F**k This Law! That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Its Communist implementation! WHAT HAPPEN TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE????? THE Supreme court needs to defend Freedom and not FASCISM! Corporation Join with Federal Government, Insurance sleeping with the politicians! They just care about taking your money and not your liberty rights and freedom. If you love freedom email the white house and your congressmen to tell them you support freedom and not dictatorship!
why you guys so stupid go get cancer and sell ya house then ya cant afford health care you think your a leading nation your so far behind the rest of the world its not funny keep that gun under ya pillow for the invaiding english might need to switch it for ya sister some times sorry but most of ya are so dumb
He isn't mentioning the way the Union thugs pressured banks to sell people homes they couldn't afford which lead to the housing crisis - which began with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.........which then caused huge fallout in economy..........all by design.....so Gov gets more powerful.... if people are in control of their lives, Gov cant ctrl them....how the F do ppl think dicatorships get started........by taking pwr away from people & forcing them to be dependent on Gov...DUH!!!
Only Reason (Please correct me if you have facts) why Obama prioritized HC, and passed Ocare without anyone reading it, was TO INSURE 30 MILLION UNINSURED PEOPLE. Seems, logical to just create a small ins policy to cover the 30 mil, then since we are intimately aware of our existing HC systems strengths and weaknesses, we reform and improve upon what we have. Problem with this solution is it's to simple and makes sense, a lot of people want to get wealthy at the Citizens expense.=)
What will happen is the public health care option will put health insurance companies out of business, so that will give way to a government health insurance take over. Why don't we just regulate the health insurance companies without all the government options. The government should make it economically unfeasible for health insurance companies to screw the public.
The reason (only as I understand) for prioritizing and passing Obamacare is to insure the 30 mil uninsured, out of which 50% are entitled to Medicaid but do not file, possibly their living on the street without a home address is the issue. There are more Unemployed than Uninsured and Unemployed would have been my priority, but HC is on the table so do things smart. You want to cover 30 mil people, create a separate policy to do so, then reform our existing HC System.=)
@soulsurcher Fortunately with the amazing election results, two houses and local govts, we now have HOPE the CHANGE is stopped, and repealing Obamacare is the only sane decision. America became an Economic force because we believe in the constitution, Adam Smith, and our love for liberty, freedom, individualism allows us to think out of the box, we're innovative. We went to the moon in 7 years we can shift away from our decline, but we must want this. American Exceptionalism is real.=)
No what I was saying is that our Prez will now be required to follow the constitution which he has severely deviated from. The US Constitution is alive, well, and the one thing that binds our very diverse culture together. No other nation can compare. We Americans are very innovative which is a byproduct of our passion for individuality, and this as with all things have pros and cons, but when unique solutions are needed American shines with - American Exceptionalism.=)
2012 is two years away, and much can happen during this time. I know today if I had to vote for a Presidential Candidate - Obama Vs..... I would vote for almost any candidate over Obama. Obama has my respect due to all the horrific things he has implemented and all he intends or is attempting to, it is foolish to not give someone who is destroying the USA. Someone holds a knife to my neck they have my attention and respect while I figure out how to get it away from them.
When you say this man - OBAMA? It is very sad Obama is making important decisions for the USA. He pretends to represent my sentiments and he does not come close to my feelings or the majority of American Citizens, one reason for historic election results, which shift power making his ability to misrepresent the peoples wishes very challenging. Results, most people do not consider the massive local govt. changes, which affect the electoral college. We now have HOPE.=)
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT OBAMAS HEALTHCARE PLAN. I WAS LAYED OFF AND I WENT TO A LOCAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY. GUESS WHAT THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO STATE ONE ILLNESS AND THE MED ASSISTANT SAID THAT SHE WOULD GET FIRED BY THE COMPANY IF SHE ADMITTED ME WITH MORE THAN ONE ILLNESS. IF I HAD SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH ME ,THAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN AND PAY UP FRONT AGAIN THEN THEY WOULD CHECK ME FOR MY OTHER SYMPTOMS. PRETTY MESSED UP
The latest Commonwealth Fund report -- which used data from "nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009" -- again ranked the United States dead last, compared to Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand. "The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives. All have national healthcare systems.
@7bikerboy7 : your kidding right? The best teleprompt reader ever maybe. Reagan was the "great communicator". He also set people free. Obama just plays golf and basketball. idiot. He won';t last another 4 years. Everybody knows that. Everybody's pissed at him.
@captainkill1 Reagan trippled the national debt trying to get us out of a recession that wasn't half as bad as the one Obama was handed! Oh yeah...and Reagan used a teleprompter too as do most politicians. I wonder if Reagan would have taken on the entire Democrat Congress by himself unscripted (no teleprompter) at their party retreat dinner on national t.v. in 1982 only to make them look like mentally challenged jackasses! We all know Obama did that to the G.O.P. lol!
Canadian healthcare failing.,overcrowded and failing socialized medical system in their country they have set up private membership clinics where, for $2,000 a year, patients can access well staffed and equipped clinics and avoid the long waits and compromised care of the public system.
@Myaka2001 you cant comment on our health care if you dont live here and i strongly disagree american health care is failing you are the only civilized country on the planet that cheats your own citizens on healthcare. For example last year i shattered my knee and tore several tendons in the states that wouldve cost roughly 5000 dollars here in canada it was free i was in the hospital in a bout a week or so and im all better.
@thesketchydude118 Glad you are better.. We have communists and marxists in our government working with Obama on a regular basis and they are using the healt care to get control..they don't give a crap about us..don't be fooled.. I don't have insurance but I would rather take my chances than be under a dictator..I have had thousands taken off my bill in past..Hospitals have a plan to help people that don't have money...they helped me
Many months maybe more since I enjoyed conversing with you. You helped me understand how Obama is trying to control spirituality, really eye opening that was and it is nice to hear you blogging about some of the horrors brought on by Obamacare. Plenty can be presented to show why Obamacare is sooo bad, like the "Independent Payment Advisory Board - sometimes called the Death Panel" and much more. Keep spreading your most welcome message, and nice seeing you again. =)
@MrD5147 hello..I don't know how long we will be allowed to spread the word as the Government yet another tool to use to censor free speech, and when the time is right, they'll certainly use it. This legislative abomination is a declaration of war against conservatives who use the Internet.The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), is another thousand-page monstrosity that has NOTHING to do with Intellectual Property Rights
I will look into COICA, as it sounds like a bill important to understand, any guidance would be appreciated. A bill being worked on in the past which about 3 months ago was still in progress toward being passed is "The Cyber Security Act of 2009", some scary details in this, but what is most challenging to accept is that one man our existing President and future Presidents can completely shut down any or all activity on the internet. No Oversight or approval is necessary.=)
@thesketchydude118 I have NO insurance and now having some medical problems and hospital tests of several thousand WILL BE WRITTEN OFF BECAUSE HOSPITALS HAVE PROGRAMS FOR THAT..This is second time in my life that a hospital has called me(different hospitals) and told me I will NOt be charged... we do not need obama care..we take care of our own.. many programs to help people with health and food .We don't need socialism, just take care of each other..
I'm sorry you don't have health coverage. My work is thinking about stopping health benefits. Now my wife is applying for a job with the IRS. My question to you is, does the IRS offer family health coverage?
I'm working two jobs and barely scrapping by. If my wife could work for IRS, I am hoping there will be health benefits. Do you think?
@pluto4847 Our business had health insurance many years ago, but it hurt the business during hard times and now we do not have it.. thats ok, I would rather make payments to hospital program like MASH rather than have anything from our corrupt government..
You DO know that the "Bush tax cuts" were not just for the rich, right? It was for everyone. If you truly believed that Bush had a little conspiracy thing to give his "rich buddies" tax breaks at the expense of the poor and middle class then you have been watching too much MSNBC or something. I just don't know what else to tell you other than you are 100% incorrect.
They were definitely left to their own devices. The derivatives market is unregulated and banks come up with new fin. instruments all the time which are unregulated. GOP tries to blame the whole thing on F & F. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs need to have lots of regulation so they cant cheap people out of their retirement funds.
@plynth2 No, I'm sorry but you are misinformed. The entities of Fannie and Freddie were required to give risky mortgages to people who could not afford it because otherwise there would be "discrimination".
Tax cuts were in place and the economy tanked anyway. Theyre still in place. Why havent the wealthy used that money to pull us right out of the recession?
@Darkrift777 Oh I see, they have substantially increased their wealth while the middle class is either stagnant or losing wealth and you want to give the wealthy MORE money. They'll take that extra money and create jobs in China and Korea. Don't be such a chump-the rich are NOT going to take care of you, they just want chumps like you to vote to give them more money.
@plynth2 What the hell are you talking about with "they have substantially increased their wealth while the middle class is either stagnant or losing wealth and you want to give the wealthy MORE money." Is ignorant straw man arguments all you have? I never said that, and I didn't even say that is what is happening in the first place. Wow. Amazing.
@Darkrift777 Those are the facts-not a straw man. Income for the wealthy has increase in the last twenty years while the middle class has been stagnant or lost ground. Why don't you know this stuff? Look it up.
