Democratic control of both houses and the Presidency has brought the worst manmade disaster in US History, quadrupled deficits, 17% real unemployment, massive foreclosures, insurance hikes, and the return of class warfare.
@pbmdh Exactly. None of that came under Bush. Let's not forget: $10 Trillion of homeowner equity - gone. Failing dollar. Sustained >9% unemployment (17% real U6 unemployment). 10% increase in health care costs. More uninsured Americans. Quadrupled deficits. Cronyism. Less transparency. More corruption (Solyndra). Absolute clueless and childish behaviour. Get him out of office and onto the lecture circuit where he can speak to uneducated dreamy eyed liberals, and not do more damage.
The economic downturn happened UNDER Bush. You can point out all the current numbers you want. But deregulation/lack of regulation of the financial derivative market is at the root cause of this. Something that was done under Clinton (republican congress) and Bush.
@pbmdh Carter put the downturn in motion with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which Clinton put on steroids. Granted - Bush was focused on terrorism and did not follow through on his platform to correct real estate market, but this was pure liberal policy. The downturn occurred in September 2008, when Obama took a statistically insurmountable lead in the polls, and the markets responded. Tell me - did Frank-Dodd fix any of this? No. CRA still functioning, with no addl reg.
Yeah, you listen to far too much Fox News. Do you even know what financial derivatives are? Purely private, purely dangerous. Even a small downturn in that market (which is exactly what happened in '08) could completely crash the world economy. Try reading a book on it once in a while, the CRA has nothing to do with a worldwide derivative market nearing $1.2 Quadrillion.
@pbmdh Typically sad liberal ploy - dismiss anyone with a counter point as a disciple of Fox News. I do not even get Fox News, nor would it matter. You are unable to discount a single fact that I provided, instead resorting to shallow name-calling. Essentially (since you are a financial powerhouse) explain the ultimate collateral behind these financial derivatives.... I will give you a huge hint..... bad loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why were they given? Research the CRA.
"bad loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Wrong. Do some actual research instead of being a hypocrite by pulling usual "evil liberal" crap. Also, pulling the "Fannie and Freddie" card just shows how completely misinformed you are. Acting as if Fannie and Freddie is at the root of this. Guess what, they aren't. They were just one player in this, but considering how little they had tied into derivatives compared to other massive banks, they were a small one.
@pbmdh For the last decade, Freddie and Fannie have financed more than 2/3 of all homeowner loans, including a majority of the bad ones. Again, the derivatives were financial trading instruments, but at their core, they were based on mortgages. That is why derivatives collapsed when the housing market tanked. Cause and effect. The derivatives were BASED on Freddie and Fannie loans. Frank-Dodd contains ZERO language to address either the CRA or Freddie/Fannie. Typical liberal lip service.
@pbmdh Ooh, sorry for confusing you. I should have used the term "suggestive name calling". i.e. suggesting that I listen to too much Fox News (therefore am ignorant), or should try reading a book (therefore am ignorant). I know it is difficult for liberals to see simple cause and effect, but do not extend your weakness to the rest of us. But tell us more, it is enjoyable to watch liberals defend Obama as a financial genius.
Totalitarian governments take a one-time win and run with it...no debate allowed once an election is over.
A constitutional republic has regular elections, and policy is a constantly evolving process. The day after an election, the process starts over fresh. There is, and always should be, intense debate and disagreement.
Not sure what "arbitrator" is or what you are referring to. I am sure that you can wrangle the english language with the best of them...but..you are a "tenther"..so that probably means a "deather"..a "birther"..."becker". The answer is..republicans lost and the democrats won...get over the sour grapes..the country and people are trying to move on and past some of your ideals. We did it for the past 8...you babies can't even do it for a couple of months..w/o your heads exploding.
Such BS..that conservatives have paid in to Medicare and SS..and libs have not. It's a typical righty response to humanity.."I got mine..hope you get yours". Typically selfish. Your comments about who has paid and who hasn't...illuminates everything. Too bad a lot of people have to go down..but oh well...at least some "people" won't be able to get something for nothing. Friggin' selfish and dangerous.
not sure who u r responding to but, it is a typical lefty response to think that big govt is the "great" arbitrator in deciding who deserves to get what & who is going to have it taken from them to give to some1 else.
