ariscus99

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem. Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth. The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery. And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity. Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year. So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter. What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest. His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery. AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt. The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier. Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health. Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want. Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

What exactly has he done that you are happy with? Is it the lying about lobbyists? Or is it that he's wasted a trillion dollars in the last 40 days? Or maybe it's that since he took over the stock mark has fallen 1300 points with no sign of recovery in sight. Or could it be that he just deployed and additional 20,000 troops? Or could it possibly be you like all of his appointees who dont feel it necessary to pay their taxes?:confused::confused::confused:

Here is the actual transcript that all the lefties like to take out of context and use one little line from. So read it, learn what he ACTUALLY SAID and think about it, becuase I think he's pretty spot on. Everytime I find someone using that quote out of context I will come in and post the entire transcript so that the crazy left wing hacks here cannot use it out of context. HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his worldview. So then the question becomes: Do you want him to succeed? RUSH: Now, this... (turns to camera) I am so glad that he asked me that question. (turns back to Hannity) I am so glad that you asked me this question. HANNITY: I'm glad to. (chuckles) RUSH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing. "Well, we want him to succeed," and prominent Republicans! "Yes, we want him to succeed." They have laid down. They have totally. They're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program. Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, "I don't know about this guy." I really don't. I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln -- HANNITY: (laughing) RUSH: -- and if he does cut some taxes -- HANNITY: Yeah. RUSH: -- if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda... Look, I think it's already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed? BREAK TRANSCRIPT

What did Rush say? How bout we put that in the context that was there when he said it? Ok, Ok. He said that if Obama pushes a socialist agenda, then yes, he hopes he fails, because, wait for it, he hates socialism, NOT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop using this one little quote out of context and spreading it around, it's showing you are a partisan hack and nothing more. Tell me how the first 6 years under republican house and senate was bad for the economy, show me something, anything that backs that up? You can't. What you can show and the only thing you can show is the last 2 years of his presidency, in which he had a democratic house and senate, and believe it or not, they have just a little bit to do with what policy makes it too his desk.

I've always had a hard time with the whole Bush bad economy thing. Because it seems to me that he took over in a recession, and when the republican house and senate were in office his first 6 years, we've never seen a better economy. More people became millionaires and billionaires in those 6 years then EVER in history. Then the last two years the democrats took over the house and senate and that is when we started to see a decline in the economy. And Bush left it much the way he found it, in a recession. Since BO took over and he's gone on his spending spree the rest of the country is scared to death and wont do anything so it will keep spiraling downward. I predict that this mess will still be going on come next election for senate in 2010 and that we will elect a republican house and senate, at which time we will see the economy start to turn. By that time however it will be too late for BO and any democrat and we will probably see a republican president in 2012, probably Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Dumping money into the economy to try and fix it is not a new better plan, we've tried this and it failed, Japan tried it during the 90's and failed, we're trying it again and so far...Fail! There's nothing new, except this time everything will lean left instead of right. Obama lies like every other politician, which is not really suprising. The people he's appointed are very questionable and so far he's done nothing to impress me, or anyone I know. Most of the hard core Obamaholics that I know are now shaking their heads with disbelief because guess what? he's just another politician who care's about his ideological agenda more then he cares about the US people.

I dont know what is best for women, but my fiance and I use this and it's amazing for me and she swears it's the best thing ever. Can be used solo or with the partner. We Vibe Purple Silicone (net)

What has he done to become heroic?

yeah it's very frustrating. i started the process in march and the only thing i need is his approval but like i said i dont really know any dr's down here im pretty new to the area. maybe i can email my surgeon and double check to confirm i need the physian's approval i dunno.

I need a good doctor to go to for my medical clearence, apparently the surgeon isn't allowed to do that and I'm pretty new to the area my former GP is in nor cal so he's not really an option. I live in the North Escondido area.

what all is required i have done the pysch eval, blood work, upper gi, 12 lead, all the stuff my surgeon required however i haven't been able to get my physician to ok it because he says my bp is too high at 135/85 and told me to take some pills and come back in 6 months which i really dont want to wait that long.

how long was the process?

dr coons is riverside. who was yours?

So my doc has had me on blood pressure medicine for the last two months, and it hasn't helped at all, my bp has hovered right around 135/95 plus or minus 10. I went back in for another checkup today and he said give it another 3 or 4 MONTHS. I was wondering what kind of BP you all had prior to your surgery and what you used to bring it down? I've already waited 6 months I really dont want to wait another 3 or 4 more. I've already had all my other pre op tests done and they were all more then satisfactory.

No thats one of the more annoying things; I'm a firefighter so I'm actually in halfway decent shape and I'm pretty tall at 6'5" so my 350#'s isn't as taxing on my body as it is on some, and every Dr. I've been to so far has told me I'm in the best shape of just about any candidate they've seen. So this one doc holding everything up is getting old, I'm tempted to go to a different doc. I had someone tell me that this particular dr specializes in hypertension and that could be reason he is being so protective about it, I dont know what to do, he is very adamit about keeping me on this one medication and thats it, I asked him to prescribe me something different but he wont. Any ideas, or anyone know a good doc in the inland empire that wont be this way?

How low did you get it before they approved surgery? This is my final road block and it is the biggest so far.

I'm a firefighter in So Cal, hoping to get banded in the next month or so just finished all my testing just waiting on the Ins. approval.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I was wondering for those of you in so cal inland empire area could tell me where you had your pre-op test's done? Specifically in the Temecula Valley any help would be great, I don't know where to start I have the orders for the test but my doc said just go anywhere, and now I'm thinking where is anywhere?

I had some guy at work tell me his wife was told that skin removal is almost always covered by ins. because it can be really hard on you to carry the skin? I had always heard the oposite that it's almost never covered. Anyone know for sure?

Can those of you who have been covered by BCBS of Ca tell me about your expierence. How much your copay was(if any) time it took to get your approval. I have also read where some people said they found a list of qualifactions on the bcbs website that I haven't been able to locate at all. Thanks for any and all help