@plynth2 Because I wasn't disputing it at all, which is why its called a straw man argument. Yes, those that run businesses (the wealthy) will lay off people before they take a hit on their own income. My point was regarding the Bush tax cuts which everyone received (poor, middle class, and rich). My second point was that restrictive mandates of government interference is harmful to business growth, as is high taxes. Why don't you know this stuff?
@Darkrift777 So if you do not disagree with my strawman fact that income for the wealthy has increased and the middle class has declined, and the Bush tax cuts and deregulation didn't change that situation, why do you want more of the same? Why would you expect a different outcome?
@plynth2 I never said I want "more of the same", Mr Straw man. You are compelled to fabricate things I've never said. Unbelievable. You know, if this was a court room the judge would throw you out. The tax cuts (not just for the rich) were just not enough because of the over-regulation!! How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you? Less taxes would still have little to no impact on the F&F crisis, auto industry, etc because of other underlying problems.
@Darkrift777 No, you never said more of the same, you just keep saying that you want more tax cuts and more deregulation.....which is more of the same. One adds to our deficit and the other means we all have to subsidize businesses by paying out of our pockets and taxes to deal with the harm they do to our heatlh, welfare, and finances.
@Darkrift777 A dream world is the one where businesses are left to regulate themselves free from gov't oversight and they will never exploit their workers, bee sure the people thrive in a clean healthy environment with adequate food, shelter and clothing. Streams will be sparkling clear, products will never harm you, your money is always in the hands of the trustworthy, and your employer unerrlingly will make sure your working environment is safe and heatlhy,
If the only failure would have been F&F the financial system would not have been in jeopardy of collapsing. The banks bought the risky mortgages, got Moody to give them a high rating masking the real risk to investors, bought credit default swaps on them, and put AIG on the hook for all of it all, of which is unregulated .
@plynth2 I didn't say the only failure was F&F. Straw man, since you cannot debate any issue honestly, you're done. I've reached by conclusion that I made at the beginning of our discussion.
@Darkrift777 If you have trouble articulating what you would do differently don't blame me. You seem to exemplify the Republican's conundrum; in the course of executing their ideology the financial system almost collapsed so now you and they just say no to Democratic (and Bush Republicans) solutions without proposing any new solutions yourselves.
@plynth2 Actually, your straw man arguments are trying to twist my words into something I am clearly not saying. I am sick of your liberal dishonesty. If you had watched the news clips regarding the F&F deregulation meeting of 2004 then you would have some idea of what I am talking about. But you don't want to learn any different. I don't have the inclination to keep repeating myself with you either. Have a great day!
Left to their own devices, which they were, banks will take on excessive risk, reap the profits, and ultimately put the taxpayer on the hook or cause a collapse our financial system. F&F did not cause the banks to fail-they did it to themselves. F&F has been around for 30 years. The reason for the collapse was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other deregulations which allowed the banks to invest depositors' capital, etc.
Imported cars will also need to meet the emission requirements - why wouldnt they?? I agree with emission standards. I didnt say regulations help American industry. I dont think industry should be able to make profits while the rest of us have to paying billions to clean up or deal with the health issues resulting from their pollution. Lots of companies make plenty of money without regulations because they dont pollute.
@plynth2 No, foreign traders don't have the same regulations placed on them. How would we enforce it? My God you are showing yourself to be a brainwashed liberal.
@Darkrift777 Come on you're smarter than that. The US says "you can't sell your cars in this country unless you comply with our emissions standards". Why would they impose standards only on American cars?
@plynth2 Because of politicians who are making decisions that aren't based on any knowledge of the specific industry (or economics), but on ideological positions (or favoring constituents).
No one wants to set every wage in every industry. Where do you get this stuff?
The World Trade Center destruction contributed to the recession of 2002-2004. The current deep recession started in Dec 2007. You are definitely confused. Is this news to you?
@Darkrift777 No, that is not what I said. I said that recession lasted until 2004 when the economy recovered. The next recession started in 2007. So you had a brain fart-I don't give a crap-just let it go.
@plynth2 Let what go? There are long term economic effects of FM/FM and the WTC etc. Simply because the overall economy goes up and down (as it always does) doesn't mean the period of time from 2000-2007 are isolated economic events. Long term effects (bubbles) are sometimes not readily apparent until after the burst.
I have been honest in my arguments. It is just your perception that I have been twisting your words or have been dishonest. For example, a couple of days ago I asked, Tell me what F & F had to do with derivatives, credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, and AIG? I assumed you would answer nothing. Instead, your reply was, Did I say Fannie and Freddie was connected to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros or the others?
The point I was making was that F&F had nothing to do with the others and that the others were the bigger problem on their own.
Then two days ago I was compelled to post the following:
@Darkrift777 It was I who said "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow.", I never said you said that.
You have a proclivity to assume I am putting words in your mouth. I am doing no such thing.
@plynth2 And that is why I said you've fabricated a straw man argument becuase I never said F&F had anything to do with the others. (Yet we all know the current state of the economy is due to many such incidents). So based on that you either are delusional or deliberately lying. I don't care which, but you are done.
We have found out that heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasnt helped the wealth of the middle class to grow. Wages have been stagnant for 15 years while we increasingly have to shop at Walmart to get cheap goods from China just to get by. Hell, even Warren Buffet said he did not need a tax cut. He felt guilty because he paid 15% in capital gains taxes on the tens of millions he makes a year while his little secretary pays 28% on her income.
@plynth2 You have a straw man argument going here. I never said that "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow." "Heaping money on the wealthy"? Please, you've already shown ignorance about the rate of the taxes cut for those you consider "rich".
@Darkrift777 It was I who said "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow.", I never said you said that. The rich have been making plenty of money and you want to give them more?
@plynth2 If you made 172K from 2000-2001 you got a 0.5% cut. 2001-2002 another 0.5% cut. 2002-2003 then you received a 2% federal income tax cut under Bush. Total, you got a total of a 4% tax cut from 2000 to 2003. There were no federal income tax cuts or increases for anyone in 2007. By the way, every income bracket received similar tax cuts.
@Darkrift777 Given the choice between what the Republican say their viewpoint is -no regulations- and what Republicans seem to think the Democrat's viewpoint is-total control- I would pick the Republican's viewpoint.
Given the choice between the Republican viewpoint and the Democrat's actual viewpoint-a measure of regulations that does not eliminate growth- I will pick the Democratic viewpoint.
@plynth2 It is your opinion that regulations does not eliminate growth, yet that wasn't even a claim I made. It most definitely has a negative effect on growth, as does increased taxes on business. This really is economics 101, sir.
It iIS my opinion that regulations don't eliminate growth. We can do without more bubbles and rapid expansion then having people lose their homes and life savings when the bubbles burst. Moderate steady growth rather than your preference for BOOM/BUST.
@plynth2 Bubbles are made by gov regulation (as is the case with Fannie/Freddie). Come on, man. Do your research. Look up "Fannie Mae Freddie Mac deregulation meeting 2004". You want to do without more bubbles? Me too. Get gov out of business then.
@Darkrift777 Republicans love to blame F & F for the whole mess. Tell me what F & F had to do with derivatives, credit default swaps,Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, and AIG. Republicans only have simplistic answers and aren't smart enough to deal with complexities. No regulations means that banks can get too big to fail, take huge risks with depositors savings causing repeated depressions. Derivatives are a perfect example. They were totally unregulated and crashed and burned.
@Darkrift777 The point I was making is that F&F was a relatively minor aspect of the crisis, but Republicans like to make it out to be the only reason. The biggest reason for the crisis is the one that connects all the others, degregulation without re-regulation and insufficient gov't oversight (SEC) and no regulations at all on many investments the banks and AIG were involved in.
Contrary to your opinion, the gov't SHOULD have gotten in the way of the banks.
@plynth2 No, F&F was not minor. I find it interesting that you try to minimize it. Why would you do that, I wonder? Is it because you know the details regarding it? Is it because it is traced back to government over-regulation? The senate committee responsible for oversight deflected any attempts at reforming F&F before disaster hit. Learn the facts before you try to argue the points.
So now that we know that tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation doesnt strengthen the economy, what is the answer? The GOP says its more tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation. God no, not again! More RINOs, please, before they completely destroy our economy.
@plynth2 "So now that we know that tax cuts .... doesn't strengthen the economy"
Wait a second, we never discussed that in the least. Tell me, can you not understand the concept of getting government out of the way of business so that they have a market friendly environment in which to grow themselves? Take the auto industry for example. Now, the gov can mandate that US cars need to meet severe emission requirements (that imported cars don't need to meet).
@plynth2 The extra costs leaves the American car company at a disadvantage with imported cars that don't have that kind of overhead. They also don't have to deal with paying as high of taxes as foreign car manufacturing companies. So how can you sit there and tell me that regulation and high taxes help American industry. All you have is a snide RINO comment, with no substance to work out your conclusions.
I know I didn't get a tax cut (I made less than 200k). I know the poor didn't get tax cuts from conservatives- as the late Robert Novak said about tax cuts for the poor "they will just spend the extra money on beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets".