Hey nyguy! Right now I just want government to stop invading our freedoms. I have no prob with Medicare but the truth is it is unconstitutional too. That's a hard pill to swallow, but guess what? If we didn't have all these govt giveaways, then families would stick together and charities would be stronger. What's wrong with that? This administration has not been right abou t one thing. Let Congress be the guinea pig for healtcare & not take THEIR payraise this year.
I see that you are a libertarian. Why don't you write Ron Paul asking him to reject any raises and if they pass it, to return the money? By the way, I don't see anyone with signs asking medicare to be abolished. Why is that? I thought that libertarians made no exception to the constitution when it's violated.
Most conservatives are fine with that b/c WE paid in. Unlike liberals, conservatives would rather take care of themselves and control their own destiny. Many Obama voters have not paid in nearly as much to medicare b/c they have always depended on the kindess of individuals and the govts genoristy with the middle classes tax dollars. Libs prefer that the govt. lookout for their well being b/c they have been taught they can't do it for themselves.
So you are saying is that we are in a vicious cycle and now we can't get out because we already paid some money in. Basically you are willing to have the benefits of it because it's already instituted. How about we get rid of it by not allowing anyone to join in if they have never paid any benefits? Let medicare and social security extinguish itself? And I'm a liberal by the way, where did you get that I can't pay for my own bills?
Back to the question: are you willing to go for my ideas?
I knew you were a liberal that went w/o saying. I never mentioned your "bills" but yes libs in believe more govt solves the issue no matter what the issue is. BUT YES have the fed govt pay out those that have paid in (as I said above) & we can then dissolve Medicare and Soc. Security 2 if u want. But the govt can't do it b/c they don't have the money. Why don't they have the money???
Medicare & Soc Security were supposed to be put aside as you paid in & invested that way by the time you needed it, the funds would be there and have gained interest to pay for your care. BUT as govt does they decided to use that money and break their promise and mismanage the program which is another example of why they should not be trusted with your entire livelihood and with this bill. Small govt!!
Landrieu ignored your question. That was rude. I think the guy who spoke after you who said he was for universal healthcare was a plant. I was about the 15th in line and he was nowhere to be seen until he popped up on the front row in his cheap suit. How'd you like those Acorn people with their Obama signs they left all over the place for someone to pick up after them? BTW, I saw NO Obama signs at Vitter's meeting in Kenner. Those people must've been bussed in for Landrieu's meeting.
I propose that if you are against something, you have the balls to fight against it, even if unpopular. Are you willing to go out to the next town hall meeting and challenge your leaders on it if it's something you believe, or you only challenge it because Obama proposed it? How do you pick which unconstitucional policies you will stand up to oppose? So far I see a lot of hot air.
You have to start somewhere. At the current rate both Dems & Repubs are stating that Medicare will go broke in the next 2-7 years. I was not around when Medicare was instituted or I would have opposed it then. I would oppose this bill no matter who proposed it. Typical libs everything is about Obama and not his policies.
I felt I answered your question when I wrote "you have to start somewhere". When you sit down to eat a burger do you shove the whole thing in your mouth? No, you eat it one bite at a time. I am young and I am in this for the long haul. Sun Tzu would advise not to fight the unneccessary battle. As I said, Medicare unless reformed properly, will cease to exist soon enough. Our country can only survive on borrowed money for so long which is just another reason I am against this current bill.
back to the "don't eat a burger all at once" analogy, that is another reference to this bill. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP you don't pass something like this ovrnght unless u want to destroy our economy. UR correct this is a massive cluster&^*&^*, we need to take our time and slowly and methodically solve the problem, piece by piece. Yes, we are in a large vicious cycle and a big bill passed in a hurry in an attempt to have a govt takeover (& it will be) cure all our ills is not the answer.
thats the problem the fed gov thinks we need their help,hwo about take a pay cut ,no more retirement for life ,or any this isn't a real job only a duty to your country,fair trade, stop exporting our companies and jobs,BUT LETS FIRST FIX THE PRIVATE THIEVING FED RESERVE, END THE FED AND MOST OF OUR PROBLEMS WILL END WITH IT! I mean who really runs our gov? Maybe the owners of the fed? how many of Obama's click worked for the fed?
