Отиди на страница:
| Прав сте, другарю Гробачов. Пари за бедните на първо място. Пък аз грешно си мислех, че приоритет е финансовата система. * Стоителството на пътищан и мостове е било ефективно едно време, щото тогава не ги е имало. Сега дали ще имаме пак същият резултат, след като Америка цялата е опасана с магистрали. * Егати демагога. |
Ся ша додат Фичо и Хонзи да ва разгромят.  __________________________________________ _____________________ Once the government socializes losses, it will soon socialize profits. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see even riskier behavior. |
...данъците за богатите ще се вдигат, а за бедните ще падат * Да го духат богатите. Да си вземат богатствата и да вървят на майната си - Китай, Русия, Бахама-мама-тоз-обама и където искат. На нас тук не ни трябват кулаци. |
Богат данък не плаща. Семейството и Гозата са бедни. И те няма да плащат. Остава Бългериъна. Той ги плаща. Дърпат направо от пей чека и не питат.  |
Така е, богатите имат начини да не плащат данъците. Обамистите ще бъдат обявени за "борци против ..." и ще имат привилегии, например безплатна путьовка в санаторий. И пак нашего брата инженерът ще го духа.  * Къде да се скрия от този комунизъм, не знам?  |
| Според мен и най-големите привърженици на Обама вече трябва да разберат, че е гола вода. Или както писа преди време една уважавана във форума дама - въздухар. |
| Зузи, почвай да пращаш томатено пюре на Чичо и Леля... дарения за бедните, както се предвижда у програмата на новио ви президент ... и гледай да е от убавото, че Леля не иде кво да е  |
| Americans have soaring hopes for the incoming Obama administration and an even higher opinion of the man they just elected president, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows. Nearly seven in 10 adults, or 68%, say they have a favorable opinion of President-elect Barack Obama. Nearly that many — 65% — say they think the country will be better off four years from now. |
| гледаите боговете сигурно са полудели барак обама ще затрие американската икономика до последнато бутилка коко кола която ще варне на боговете |
Така е то - много манхатънски наеми са rent stabilized (наследство от войната), и нашия също е такъв до 2010 г., а сега си мисля, че ще го продължат още малко ... |
| "Обама дава пари на бедните"...лекува болните..закриля оскърбените и нещастните... Сънувам ли?..Само зле ли е Америка или е морибундна?! |
| как барак обама завърши харвард има жена и 2 деца при американците и ще прави промени в америка а аз не съм завършил нищо нямам жена и деца и живея от 20 години в променящо се общество известно като бардак отдавна а руснаци и американци бяха съюзници срещу фашистите |
| (с) The New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Franklin Delano Obama? By Paul Krugman November 10, 2008 Suddenly, everything old is New Deal again. Reagan is out; F.D.R. is in. Still, how much guidance does the Roosevelt era really offer for today's world? The answer is, a lot. But Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.'s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn't as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.'s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious. About the New Deal’s long-run achievements: the institutions F.D.R. built have proved both durable and essential. Indeed, those institutions remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. Imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure older Americans would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security. Can Mr. Obama achieve something comparable? Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, has declared that 'you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.' Progressives hope that the Obama administration, like the New Deal, will respond to the current economic and financial crisis by creating institutions, especially a universal health care system, that will change the shape of American society for generations to come. But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself. Now, there's a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it’s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans. That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the '30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful 'not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.' This may seem hard to believe. The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.)and the Civilian Conservation Corps. To this day we drive on W.P.A.-built roads and send our children to W.P.A.-built schools. Didn’t all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus? Well, it wasn't as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren't felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level. And F.D.R. wasn't just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections. What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs. This history offers important lessons for the incoming administration. The political lesson is that economic missteps can quickly undermine an electoral mandate. Democrats won big last week — but they won even bigger in 1936, only to see their gains evaporate after the recession of 1937-38. Americans don't expect instant economic results from the incoming administration, but they do expect results, and Democrats' euphoria will be short-lived if they don't deliver an economic recovery. The economic lesson is the importance of doing enough. F.D.R. thought he was being prudent by reining in his spending plans; in reality, he was taking big risks with the economy and with his legacy. My advice to the Obama people is to figure out how much help they think the economy needs, then add 50 percent. It's much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little. In short, Mr. Obama's chances of leading a new New Deal depend largely on whether his short-run economic plans are sufficiently bold. Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity. |
| Фичо написа: " Americans have soaring hopes for the incoming Obama administration "Грешка! Пише се: Americans have soring hopes for the incoming Obama administration. |
| "новия US президент Барак Обама са помощи за автомобилната индустрия и за американците, които не могат да си плащат високите сметки за ток,"... Като го прочетох това, неволно в главата ми изникна сравнение с нашенските free консуматори на ел.енергия в Столипиново, Максуда, Червен Бряг и навсякъде къде има цигани. |
| Що за глупави писания?! Сметките за ток в САЩ са на порядък по-ниски от тези за газ и дори за вода. Какъв точно им е проблемът с тока?! |
ще бъдат отменени някои спорни директиви на сегашния президент Джордж Буш, като замразяването на федералните пари за изследвания на стволовите клетки.  |
| "anacephal Що за глупави писания?! Сметките за ток в САЩ са на порядък по-ниски от тези за газ и дори за вода. Какъв точно им е проблемът с тока?!" Що за глупави писания?! Бананите се повече от ябълките, а крушите повече от доматите. Сестрата на капитана следователно е курва.  Че и за дефицит некакви умници тука плямпат. Той не беше ли руския дудук Буш дето го наду туй? |