@plynth2 You didn't know you got a tax cut under Bush? Well, you surely did. If you give me your income level I can quickly look up how much of a tax cut you actually made. You DID get a tax cut though, and that is the point. I am little interested in quotes of individuals that seem to support your stereotypes against conservatives. Just not interested. Two can play that game and I will tell you ahead of time you don't want to start that.
Your evaluation of what caused the economic recession is laughably absurd. You forgot to mention the destruction of the World Trade Center, the Fannie/Freddie housing/banking crisis bubble, airline and automotive industry, etc. But yeah, go ahead and claim tax cuts (which promote business growth) actually caused economic failure. It's easier that way.
Fannie and Freddie produced risky loans that the unregulated banks rated as high quality and made toxic assets out of them. The GOP repealed Glass-Steagall. The GOP took the stupid approach: Get rid of the old, outdated regulations (that takes no brains) and replace them with nothing (instead of new updated regulations which, again, takes no brains).
Im not saying tax cuts are necessarily bad, but nothing the GOP has done has improved the wages of the middle class and poor and, at the same time, the rich got richer. We were told that we needed to heap money into the pockets of the wealthy thru tax cuts and banking deregulation to strengthen our economy. Obviously it did nothing of the sort.
@plynth2 Show me where in the Constitution where it is the gov who is responsible to set every wage for every industry, hmm? The GOP knows that government have no authority to dictate wages of the middle class or the poor. I think you would favor a socialist system, perhaps what the old USSR used to be. This "land of the free, home of the brave" clearly isn't your thing.
"do the same thing everyone else has to do." does this "pay your fair share" rule not apply to us tax payers? Guess it only applies to what he sees fit?
@varmittyawza You know after Bush handed President Barak Obama an $11 trillion deficit I can see why you are concerned.
If we can get unemployment down to 2% tax receipts go up and the deficit can go down all without raising taxes to 95% of Americans, what do you think of that?
@poisonapple16 Our bailout for the TARP was $780 billion released within a 6 month period. Using that as a reference. How could our 6+ year war in Iraq over seas with a Pentagon budget of $750 billion annually, tax credits to the rich only add up to $900 billion? You keep listening to what you want to hear. Your information is poisoned, I wouldn't eat that apple if I were you. Or you'll have 1st hand experience of our Health Care Reform bill in action a lot sooner than you think.
@poisonapple16 Total heatlh expenditures per capita in the US is $5,711. Canada is $2,998. In Gemany its $2,983. In Japan its $2,249. And they cover everyone. The US system is a failure. But the insurance companies like the system so the Republicans do too.
In the process of trying to make it look like Obama is doing everything wrong, the Republicans are making themselves look stupid. The leader of the Repbulican party, Rush Limbaugh, like to say that Obama is attacking our fine feathered capitalists, the banks, Then they proudly state that they voted against the bailout.and that they would have let all the banks fail.
"The banks should have failed" ? You obviously are ignorant of what happens when all the banks fail. The US and other western countries join the third world. Don't be a complete idiot.
All the legitimate economists across the globe agreed that the banks were too big to fail and needed to be bailed out. No is no reason to consider the opinions of politicians. Thanks god the "let the banks just fail" crackpots were not in charge. There is this "follow the ideology even itf it kills us" notion that the crackpots have.
I appreciate how you signed your last post. It shows even an idiot can be self aware.
Riddle me this dumb-ass; if banks are supposed to take risks with our money in grow it; AND the government will bail them out when they take too much risk, WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF RISK A BANK SHOULD TAKE?
Well according to fuck-tards like yourself there is no limit, as there is no consequence for failure.
We all wait for the free market 'crack pots' to get back in charge, perhaps...
Wow. You started out as a simplistic LEAF (let-em-all-fail) Republican, and now you're turning into a real live thinking person who is starting to realize there are gray areas that have to be thought through.
It is more accurate to say it is the Republicans, who don't want any regulation, don't want to set limits and will allow them to fail thereby taking down our financial system..
It is the Democrats who want to set limits on risk ( I keep hearing that in some cases it was 40 to 1 which is considered too much.) I will leave to the financial experts to determine how much risk.
Its a more than a bit silly for you to believe that there are some people who think some things have no limit or have no consequences. I suppose you draw some cheap comfort from convincing yourself that the opposing opinion are ridiculous.
@poisonapple16 Going broke is a possibilitybut it is more likely that the economy will recover and the debt can be reduced over time. Without the balout, long term financial collapse was a certainty. What the Republicans are saying is that going into debt is so bad that you would prefer to die than to go into debt to pay for a life saving operation.
@poisonapple16 What do you think of when you hear the term "financial collapse"?You're thinking that the crisis in Sept 2008 was just another recession. You have been fooled into thinking that the banks failing would be just like Pan Am Airlines failing-you just sell off the assets and keep going. If the system collapses, no one is in a position to buy anything. The economy dies.
"thats how capitalism works" is such a stupidstatement to make. So let the banks fail and the US economy collapses. The Candadians have been spared this banking crisis because they actually regulate their banks sufficiently. So the US economy collapses and the Canadians have the strongest economy on the continent for the rest of our lives. I am too patriotic to simply allow our economy to fail without lifting a finger to prevent it. Are you really an American citizen?
@plynth2 No the Canadians were spared this financial crisis because they do not have a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's actually financial regulation that CAUSED the crisis. If Chris Dodd and Barney Frank weren't forcing banks to give loans to people with no money there would be no crisis.
THEY caused the crisis, not the banks. People like yourself somehow can't grasp that.
@poisonapple16 Thank god the Republicans were voted out of office. They would have cripple our econoomy for a decade by letting the banks fail and would further deregulate them so they will fail again in another ten years. They have come up with the stupidest ideas in the history of governance.
They would have let all the banks fail! Hahaha What idiots!!!
@poisonapple16 re: $780 billion would prefer to take it off of Bush's hand, looking forward to the challenge. Obama's only been in office less than a year and a half, still lots of time to address financial reform, unemployment, immigration, the oil spill collect lots of tax receipts and bring down our debt.
The poison that I'm referring to is the media that you're living and breathing. It can't be healthy. If you hated Obama when he was elected my point is pretty clear.
@poisonapple16 typical right winged conservative radical republidunk response pulling the "hitler card".
Here try this left wing, progressive response on for size. Employment rises in 34 states. We've had 3 consecutive positive GDP quarters. GM has $35 billion in the bank. Auto industry is rehiring laid off workers? Boeing putting a new 787 assembly plant in South Carolina. Pepsico Chief has great confidence in US Recovery and Ford and Apple are kicking ass! God Bless the USA you dipshit!
and what does poison say when that unemployment figure of 9.9% goes down to a reasonable 6%? Or has Fox News got you to drink their whine?
Oh yeah, you've already drunken the kool aide because you site the 15% unemployment figure which includes unemployed prisoners, the mentally retarded, children not of age to work, retirees, those working getting paid under the table and those of us who can sit on our butt and mann youtube sites, like, like YOU who don't wanna work!
@breeze787 I will be grateful my business has picked up.
I site 15% because those are closer to reality than the U3 labour statistics the white house reports. U6 numbers are much higher as they also include people who are unemployed who have stopped looking for work.
In my state the U6 number is 19% in Michigan it's much higher.
@poisonapple16 The US economy dies and takes the world economy along with it. This economy is bad enough as it is. Thank god some conservative ideaologues weren't in power to make it collapse. There is nothing in capitalism that guarantees the economic survival of the US. In your preferred scenario, in a decade or two some other country would be buying up the remnamts of the US economy. Are you trying to move us toward the rapture?
@poisonapple16 I know you're not buying it, but the best economists and financial experts know it. Banks are still failing-probably 120 so far this year. If all the big banks were allow to fail-it all comes down.
I am not sure what right wing fascist corporatists would do, but if the US gov't has the ability to rescue a collapsing fin. sys., they should. At least now we have a functioning economy with wtih to pay down the debt.
@poisonapple16 You may consider the premise of all the best economists and financial experts to be ridiculous. Republican politicians have tried to suggest that we should have let all the banks go bankrupt- but I don't listen to politicians or radio talk show hosts or FOX News propaganda. But you apparently do which makes your opinion about as valuable as a poliician's.
@poisonapple16 Although it looks like in your post that you are talking to yourself, I suppose it was directed to me. Its humorous that you think I might not be able to follow your simplistic scenario. Did you have to struggle to come up with it or something?
Your scenario is not what is happening. You've whacked your head on the slippery slope too many times.
@poisonapple16 There is no need to tell me that you don't listen to anybody-its obvious. Its not my premise-it was the assessment of the experts. Its a bit extreme for me to say that if the Republicans were in the majority that they would let the economy collapse. Bush put up the TARP money and, despite all the "let 'em fail" crap dogma, any Republican who actually had responsibilty would do the same.
Well, if what you say is true, that a libertarian and a constitutionalist would have let the financial system collapse, I will never vote for either one of them. Absolute adherance to any system or philosophy is foolish. We must change our responses to changing facts on the ground.
Libertarians and constitutionalists are both political philosophies that value purity over pragmatism. And as with all political philosophies, they rely on perception at the expense of facts.
