board77

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

Quote:

Between the burning of the White House by the British in the War of 1812

Yeah well you still lost.....

Not true, actually.

Wikipedia article

Quote:

The war was ended by the Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 24, 1814, and taking effect February 18, 1815. The terms stated that fighting between the United States and Britain would cease, all conquered territory was to be returned to the prewar claimant, the Americans were to gain fishing rights in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and that both the United States and Britain agreed to recognize the prewar boundary between Canada and the United States.

The Treaty of Ghent, which was promptly ratified by the Senate in 1815, ignored the grievances that led to war. Britain made no concessions concerning impressment, blockades, or other maritime differences. The treaty proved to be merely an expedient to end the fighting. Mobile and parts of western Florida remained permanently in American possession, despite objections by Spain, and Britain was unwilling to enforce treaty provisions regarding their claim to the territories. Thus, the war ended in a stalemate with no gain for either side.

Even if you didn't get to make it to inauguration, you can now relive it in Lego form.

I think the Battle of New Orleans may have been on Ara's mind.

For those who missed out on the original historical event that Tosh is alluding to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWkOeK5AmI8" target="_blank

Marco wrote:

Not true, actually.

Wikipedia article

Quote:

The war was ended by the Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 24, 1814, and taking effect February 18, 1815. The terms stated that fighting between the United States and Britain would cease, all conquered territory was to be returned to the prewar claimant, the Americans were to gain fishing rights in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and that both the United States and Britain agreed to recognize the prewar boundary between Canada and the United States.

The Treaty of Ghent, which was promptly ratified by the Senate in 1815, ignored the grievances that led to war. Britain made no concessions concerning impressment, blockades, or other maritime differences. The treaty proved to be merely an expedient to end the fighting. Mobile and parts of western Florida remained permanently in American possession, despite objections by Spain, and Britain was unwilling to enforce treaty provisions regarding their claim to the territories. Thus, the war ended in a stalemate with no gain for either side.

Just wait...do ya have oil?

er...nevermind we have a new President now.

Isn't a stalemate a win when you're the defender?

Not that it's exactly clear who the defender was.

Yup. Spot on.

It just cheers us up occasionally to know we burnt Washington. Not at the moment though.

Tosh
good thing you folks did it in 1814 when the lines were shorter. Today it takes months to get a White House pass and then you have to know somebody.

Nowadays the torch would have burnt out during the wait I guess.

True. But the good news is the George W. Bush Ceremonial Matches have been discounted 75% off in the gift shop. Or you can still but an official Zippo 2004 Inaugural Lighter for only $21.97 marked down from $69.95.

There may be a sale there but here's some information from Forbes Magazine.
(Bolding and italics in the last paragraph are mine) One of these companies affects my borther.

Where You Won't Shop in 2009
by Tom Van Riper
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
provided by

While industry executives and shoppers will remember 2008 as the year the party ended, figure 2009 to be the year of the hangover. Already, Circuit City, Linens 'N Things and Mervyn's stores are going away. Sharper Image is too, though the company will continue to sell some of its high-end gadgets through license agreements with other retailers.

More pain is on the way. One-third of U.S. women recently surveyed by America's Research Group said they plan no clothing purchases--none--in 2009. Normally, it's just 4%. That means the market is still far too saturated with stores.

More from Forbes.com:

• In Depth: Who's Set to Shutter Stores?

• In Depth: 10 Things We're Still Buying

• In Depth: Gift Cards From These 10 Stores? Use 'Em Now

Expect closings and bankruptcies to rattle the likes of Lane Bryant, Gap, and Starbucks. It's the inevitable counterpunch to the days of retailers fighting hand over fist for market share during an era of loose credit and minuscule interest rates.

Those days are over, probably for a long time. While accelerating unemployment will only last so long, consumers' debt loads and credit access don't figure to recover to pre-party levels for quite awhile.

"I don't think we will live the same way for 10 years," says Howard Davidowitz, chairman of New York-based retail consultant and investment bank Davidowitz & Associates. "People are so scared they're starting to save."