How do these people get into a position of power? They don't know what they're talking about.
fanadfilms 6 months ago
Democratic control of both houses and the Presidency has brought the worst manmade disaster in US History, quadrupled deficits, 17% real unemployment, massive foreclosures, insurance hikes, and the return of class warfare.
SWGutto 1 year ago 2
@SWGutto
Yeah, because none of that came under Bush.
OH WAIT.
pbmdh 4 months ago
@pbmdh Exactly. None of that came under Bush. Let's not forget: $10 Trillion of homeowner equity - gone. Failing dollar. Sustained >9% unemployment (17% real U6 unemployment). 10% increase in health care costs. More uninsured Americans. Quadrupled deficits. Cronyism. Less transparency. More corruption (Solyndra). Absolute clueless and childish behaviour. Get him out of office and onto the lecture circuit where he can speak to uneducated dreamy eyed liberals, and not do more damage.
SWGutto 3 months ago
@SWGutto
The economic downturn happened UNDER Bush. You can point out all the current numbers you want. But deregulation/lack of regulation of the financial derivative market is at the root cause of this. Something that was done under Clinton (republican congress) and Bush.
pbmdh 3 months ago
@pbmdh Carter put the downturn in motion with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which Clinton put on steroids. Granted - Bush was focused on terrorism and did not follow through on his platform to correct real estate market, but this was pure liberal policy. The downturn occurred in September 2008, when Obama took a statistically insurmountable lead in the polls, and the markets responded. Tell me - did Frank-Dodd fix any of this? No. CRA still functioning, with no addl reg.
SWGutto 3 months ago
@SWGutto
Yeah, you listen to far too much Fox News. Do you even know what financial derivatives are? Purely private, purely dangerous. Even a small downturn in that market (which is exactly what happened in '08) could completely crash the world economy. Try reading a book on it once in a while, the CRA has nothing to do with a worldwide derivative market nearing $1.2 Quadrillion.
pbmdh 3 months ago
@pbmdh Typically sad liberal ploy - dismiss anyone with a counter point as a disciple of Fox News. I do not even get Fox News, nor would it matter. You are unable to discount a single fact that I provided, instead resorting to shallow name-calling. Essentially (since you are a financial powerhouse) explain the ultimate collateral behind these financial derivatives.... I will give you a huge hint..... bad loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why were they given? Research the CRA.
SWGutto 3 months ago
@SWGutto
"bad loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Wrong. Do some actual research instead of being a hypocrite by pulling usual "evil liberal" crap. Also, pulling the "Fannie and Freddie" card just shows how completely misinformed you are. Acting as if Fannie and Freddie is at the root of this. Guess what, they aren't. They were just one player in this, but considering how little they had tied into derivatives compared to other massive banks, they were a small one.
pbmdh 3 months ago
@pbmdh For the last decade, Freddie and Fannie have financed more than 2/3 of all homeowner loans, including a majority of the bad ones. Again, the derivatives were financial trading instruments, but at their core, they were based on mortgages. That is why derivatives collapsed when the housing market tanked. Cause and effect. The derivatives were BASED on Freddie and Fannie loans. Frank-Dodd contains ZERO language to address either the CRA or Freddie/Fannie. Typical liberal lip service.
SWGutto 3 months ago
@SWGutto
Also, this must be a cut+paste response for you, since there was nothing in my post that could be considered "name calling
pbmdh 3 months ago
@pbmdh Ooh, sorry for confusing you. I should have used the term "suggestive name calling". i.e. suggesting that I listen to too much Fox News (therefore am ignorant), or should try reading a book (therefore am ignorant). I know it is difficult for liberals to see simple cause and effect, but do not extend your weakness to the rest of us. But tell us more, it is enjoyable to watch liberals defend Obama as a financial genius.
SWGutto 3 months ago
Comment removed
SWGutto 1 year ago
Hurley;
Totalitarian governments take a one-time win and run with it...no debate allowed once an election is over.