@plynth2 Are you asuming that a libertarian or a constitutionalist would "let the financial system collapse" by not bailing out companies? As if bailout or no bailout were the only options? What about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes and removing harmful mandates so the economy flourishes naturally. There is still demand for products, it is merely the environment that has become unprofitable BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Your absolute adherence to that philosophy would have allowed the financial collapse in the winter of 2009. No amount of tax cuts or deregulation at the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009 would have averted that disaster. 30% of the stimulus package in Feb 2009 was tax cuts for the middle class. We've had years of deregulation and we still had the worst recession in 80 years.
@plynth2 Your statements are grotesquely inaccurate. I can tell it would take much to long to explain the truth to you, which you would obviously reject as lies because you have already absorbed enough bigoted info from biased sources. So, why waste my time? Can you prove to me you aren't a radical left wing partizan hack?
@Darkrift777 Fact is, I was a registered Republican for 35 years and became unaffiliated 3 years ago. For decades I hoped the Republicans would become the majority so they could turn this country around. In 1994 it happened. In 2000 they had complete control.
@plynth2 The problem is that the republican party has been filled with RINOs who don't act like conservatives, fically or otherwise. Your long list of stereotypical accusations against the GOP (obstructionists, racists, corporatists, birthers, etc.) doesn't speak well for your objectivity. Seems to me that you cut&pasted that nonsense. You also are inaccurate in your belief that there was deregulation and "tax cuts for the wealthy". Are you implying the poor and middle class didn't get cuts?
@Darkrift777 We know the banks, left to their own devices, will invent financial instruments (what did AIG have to do with Fannie and Freddie?) from which they will make huge amounts of money while building a house of cards, and then make more money on the short side, all the while sucking REAL wealth out of the bank accounts and pension funds of the average guy.
@plynth2 Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the housing crisis which had a direct impact on the economy. They were forced to make risky loans by the government, and in doing so put themselves at risk. It was the government that required them to make the loans, so they were not "left their own devices".
Do you really think there are people who believe in over-regulation and over-taxation? Thats some goofy thinking on your part. Thats as stupid as thinking that Republicans want excessive-pay for the wealthy and excessive-profits for corporations, and excessive-prices for the poor and middle class.
@plynth2 Everything up to this point has led me to believe that you are opposed to "tax cuts for the rich" (business owners) and favored gov regulation even to the point of picking what wages should be for the poor and middle class. Or am I wrong? Because if I am wrong then you have got to do a better job at explaining yourself.
Their total failure across the board, compounded by them becoming a DO NOTHING party of obstructionists, racists, corporatists, birthers, southern centrists, religious wingnuts, homophobes, swiftboaters, dittoheads, torture lovers, and bastards like Rove, I was too embarrassed to be identified with them.
They say no one hates smoke more than an ex-smoker - I guess thats me.
I have no issue with libertarians except that they have the same ideological purity tendency that is not pragmatic. Therefore, after years of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy, we end up with this depression and now they say we need a lot more of the same??? they will not get my vote until Rove and Cheney are both dead and buried.
@plynth2 Well I will attempt to get an answer to the same question I've asked over and over.
If banks and financial institutions can depend on big daddy government on bailing them out every time, what will motivate them to take more careful risks?
@poisonapple16 No one wants gov't to bail out the banks every time. Finance reform's purpose is to prevent future bailouts. There was a $50B fund in the reform to be used to pay for the process of breaking up and selling off banks that fail. Now they are also looking at amendments to limit bank size so that they don't get too big.
I shouldn't have to tell you all this - its been in the news.
@poisonapple16 Eschewing regulation and encouraging unlimited growth only to construct a house of cards that will ultimately collapses is not wise. I understand why politicians take ridiculous positions and defend them (they get campaign contribut8ions from the one they are defending), but I don't understand why voters take the same ridiculous postions. Why are you against any regulations on banks?
@poisonapple16 There is no need to polarize the options available. Centrally plannned economy is not the only other option. We have had more regulations placed on banks for 75 years which kept them from collapsing all without being anything close to a centrally planned economy. Years ago, in my lifetime, a bank could only have branches within the same county. That certainly limited the size of banks without being centrally planned.
This is not a game of Monopoly. The hundreds of millions of lives that would be ruined when giant banks collapse is not something we should simply allow to happen. I suppose if you are active in a militia, such an outcome might have some appeal for you.
@plynth2 It's like I am conversing with one of my balls.
Hundreds of millions of investors would be affected; that's how the game is played.
If you want your money secured there ia a money market account for that. IF you are going to risk your money in the market or in a fund that participates in the market you may lose it.
That's the free market.
Don't they teach you kids this shit in school?
If you want your money to grow it requires risk. The more risk, the more it will grow.
You have a nice little ideology going for yourself there. The bad and stupid get punished and the smart and good thrive. Yeah, right.
To discuss only the investors fits nicely into your Pleasantville world. My world is aware that investors can take down the financial system which affects innocent, good, smart, people who lose their jobs, their savings, their homes and with it goes their hopes for their kids to go to college, or to pay for medical care.
F**k This Law! That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Its Communist implementation! WHAT HAPPEN TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE????? THE Supreme court needs to defend Freedom and not FASCISM! Corporation Join with Federal Government, Insurance sleeping with the politicians! They just care about taking your money and not your liberty rights and freedom. If you love freedom email the white house and your congressmen to tell them you support freedom and not dictatorship!
YouTheory 5 months ago
why you guys so stupid go get cancer and sell ya house then ya cant afford health care you think your a leading nation your so far behind the rest of the world its not funny keep that gun under ya pillow for the invaiding english might need to switch it for ya sister some times sorry but most of ya are so dumb
nicholebrandes 7 months ago
The People Need The Same, Health Care, As The People Thay Elect.......
stringlov 8 months ago 3
@stringlov lol i don't know who you are but i agree with you 100%
markfmu84 5 months ago
I'm pre-existing & Fuck UR HC plan!!!!
bermudatriangle83 10 months ago
He isn't mentioning the way the Union thugs pressured banks to sell people homes they couldn't afford which lead to the housing crisis - which began with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.........which then caused huge fallout in economy..........all by design.....so Gov gets more powerful.... if people are in control of their lives, Gov cant ctrl them....how the F do ppl think dicatorships get started........by taking pwr away from people & forcing them to be dependent on Gov...DUH!!!
bermudatriangle83 10 months ago
REgulate the Gov.............don't let the Gov regulate us!!!!! That's what's wrong w the world.... Government!!!!
bermudatriangle83 10 months ago
Hi All,
Only Reason (Please correct me if you have facts) why Obama prioritized HC, and passed Ocare without anyone reading it, was TO INSURE 30 MILLION UNINSURED PEOPLE. Seems, logical to just create a small ins policy to cover the 30 mil, then since we are intimately aware of our existing HC systems strengths and weaknesses, we reform and improve upon what we have. Problem with this solution is it's to simple and makes sense, a lot of people want to get wealthy at the Citizens expense.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
What will happen is the public health care option will put health insurance companies out of business, so that will give way to a government health insurance take over. Why don't we just regulate the health insurance companies without all the government options. The government should make it economically unfeasible for health insurance companies to screw the public.
justinbra 1 year ago
@justinbra Hi Just,
The reason (only as I understand) for prioritizing and passing Obamacare is to insure the 30 mil uninsured, out of which 50% are entitled to Medicaid but do not file, possibly their living on the street without a home address is the issue. There are more Unemployed than Uninsured and Unemployed would have been my priority, but HC is on the table so do things smart. You want to cover 30 mil people, create a separate policy to do so, then reform our existing HC System.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
this can't be happening to our nation. This man is making these decisions for the American people.
soulsurcher 1 year ago
@soulsurcher Fortunately with the amazing election results, two houses and local govts, we now have HOPE the CHANGE is stopped, and repealing Obamacare is the only sane decision. America became an Economic force because we believe in the constitution, Adam Smith, and our love for liberty, freedom, individualism allows us to think out of the box, we're innovative. We went to the moon in 7 years we can shift away from our decline, but we must want this. American Exceptionalism is real.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
@MrD5147 So what you're saying is the constitution is dead! Out with the old and in with the new. I prefer the old paths thank you
soulsurcher 1 year ago
@soulsurcher Hi Soul,
No what I was saying is that our Prez will now be required to follow the constitution which he has severely deviated from. The US Constitution is alive, well, and the one thing that binds our very diverse culture together. No other nation can compare. We Americans are very innovative which is a byproduct of our passion for individuality, and this as with all things have pros and cons, but when unique solutions are needed American shines with - American Exceptionalism.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
@MrD5147 This is good news!:)
soulsurcher 1 year ago
@MrD5147
Mitt Romney has my vote for 2012. He made sure all Massachusetts had health coverage. He's a Republican too.
pluto4847 1 year ago
@pluto4847 Hi Pluto,
2012 is two years away, and much can happen during this time. I know today if I had to vote for a Presidential Candidate - Obama Vs..... I would vote for almost any candidate over Obama. Obama has my respect due to all the horrific things he has implemented and all he intends or is attempting to, it is foolish to not give someone who is destroying the USA. Someone holds a knife to my neck they have my attention and respect while I figure out how to get it away from them.
