republican) and I were debating the issue. He says "Throwing money at it isn't going to fix it" and I said "Well what will?" and he said "They should give us a tax holiday this year" meaning that nobody should have to pay any federal taxes. I inquired just where the government would get money to function if they did that and he had no answer for that either.

As much as people are reveling in lower property taxes around here, it also means fewer services. Fewer police, returning to "pay per call" firefighters (who are slower to respond resulting in more property loss and loss of life or injury), less salt on the roads, more potholes, etc. I WANT my city services to continue, even if it means that those of us who can pay more in property taxes have to do that. I don't want to be put on hold when I call 911. I don't want to slide on black ice because they can't afford more salt (they only salted intersections and curved roads this winter and it was a noticeable difference). Eliminate waste? Absolutely, because there is some everywhere. But a total tax holiday? No way! It seems that could MORE costly than the bailout plans.

I also killed a fly in the window today.

I'm just saying... Don't sit there and try to act like you didn't throw a hissy fit. If you didn't care enough about it, you wouldn't have responded. The end.

It was no more condescending than remarks I have been subjected to in this forum. When I said that, I genuinely meant that I thought everyone had heard about the constitutional issues that were raised. Some people are just going to automatically take issue with every single thing I say. I have come to terms with that.

And even with all of that, it still doesn't provide a basis for what she said.

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

change= his party will be in power?

wjat is his mantra? keep your eneimeies close, and those you can't trust at all keep closer (take a look at his cabinet...either he studied Machevelli like a champ or is the dumbest mother f***er ever born.

Seriously.......Joe Biden is openly racist and even suggested better candidates than himself. Why is he where he is? So he can't fuck nothing up. Clinton's in a place where she'll be tried for treason if she runs her mouth off, and Dachele's been laughed out of town. We either have the most self-serving president ever, or we have the dumbest. But Obama reminds me more of van Burren than Polk. He knows what hes doing, and only like 5% of the populace do. And uless he becomes populist, more power to him.

Keep your friends close....