Retailers at risk in 2009, he thinks, include outerwear specialist Eddie Bauer and teen-apparel-seller Pacific Sunwear, along with Zales, the big jewelry chain. All three shuttered at least 8% of their U.S. stores last year, with many more closings expected. The same is largely true of Charming Shoppes, the owner of Lane Bryant, which closed 150 stores last year. With a mountain of debt and losses totaling over $260 million over the most recent 12-month reporting period, the company will close another 100 locations this year.

Another possible casualty: Sears Holdings, operator of Sears and Kmart stores. A key to hedge fund manager Eddie Lampert's 2005 merger of the two chains was in the underlying real estate. But with those values down 30% or so since then, slumping sales hit even worse.

"I'd be surprised if Sears-Kmart makes it through the year," says Britt Beemer, who runs retail market-research firm America's Research Group.

Non-apparel specialists like Starbucks and Sprint Nextel won't be going away, but they will close hundreds more stores during the coming year, Davidowitz predicts. Narrow specialties (Sprint's cellphones) and high prices (Starbucks' coffee) are tough sells as the consumer mood turns thrifty. What plagues Starbucks will also affect other upscale goody chains like Mrs. Fields' Cookies, and causal dining outlets like Applebee's and Cheesecake Factory. Any of the neighborhood outlets for those restaurant chains could be a casualty this year. For too many customers now, it's McDonald's or bust.

Davidowitz doesn't think a huge government stimulus will help. Better to let things bottom out naturally before regrouping. "Obama's plan will make it worse," he says. "We got into this by borrowing and stimulating, now he wants to borrow and stimulate more."

freddy

Freddy - thanks for that article. It is sad to see so many businesses in trouble, so many places closing, so many people losing their jobs. I notice that yesterday they announced here that my own state of Michigan is the first state to officially cross the double digit threshold in unemployment numbers. In this case, its not good to be Number One.

I do not agree with Forbes Magazine. Letting things bottom out is very much what you read in the books about the attitude of business in the early years of the Great Depression. And we know how successful that was between 1930 and 33.

So what would you do Freddy? What would be your advice on this matter.

SF, To start with, I would study very closely what Reagan did when he took office under similar, but worse, conditions and pulled us out of it. I don't have time to search for specifics if you are asking for specifics and can try to find some later.

Here's soemthing else I found. Pres. Obama says that he won't have lobbying? What do you call this?


Citibank Top Donor to Obama Inauguration

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:43 AM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size



Employees of Citibank, which received $45 billion in rescue funds in the federal bailout, have contributed the most to Barack Obama’s inauguration fund — at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

And the bank is lobbying behind the scenes for more money from the second $350 billion installment of federal bailout funds, according to The New York Times.

Among the contributions from Citibank executives is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, the bank’s co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently retired vice chairman of Citigroup, the Huffington Post reports.

Susman also bundled $300,000 in donations for the inaugural committee, according to Politico.com.

Bundlers are fundraisers who collect checks from friends and associates and deliver them to a campaign or committee.

Citigroup employees also gave $586,000 to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

“No doubt many donors give simply because they want to be part of history,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance lobbyist for the non-partisan watchdog group Public Citizen.

“But donors and bundlers who represent special interests with business pending before the government and who dole out five-figure checks to the inaugural committee usually want a seat at the table with the new administration.”

Other bailed-out banks that have contributed to the inauguration fund include Goldman Sachs ($44,500) and JPMorgan Chase ($30,600).

Nearly 80 percent of the $35 million raised by Obama’s inaugural committee has come from just 211 bundlers, according to Public Citizen.

And as Newsmax reported last week, 378 donors had at that point contributed the maximum $50,000 allowed by Obama, raising almost 70 percent of the total.


Note: I do not have a problem with private party donations.

freddy

Dave_LF wrote:

Howard Davidowitz, chairman of New York-based retail consultant and investment bank Davidowitz & Associates wrote:

People are so scared they're starting to save

What? People are taking responsibility for themselves and not relying on credit? This is a good thing. Now I realize that this won't help the economy quickly but when people feel safe they will again spend.


freddy

I think Dave was pointing out the absurdity of these times rather than criticizing.

Right; I think the psychology that motivated the statement is more significant that the statement itself.

I understand, but what is wrong with people taking care of themselves and saving?


freddy