MrD5147 1 year ago
@pluto4847 lol i was a obama supporter but you might have something lol
markfmu84 5 months ago
@soulsurcher Hi Soul,
When you say this man - OBAMA? It is very sad Obama is making important decisions for the USA. He pretends to represent my sentiments and he does not come close to my feelings or the majority of American Citizens, one reason for historic election results, which shift power making his ability to misrepresent the peoples wishes very challenging. Results, most people do not consider the massive local govt. changes, which affect the electoral college. We now have HOPE.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
@MrD5147 Amen
soulsurcher 1 year ago
Go back to selling cars. Oh wait a min Obama didn't sale cars? did he? What a laugh.
soulsurcher 1 year ago
Comment removed
e7lenita88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT OBAMAS HEALTHCARE PLAN. I WAS LAYED OFF AND I WENT TO A LOCAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY. GUESS WHAT THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO STATE ONE ILLNESS AND THE MED ASSISTANT SAID THAT SHE WOULD GET FIRED BY THE COMPANY IF SHE ADMITTED ME WITH MORE THAN ONE ILLNESS. IF I HAD SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH ME ,THAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN AND PAY UP FRONT AGAIN THEN THEY WOULD CHECK ME FOR MY OTHER SYMPTOMS. PRETTY MESSED UP
GOLDENARMY1000 1 year ago
The latest Commonwealth Fund report -- which used data from "nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009" -- again ranked the United States dead last, compared to Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand. "The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives. All have national healthcare systems.
CobinRain 1 year ago
What a Great speaker and communicator. The best there ever will be
7bikerboy7 1 year ago 2
@7bikerboy7 : your kidding right? The best teleprompt reader ever maybe. Reagan was the "great communicator". He also set people free. Obama just plays golf and basketball. idiot. He won';t last another 4 years. Everybody knows that. Everybody's pissed at him.
captainkill1 1 year ago
@captainkill1 Reagan trippled the national debt trying to get us out of a recession that wasn't half as bad as the one Obama was handed! Oh yeah...and Reagan used a teleprompter too as do most politicians. I wonder if Reagan would have taken on the entire Democrat Congress by himself unscripted (no teleprompter) at their party retreat dinner on national t.v. in 1982 only to make them look like mentally challenged jackasses! We all know Obama did that to the G.O.P. lol!
mef75baby 1 year ago
Canadian healthcare failing.,overcrowded and failing socialized medical system in their country they have set up private membership clinics where, for $2,000 a year, patients can access well staffed and equipped clinics and avoid the long waits and compromised care of the public system.
Myaka2001 1 year ago
@Myaka2001 you cant comment on our health care if you dont live here and i strongly disagree american health care is failing you are the only civilized country on the planet that cheats your own citizens on healthcare. For example last year i shattered my knee and tore several tendons in the states that wouldve cost roughly 5000 dollars here in canada it was free i was in the hospital in a bout a week or so and im all better.
thesketchydude118 1 year ago
@thesketchydude118 Glad you are better.. We have communists and marxists in our government working with Obama on a regular basis and they are using the healt care to get control..they don't give a crap about us..don't be fooled.. I don't have insurance but I would rather take my chances than be under a dictator..I have had thousands taken off my bill in past..Hospitals have a plan to help people that don't have money...they helped me
Myaka2001 1 year ago
@Myaka2001 Hi Myaka,
Many months maybe more since I enjoyed conversing with you. You helped me understand how Obama is trying to control spirituality, really eye opening that was and it is nice to hear you blogging about some of the horrors brought on by Obamacare. Plenty can be presented to show why Obamacare is sooo bad, like the "Independent Payment Advisory Board - sometimes called the Death Panel" and much more. Keep spreading your most welcome message, and nice seeing you again. =)
MrD5147 1 year ago
@MrD5147 hello..I don't know how long we will be allowed to spread the word as the Government yet another tool to use to censor free speech, and when the time is right, they'll certainly use it. This legislative abomination is a declaration of war against conservatives who use the Internet.The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), is another thousand-page monstrosity that has NOTHING to do with Intellectual Property Rights
Myaka2001 1 year ago
@Myaka2001 Hi Myaka,
I will look into COICA, as it sounds like a bill important to understand, any guidance would be appreciated. A bill being worked on in the past which about 3 months ago was still in progress toward being passed is "The Cyber Security Act of 2009", some scary details in this, but what is most challenging to accept is that one man our existing President and future Presidents can completely shut down any or all activity on the internet. No Oversight or approval is necessary.=)
MrD5147 1 year ago
@thesketchydude118
Since when is FREE means Better
jredditt84 1 year ago
@thesketchydude118 I have NO insurance and now having some medical problems and hospital tests of several thousand WILL BE WRITTEN OFF BECAUSE HOSPITALS HAVE PROGRAMS FOR THAT..This is second time in my life that a hospital has called me(different hospitals) and told me I will NOt be charged... we do not need obama care..we take care of our own.. many programs to help people with health and food .We don't need socialism, just take care of each other..
Myaka2001 1 year ago
@Myaka2001
I'm sorry you don't have health coverage. My work is thinking about stopping health benefits. Now my wife is applying for a job with the IRS. My question to you is, does the IRS offer family health coverage?
I'm working two jobs and barely scrapping by. If my wife could work for IRS, I am hoping there will be health benefits. Do you think?
Please reply once you get this.
Thank you
pluto4847 1 year ago
@pluto4847 Our business had health insurance many years ago, but it hurt the business during hard times and now we do not have it.. thats ok, I would rather make payments to hospital program like MASH rather than have anything from our corrupt government..
Myaka2001 1 year ago
You DO know that the "Bush tax cuts" were not just for the rich, right? It was for everyone. If you truly believed that Bush had a little conspiracy thing to give his "rich buddies" tax breaks at the expense of the poor and middle class then you have been watching too much MSNBC or something. I just don't know what else to tell you other than you are 100% incorrect.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
They were definitely left to their own devices. The derivatives market is unregulated and banks come up with new fin. instruments all the time which are unregulated. GOP tries to blame the whole thing on F & F. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs need to have lots of regulation so they cant cheap people out of their retirement funds.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 No, I'm sorry but you are misinformed. The entities of Fannie and Freddie were required to give risky mortgages to people who could not afford it because otherwise there would be "discrimination".
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Tax cuts were in place and the economy tanked anyway. Theyre still in place. Why havent the wealthy used that money to pull us right out of the recession?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 A 3% tax cut for the "rich" wasn't quite enough, that's why. Not only that, but all the contributing factors that I listed previously.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Oh I see, they have substantially increased their wealth while the middle class is either stagnant or losing wealth and you want to give the wealthy MORE money. They'll take that extra money and create jobs in China and Korea. Don't be such a chump-the rich are NOT going to take care of you, they just want chumps like you to vote to give them more money.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 What the hell are you talking about with "they have substantially increased their wealth while the middle class is either stagnant or losing wealth and you want to give the wealthy MORE money." Is ignorant straw man arguments all you have? I never said that, and I didn't even say that is what is happening in the first place. Wow. Amazing.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Those are the facts-not a straw man. Income for the wealthy has increase in the last twenty years while the middle class has been stagnant or lost ground. Why don't you know this stuff? Look it up.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Because I wasn't disputing it at all, which is why its called a straw man argument. Yes, those that run businesses (the wealthy) will lay off people before they take a hit on their own income. My point was regarding the Bush tax cuts which everyone received (poor, middle class, and rich). My second point was that restrictive mandates of government interference is harmful to business growth, as is high taxes. Why don't you know this stuff?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 So if you do not disagree with my strawman fact that income for the wealthy has increased and the middle class has declined, and the Bush tax cuts and deregulation didn't change that situation, why do you want more of the same? Why would you expect a different outcome?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 I never said I want "more of the same", Mr Straw man. You are compelled to fabricate things I've never said. Unbelievable. You know, if this was a court room the judge would throw you out. The tax cuts (not just for the rich) were just not enough because of the over-regulation!! How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you? Less taxes would still have little to no impact on the F&F crisis, auto industry, etc because of other underlying problems.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 No, you never said more of the same, you just keep saying that you want more tax cuts and more deregulation.....which is more of the same. One adds to our deficit and the other means we all have to subsidize businesses by paying out of our pockets and taxes to deal with the harm they do to our heatlh, welfare, and finances.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 But it isn't more of the same. Do you live in a dream world?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 A dream world is the one where businesses are left to regulate themselves free from gov't oversight and they will never exploit their workers, bee sure the people thrive in a clean healthy environment with adequate food, shelter and clothing. Streams will be sparkling clear, products will never harm you, your money is always in the hands of the trustworthy, and your employer unerrlingly will make sure your working environment is safe and heatlhy,
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 If its not more of the same, what is it? What is it that the Republicans are going to do that doesn't involve taxes or deregulation?
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
If the only failure would have been F&F the financial system would not have been in jeopardy of collapsing. The banks bought the risky mortgages, got Moody to give them a high rating masking the real risk to investors, bought credit default swaps on them, and put AIG on the hook for all of it all, of which is unregulated .
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 I didn't say the only failure was F&F. Straw man, since you cannot debate any issue honestly, you're done. I've reached by conclusion that I made at the beginning of our discussion.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 If you have trouble articulating what you would do differently don't blame me. You seem to exemplify the Republican's conundrum; in the course of executing their ideology the financial system almost collapsed so now you and they just say no to Democratic (and Bush Republicans) solutions without proposing any new solutions yourselves.
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Some day we may need what you are selling, but for now we have to leave it to the Democrats to figure out how to get through this mess.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Actually, your straw man arguments are trying to twist my words into something I am clearly not saying. I am sick of your liberal dishonesty. If you had watched the news clips regarding the F&F deregulation meeting of 2004 then you would have some idea of what I am talking about. But you don't want to learn any different. I don't have the inclination to keep repeating myself with you either. Have a great day!
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Left to their own devices, which they were, banks will take on excessive risk, reap the profits, and ultimately put the taxpayer on the hook or cause a collapse our financial system. F&F did not cause the banks to fail-they did it to themselves. F&F has been around for 30 years. The reason for the collapse was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other deregulations which allowed the banks to invest depositors' capital, etc.
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Imported cars will also need to meet the emission requirements - why wouldnt they?? I agree with emission standards. I didnt say regulations help American industry. I dont think industry should be able to make profits while the rest of us have to paying billions to clean up or deal with the health issues resulting from their pollution. Lots of companies make plenty of money without regulations because they dont pollute.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 No, foreign traders don't have the same regulations placed on them. How would we enforce it? My God you are showing yourself to be a brainwashed liberal.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Come on you're smarter than that. The US says "you can't sell your cars in this country unless you comply with our emissions standards". Why would they impose standards only on American cars?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Because of politicians who are making decisions that aren't based on any knowledge of the specific industry (or economics), but on ideological positions (or favoring constituents).
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
No one wants to set every wage in every industry. Where do you get this stuff?
The World Trade Center destruction contributed to the recession of 2002-2004. The current deep recession started in Dec 2007. You are definitely confused. Is this news to you?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 So apparently you are saying that there was absolutely no long term effect of the WTC from 2002-2007? That's amazing. Huh.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 No, that is not what I said. I said that recession lasted until 2004 when the economy recovered. The next recession started in 2007. So you had a brain fart-I don't give a crap-just let it go.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Let what go? There are long term economic effects of FM/FM and the WTC etc. Simply because the overall economy goes up and down (as it always does) doesn't mean the period of time from 2000-2007 are isolated economic events. Long term effects (bubbles) are sometimes not readily apparent until after the burst.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
I have been honest in my arguments. It is just your perception that I have been twisting your words or have been dishonest. For example, a couple of days ago I asked, Tell me what F & F had to do with derivatives, credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, and AIG? I assumed you would answer nothing. Instead, your reply was, Did I say Fannie and Freddie was connected to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros or the others?
Contd
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
The point I was making was that F&F had nothing to do with the others and that the others were the bigger problem on their own.
Then two days ago I was compelled to post the following:
@Darkrift777 It was I who said "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow.", I never said you said that.
You have a proclivity to assume I am putting words in your mouth. I am doing no such thing.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 And that is why I said you've fabricated a straw man argument becuase I never said F&F had anything to do with the others. (Yet we all know the current state of the economy is due to many such incidents). So based on that you either are delusional or deliberately lying. I don't care which, but you are done.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
We have found out that heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasnt helped the wealth of the middle class to grow. Wages have been stagnant for 15 years while we increasingly have to shop at Walmart to get cheap goods from China just to get by. Hell, even Warren Buffet said he did not need a tax cut. He felt guilty because he paid 15% in capital gains taxes on the tens of millions he makes a year while his little secretary pays 28% on her income.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 You have a straw man argument going here. I never said that "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow." "Heaping money on the wealthy"? Please, you've already shown ignorance about the rate of the taxes cut for those you consider "rich".
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 It was I who said "heaping money on the wealthy with tax cuts and deregulation hasn't helped the middle class to grow.", I never said you said that. The rich have been making plenty of money and you want to give them more?
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Our gross in 2007 was 172k. If I got a tax cut, I would have heard about it. Show me the article on Bushs big middle class tax cut.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 If you made 172K from 2000-2001 you got a 0.5% cut. 2001-2002 another 0.5% cut. 2002-2003 then you received a 2% federal income tax cut under Bush. Total, you got a total of a 4% tax cut from 2000 to 2003. There were no federal income tax cuts or increases for anyone in 2007. By the way, every income bracket received similar tax cuts.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Given the choice between what the Republican say their viewpoint is -no regulations- and what Republicans seem to think the Democrat's viewpoint is-total control- I would pick the Republican's viewpoint.
Given the choice between the Republican viewpoint and the Democrat's actual viewpoint-a measure of regulations that does not eliminate growth- I will pick the Democratic viewpoint.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 It is your opinion that regulations does not eliminate growth, yet that wasn't even a claim I made. It most definitely has a negative effect on growth, as does increased taxes on business. This really is economics 101, sir.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
It iIS my opinion that regulations don't eliminate growth. We can do without more bubbles and rapid expansion then having people lose their homes and life savings when the bubbles burst. Moderate steady growth rather than your preference for BOOM/BUST.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Bubbles are made by gov regulation (as is the case with Fannie/Freddie). Come on, man. Do your research. Look up "Fannie Mae Freddie Mac deregulation meeting 2004". You want to do without more bubbles? Me too. Get gov out of business then.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Republicans love to blame F & F for the whole mess. Tell me what F & F had to do with derivatives, credit default swaps,Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, and AIG. Republicans only have simplistic answers and aren't smart enough to deal with complexities. No regulations means that banks can get too big to fail, take huge risks with depositors savings causing repeated depressions. Derivatives are a perfect example. They were totally unregulated and crashed and burned.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Did I say Fannie and Freddie was connected to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros or the others? Another straw man you have fabricated here. #sigh
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 The point I was making is that F&F was a relatively minor aspect of the crisis, but Republicans like to make it out to be the only reason. The biggest reason for the crisis is the one that connects all the others, degregulation without re-regulation and insufficient gov't oversight (SEC) and no regulations at all on many investments the banks and AIG were involved in.
Contrary to your opinion, the gov't SHOULD have gotten in the way of the banks.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 No, F&F was not minor. I find it interesting that you try to minimize it. Why would you do that, I wonder? Is it because you know the details regarding it? Is it because it is traced back to government over-regulation? The senate committee responsible for oversight deflected any attempts at reforming F&F before disaster hit. Learn the facts before you try to argue the points.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
Tell me, do you think that over-regulation of business promotes a positive environment for growth? How about over-taxation? Good or bad for business?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
So now that we know that tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation doesnt strengthen the economy, what is the answer? The GOP says its more tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation. God no, not again! More RINOs, please, before they completely destroy our economy.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 "So now that we know that tax cuts .... doesn't strengthen the economy"
Wait a second, we never discussed that in the least. Tell me, can you not understand the concept of getting government out of the way of business so that they have a market friendly environment in which to grow themselves? Take the auto industry for example. Now, the gov can mandate that US cars need to meet severe emission requirements (that imported cars don't need to meet).
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@plynth2 The extra costs leaves the American car company at a disadvantage with imported cars that don't have that kind of overhead. They also don't have to deal with paying as high of taxes as foreign car manufacturing companies. So how can you sit there and tell me that regulation and high taxes help American industry. All you have is a snide RINO comment, with no substance to work out your conclusions.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
The World Trade Center??? Talk about laughably absurd your mixing up your Bush recession/depressions.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 I mixed nothing up. The destruction of the World Trade Center clearly had an economic impact on this country. Are you denying this?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
I know I didn't get a tax cut (I made less than 200k). I know the poor didn't get tax cuts from conservatives- as the late Robert Novak said about tax cuts for the poor "they will just spend the extra money on beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets".
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 You didn't know you got a tax cut under Bush? Well, you surely did. If you give me your income level I can quickly look up how much of a tax cut you actually made. You DID get a tax cut though, and that is the point. I am little interested in quotes of individuals that seem to support your stereotypes against conservatives. Just not interested. Two can play that game and I will tell you ahead of time you don't want to start that.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
Your evaluation of what caused the economic recession is laughably absurd. You forgot to mention the destruction of the World Trade Center, the Fannie/Freddie housing/banking crisis bubble, airline and automotive industry, etc. But yeah, go ahead and claim tax cuts (which promote business growth) actually caused economic failure. It's easier that way.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Fannie and Freddie produced risky loans that the unregulated banks rated as high quality and made toxic assets out of them. The GOP repealed Glass-Steagall. The GOP took the stupid approach: Get rid of the old, outdated regulations (that takes no brains) and replace them with nothing (instead of new updated regulations which, again, takes no brains).
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Im not saying tax cuts are necessarily bad, but nothing the GOP has done has improved the wages of the middle class and poor and, at the same time, the rich got richer. We were told that we needed to heap money into the pockets of the wealthy thru tax cuts and banking deregulation to strengthen our economy. Obviously it did nothing of the sort.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Show me where in the Constitution where it is the gov who is responsible to set every wage for every industry, hmm? The GOP knows that government have no authority to dictate wages of the middle class or the poor. I think you would favor a socialist system, perhaps what the old USSR used to be. This "land of the free, home of the brave" clearly isn't your thing.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
"do the same thing everyone else has to do." does this "pay your fair share" rule not apply to us tax payers? Guess it only applies to what he sees fit?
beeson22 1 year ago
so lets see =are we better off than we were 4 trillion dollars ago?so far THE CHANGE SUCKS!!!!
varmittyawza 1 year ago
@varmittyawza You know after Bush handed President Barak Obama an $11 trillion deficit I can see why you are concerned.
If we can get unemployment down to 2% tax receipts go up and the deficit can go down all without raising taxes to 95% of Americans, what do you think of that?
breeze787 1 year ago
@breeze787 What portion of your ass did you pull that number from?
11 trillion? The wars combined were only worth 900 billion.
Chump changed compared to ole big ears' spending.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Our bailout for the TARP was $780 billion released within a 6 month period. Using that as a reference. How could our 6+ year war in Iraq over seas with a Pentagon budget of $750 billion annually, tax credits to the rich only add up to $900 billion? You keep listening to what you want to hear. Your information is poisoned, I wouldn't eat that apple if I were you. Or you'll have 1st hand experience of our Health Care Reform bill in action a lot sooner than you think.
breeze787 1 year ago
@breeze787 Sorry, barry is the president now; he could have killed the bill. He didn't.
That 780 billion is on his ass, not bush's.
"Or you'll have 1st hand experience of our Health Care Reform bill in action a lot sooner than you think"
Are you threatening me?
What are you gonna do, thumps down my comment?
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Total heatlh expenditures per capita in the US is $5,711. Canada is $2,998. In Gemany its $2,983. In Japan its $2,249. And they cover everyone. The US system is a failure. But the insurance companies like the system so the Republicans do too.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Perhaps you should live elsewhere then.
Those of us who have KNOW the value of TIMELY quality health care.
Your insurance company boogey man isn't your problem.
I hope you live long enough to realize that.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
In the process of trying to make it look like Obama is doing everything wrong, the Republicans are making themselves look stupid. The leader of the Repbulican party, Rush Limbaugh, like to say that Obama is attacking our fine feathered capitalists, the banks, Then they proudly state that they voted against the bailout.and that they would have let all the banks fail.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Oh the polls disagree. And there really isn't any need to make obama look like he is doing everything wrong; he is.
Rush Limbaugh isn't the leader of the republican party; John Boehner is.
Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host. (see how much you've learned already)
And the banks should have failed.
That's how capitalism works.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
"The banks should have failed" ? You obviously are ignorant of what happens when all the banks fail. The US and other western countries join the third world. Don't be a complete idiot.
plynth2 1 year ago
Comment removed
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 When banks fail the assets are sold off and we start again.
You will note THE BANKS were bailed out; not the people with money in the banks.
Ever wonder why that is?
The banks should have failed; I'm not buying 'the world will end if JP Morgan execs don't get their bacon saved"
It's total bullshit; obama is in their pocket, just like bush was. The bailout was for political contributors, not the banks.
They should have failed.'
Idiot.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
All the legitimate economists across the globe agreed that the banks were too big to fail and needed to be bailed out. No is no reason to consider the opinions of politicians. Thanks god the "let the banks just fail" crackpots were not in charge. There is this "follow the ideology even itf it kills us" notion that the crackpots have.
I appreciate how you signed your last post. It shows even an idiot can be self aware.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 All economist?
Google Search:Should Banks Be Allowed to Fail?
Once again your ignorance reigns true.
Riddle me this dumb-ass; if banks are supposed to take risks with our money in grow it; AND the government will bail them out when they take too much risk, WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF RISK A BANK SHOULD TAKE?
Well according to fuck-tards like yourself there is no limit, as there is no consequence for failure.
We all wait for the free market 'crack pots' to get back in charge, perhaps...
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
Wow. You started out as a simplistic LEAF (let-em-all-fail) Republican, and now you're turning into a real live thinking person who is starting to realize there are gray areas that have to be thought through.
It is more accurate to say it is the Republicans, who don't want any regulation, don't want to set limits and will allow them to fail thereby taking down our financial system..
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Um that's not the Republican position. They are in bed with wall street just like everyone else.
Especially your beloved democrats.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@plynth2 ...we can succesfully grow this economy thorugh free market principles.
This retarded big government models you fuck-holes promote is no-where's-ville.
But I don't expect you to comprehend this; as you are an idiot.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
It is the Democrats who want to set limits on risk ( I keep hearing that in some cases it was 40 to 1 which is considered too much.) I will leave to the financial experts to determine how much risk.
Its a more than a bit silly for you to believe that there are some people who think some things have no limit or have no consequences. I suppose you draw some cheap comfort from convincing yourself that the opposing opinion are ridiculous.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 The consequence is going broke. Do you not realize this?
I draw no comfort from the fact that you can vote.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Going broke is a possibilitybut it is more likely that the economy will recover and the debt can be reduced over time. Without the balout, long term financial collapse was a certainty. What the Republicans are saying is that going into debt is so bad that you would prefer to die than to go into debt to pay for a life saving operation.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Debt reduced? Really ?!? You want to put money on that?
Have you not seen any coverage of Greece this week?
The are the USA in the net twenty years.
And your metaphor is incredibly .misleading.
When a financial firm goes bankrupt the assets are sold off (i.e. loans) and the whoel works is sold to antoher financial firm.
One who is better at managing risk.
The only other option (which the demcrats love by the way) is to regulate the fucking hell out of them.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@plynth2 Which means limited risk; AND limited growth.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 What do you think of when you hear the term "financial collapse"?You're thinking that the crisis in Sept 2008 was just another recession. You have been fooled into thinking that the banks failing would be just like Pan Am Airlines failing-you just sell off the assets and keep going. If the system collapses, no one is in a position to buy anything. The economy dies.
plynth2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@poisonapple16
"thats how capitalism works" is such a stupidstatement to make. So let the banks fail and the US economy collapses. The Candadians have been spared this banking crisis because they actually regulate their banks sufficiently. So the US economy collapses and the Canadians have the strongest economy on the continent for the rest of our lives. I am too patriotic to simply allow our economy to fail without lifting a finger to prevent it. Are you really an American citizen?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 No the Canadians were spared this financial crisis because they do not have a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's actually financial regulation that CAUSED the crisis. If Chris Dodd and Barney Frank weren't forcing banks to give loans to people with no money there would be no crisis.
THEY caused the crisis, not the banks. People like yourself somehow can't grasp that.
And I'm not an American citizen, I'm a Canadian.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Thank god the Republicans were voted out of office. They would have cripple our econoomy for a decade by letting the banks fail and would further deregulate them so they will fail again in another ten years. They have come up with the stupidest ideas in the history of governance.
They would have let all the banks fail! Hahaha What idiots!!!
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Well god had nothing to do with it; their reckless spending did.
The crippling of the economy will come from the spending by the big ears administration. Inflation is just starting to go up.
Were you alive during carters presidency? 20% Interest rates? Double digit inflation?
We get to do it all over again.
I suppose carter is the only informed one who is happy; by 2012 he will no longer be the country's worst president.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 re: $780 billion would prefer to take it off of Bush's hand, looking forward to the challenge. Obama's only been in office less than a year and a half, still lots of time to address financial reform, unemployment, immigration, the oil spill collect lots of tax receipts and bring down our debt.
The poison that I'm referring to is the media that you're living and breathing. It can't be healthy. If you hated Obama when he was elected my point is pretty clear.
breeze787 1 year ago
@breeze787 Oh I hate anyone who steals from my children; the president included.
There will be no bringing down of the debt; he just signed a bill that adds 12 trillion to it over the next 10 years.
And seriously how long are you going to use the 'only been in office...' argument.
Didn't you left-tards blame George Bush for 9/11 after he had only been in office for 8 months?
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@breeze787 It's regrettable that you can't see this regime for what it is.
If you where a German 80 years ago you would be goose stepping along with the rest of them.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 typical right winged conservative radical republidunk response pulling the "hitler card".
Here try this left wing, progressive response on for size. Employment rises in 34 states. We've had 3 consecutive positive GDP quarters. GM has $35 billion in the bank. Auto industry is rehiring laid off workers? Boeing putting a new 787 assembly plant in South Carolina. Pepsico Chief has great confidence in US Recovery and Ford and Apple are kicking ass! God Bless the USA you dipshit!
breeze787 1 year ago
@breeze787 Oh In confident in the US.
Only 2.5 more years and we can have some leadership.
Until then we will have to live with 15-20% unemployment.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
and what does poison say when that unemployment figure of 9.9% goes down to a reasonable 6%? Or has Fox News got you to drink their whine?
Oh yeah, you've already drunken the kool aide because you site the 15% unemployment figure which includes unemployed prisoners, the mentally retarded, children not of age to work, retirees, those working getting paid under the table and those of us who can sit on our butt and mann youtube sites, like, like YOU who don't wanna work!
breeze787 1 year ago
@breeze787 I will be grateful my business has picked up.
I site 15% because those are closer to reality than the U3 labour statistics the white house reports. U6 numbers are much higher as they also include people who are unemployed who have stopped looking for work.
In my state the U6 number is 19% in Michigan it's much higher.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 The US economy dies and takes the world economy along with it. This economy is bad enough as it is. Thank god some conservative ideaologues weren't in power to make it collapse. There is nothing in capitalism that guarantees the economic survival of the US. In your preferred scenario, in a decade or two some other country would be buying up the remnamts of the US economy. Are you trying to move us toward the rapture?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 If we were having this conversation face to face I might accuse of of being hard of hearing.
I'm not buying the premise that the US economy collapses with JP Morgan, AIG, or anyone else.
Capitalism isn't required to ensure the survival of the US; that can be done through smart fiscal policy.
The federal government has no business picking winners in business.
That's what fascist do.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 I know you're not buying it, but the best economists and financial experts know it. Banks are still failing-probably 120 so far this year. If all the big banks were allow to fail-it all comes down.
I am not sure what right wing fascist corporatists would do, but if the US gov't has the ability to rescue a collapsing fin. sys., they should. At least now we have a functioning economy with wtih to pay down the debt.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 You operating under the premise that if the government had done nothing the entire economy would collapse.
It would not have. I will not agree with that premise as it is ridiculous.
And if you honestly believe they are going to pay down the debt...
...you're more foolish than I gave you credit for.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 You may consider the premise of all the best economists and financial experts to be ridiculous. Republican politicians have tried to suggest that we should have let all the banks go bankrupt- but I don't listen to politicians or radio talk show hosts or FOX News propaganda. But you apparently do which makes your opinion about as valuable as a poliician's.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 I don't need to listen to anyone; your premise is absolutely illogical.
IF the federal government can not let banks fail it has to choose which banks should be saved. (Who ever contributes to political campaigns the most)
After it saves it's favored banks it will be pressured to "highly regulate the industry" to protect 'it's' investment.
High regulation will prohibit banks from taking risk.
Congratulations. You just killed capitalism by saving banks 'too big to fail'
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Now can you follow that or are you just too dense?
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Although it looks like in your post that you are talking to yourself, I suppose it was directed to me. Its humorous that you think I might not be able to follow your simplistic scenario. Did you have to struggle to come up with it or something?
Your scenario is not what is happening. You've whacked your head on the slippery slope too many times.
plynth2 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 There is no need to tell me that you don't listen to anybody-its obvious. Its not my premise-it was the assessment of the experts. Its a bit extreme for me to say that if the Republicans were in the majority that they would let the economy collapse. Bush put up the TARP money and, despite all the "let 'em fail" crap dogma, any Republican who actually had responsibilty would do the same.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 bush was no conservative. His failings as a president are well documented.
Bailing out all his buds on wall street was one of them.
A republican would; a libertarian wouldn't; nor would a constitutionalists.
This maybe why everyone hates republicans.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
Well, if what you say is true, that a libertarian and a constitutionalist would have let the financial system collapse, I will never vote for either one of them. Absolute adherance to any system or philosophy is foolish. We must change our responses to changing facts on the ground.
Libertarians and constitutionalists are both political philosophies that value purity over pragmatism. And as with all political philosophies, they rely on perception at the expense of facts.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Are you asuming that a libertarian or a constitutionalist would "let the financial system collapse" by not bailing out companies? As if bailout or no bailout were the only options? What about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes and removing harmful mandates so the economy flourishes naturally. There is still demand for products, it is merely the environment that has become unprofitable BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Your absolute adherence to that philosophy would have allowed the financial collapse in the winter of 2009. No amount of tax cuts or deregulation at the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009 would have averted that disaster. 30% of the stimulus package in Feb 2009 was tax cuts for the middle class. We've had years of deregulation and we still had the worst recession in 80 years.
youcrackpot 1 year ago
@youcrackpot Bologna.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
That's all ya got? I had no idea that libertarianism is such a thin veneer.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Your statements are grotesquely inaccurate. I can tell it would take much to long to explain the truth to you, which you would obviously reject as lies because you have already absorbed enough bigoted info from biased sources. So, why waste my time? Can you prove to me you aren't a radical left wing partizan hack?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 Fact is, I was a registered Republican for 35 years and became unaffiliated 3 years ago. For decades I hoped the Republicans would become the majority so they could turn this country around. In 1994 it happened. In 2000 they had complete control.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 The problem is that the republican party has been filled with RINOs who don't act like conservatives, fically or otherwise. Your long list of stereotypical accusations against the GOP (obstructionists, racists, corporatists, birthers, etc.) doesn't speak well for your objectivity. Seems to me that you cut&pasted that nonsense. You also are inaccurate in your belief that there was deregulation and "tax cuts for the wealthy". Are you implying the poor and middle class didn't get cuts?
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777 We know the banks, left to their own devices, will invent financial instruments (what did AIG have to do with Fannie and Freddie?) from which they will make huge amounts of money while building a house of cards, and then make more money on the short side, all the while sucking REAL wealth out of the bank accounts and pension funds of the average guy.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the housing crisis which had a direct impact on the economy. They were forced to make risky loans by the government, and in doing so put themselves at risk. It was the government that required them to make the loans, so they were not "left their own devices".
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Do you really think there are people who believe in over-regulation and over-taxation? Thats some goofy thinking on your part. Thats as stupid as thinking that Republicans want excessive-pay for the wealthy and excessive-profits for corporations, and excessive-prices for the poor and middle class.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Everything up to this point has led me to believe that you are opposed to "tax cuts for the rich" (business owners) and favored gov regulation even to the point of picking what wages should be for the poor and middle class. Or am I wrong? Because if I am wrong then you have got to do a better job at explaining yourself.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
Their total failure across the board, compounded by them becoming a DO NOTHING party of obstructionists, racists, corporatists, birthers, southern centrists, religious wingnuts, homophobes, swiftboaters, dittoheads, torture lovers, and bastards like Rove, I was too embarrassed to be identified with them.
They say no one hates smoke more than an ex-smoker - I guess thats me.
plynth2 1 year ago
@Darkrift777
I have no issue with libertarians except that they have the same ideological purity tendency that is not pragmatic. Therefore, after years of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy, we end up with this depression and now they say we need a lot more of the same??? they will not get my vote until Rove and Cheney are both dead and buried.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Well I will attempt to get an answer to the same question I've asked over and over.
If banks and financial institutions can depend on big daddy government on bailing them out every time, what will motivate them to take more careful risks?
Well?
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 No one wants gov't to bail out the banks every time. Finance reform's purpose is to prevent future bailouts. There was a $50B fund in the reform to be used to pay for the process of breaking up and selling off banks that fail. Now they are also looking at amendments to limit bank size so that they don't get too big.
I shouldn't have to tell you all this - its been in the news.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 Right; we will pass a law which will constrain the activities of people in the future who can re-write laws.
I hope you can forgive my lack of enthusiasm.
Limiting size = limiting economic growth
Tell me they are amending the constitution to limit spending and I will get excited.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Eschewing regulation and encouraging unlimited growth only to construct a house of cards that will ultimately collapses is not wise. I understand why politicians take ridiculous positions and defend them (they get campaign contribut8ions from the one they are defending), but I don't understand why voters take the same ridiculous postions. Why are you against any regulations on banks?
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 The house of cards is wise; the trick is that when it falls YOU LET IT FALL.
I never said I didn't want to regulate banks activities, that would be stupid.
I said we should not be regulating banks size.
Banks should be free to grow as large as they wish; and fail when they have grown too large or take too much risk.
The only logical opposite to this thinking is a centrally planned economy.
I'm sure those never fail...
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 There is no need to polarize the options available. Centrally plannned economy is not the only other option. We have had more regulations placed on banks for 75 years which kept them from collapsing all without being anything close to a centrally planned economy. Years ago, in my lifetime, a bank could only have branches within the same county. That certainly limited the size of banks without being centrally planned.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 And I disagree. Banks need to be regulated, not strangled.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Regulated instead of strangled? Obviously.
plynth2 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
This is not a game of Monopoly. The hundreds of millions of lives that would be ruined when giant banks collapse is not something we should simply allow to happen. I suppose if you are active in a militia, such an outcome might have some appeal for you.
plynth2 1 year ago
@plynth2 It's like I am conversing with one of my balls.
Hundreds of millions of investors would be affected; that's how the game is played.
If you want your money secured there ia a money market account for that. IF you are going to risk your money in the market or in a fund that participates in the market you may lose it.
That's the free market.
Don't they teach you kids this shit in school?
If you want your money to grow it requires risk. The more risk, the more it will grow.
poisonapple16 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
You have a nice little ideology going for yourself there. The bad and stupid get punished and the smart and good thrive. Yeah, right.
To discuss only the investors fits nicely into your Pleasantville world. My world is aware that investors can take down the financial system which affects innocent, good, smart, people who lose their jobs, their savings, their homes and with it goes their hopes for their kids to go to college, or to pay for medical care.
plynth2 1 year ago
@poisonapple16
I guess you learned that shit in school.
plynth2 1 year ago
@poisonapple16 Try talking to your other ball - it might be smarter.
plynth2 1 year ago
@varmittyawza Yes, we are better off having spent that money. I like the way things are improving. I just wish it would happen even faster.
plynth2 1 year ago