A constitutional republic has regular elections, and policy is a constantly evolving process. The day after an election, the process starts over fresh. There is, and always should be, intense debate and disagreement.
professorofliberty 2 years ago
Not sure what "arbitrator" is or what you are referring to. I am sure that you can wrangle the english language with the best of them...but..you are a "tenther"..so that probably means a "deather"..a "birther"..."becker". The answer is..republicans lost and the democrats won...get over the sour grapes..the country and people are trying to move on and past some of your ideals. We did it for the past 8...you babies can't even do it for a couple of months..w/o your heads exploding.
hurleyburly 2 years ago
Such BS..that conservatives have paid in to Medicare and SS..and libs have not. It's a typical righty response to humanity.."I got mine..hope you get yours". Typically selfish. Your comments about who has paid and who hasn't...illuminates everything. Too bad a lot of people have to go down..but oh well...at least some "people" won't be able to get something for nothing. Friggin' selfish and dangerous.
hurleyburly 2 years ago
not sure who u r responding to but, it is a typical lefty response to think that big govt is the "great" arbitrator in deciding who deserves to get what & who is going to have it taken from them to give to some1 else.
allwalker 2 years ago
Answer the question MAry
jjrglobal 2 years ago
If the government doens't have constitution backing for health care, should it apply for medicare?
nyguy 2 years ago
medicare is unconstitutional per the tenth amendment which I read to the senator but of course that doesn't mean anything to her!
gsneff 2 years ago
So, do you support ending medicare?
nyguy 2 years ago
Hey nyguy! Right now I just want government to stop invading our freedoms. I have no prob with Medicare but the truth is it is unconstitutional too. That's a hard pill to swallow, but guess what? If we didn't have all these govt giveaways, then families would stick together and charities would be stronger. What's wrong with that? This administration has not been right abou t one thing. Let Congress be the guinea pig for healtcare & not take THEIR payraise this year.
ObmibSm 2 years ago
I see that you are a libertarian. Why don't you write Ron Paul asking him to reject any raises and if they pass it, to return the money? By the way, I don't see anyone with signs asking medicare to be abolished. Why is that? I thought that libertarians made no exception to the constitution when it's violated.
nyguy 2 years ago
I think most conservatives will accept that we abolish Medicare on the following conditions....
allwalker 2 years ago
1. You give us everything we have paid in to it.
2. You give us everything our employers paid in for us (yes your boss has to pay into medicare for every employee they have)
3. You compound the interest anually for every year we have paid in by 3%...
allwalker 2 years ago
Most conservatives are fine with that b/c WE paid in. Unlike liberals, conservatives would rather take care of themselves and control their own destiny. Many Obama voters have not paid in nearly as much to medicare b/c they have always depended on the kindess of individuals and the govts genoristy with the middle classes tax dollars. Libs prefer that the govt. lookout for their well being b/c they have been taught they can't do it for themselves.
allwalker 2 years ago
So you are saying is that we are in a vicious cycle and now we can't get out because we already paid some money in. Basically you are willing to have the benefits of it because it's already instituted. How about we get rid of it by not allowing anyone to join in if they have never paid any benefits? Let medicare and social security extinguish itself? And I'm a liberal by the way, where did you get that I can't pay for my own bills?
Back to the question: are you willing to go for my ideas?
nyguy 2 years ago
I knew you were a liberal that went w/o saying. I never mentioned your "bills" but yes libs in believe more govt solves the issue no matter what the issue is. BUT YES have the fed govt pay out those that have paid in (as I said above) & we can then dissolve Medicare and Soc. Security 2 if u want. But the govt can't do it b/c they don't have the money. Why don't they have the money???
allwalker 2 years ago
Medicare & Soc Security were supposed to be put aside as you paid in & invested that way by the time you needed it, the funds would be there and have gained interest to pay for your care. BUT as govt does they decided to use that money and break their promise and mismanage the program which is another example of why they should not be trusted with your entire livelihood and with this bill. Small govt!!
allwalker 2 years ago
Landrieu ignored your question. That was rude. I think the guy who spoke after you who said he was for universal healthcare was a plant. I was about the 15th in line and he was nowhere to be seen until he popped up on the front row in his cheap suit. How'd you like those Acorn people with their Obama signs they left all over the place for someone to pick up after them? BTW, I saw NO Obama signs at Vitter's meeting in Kenner. Those people must've been bussed in for Landrieu's meeting.
ObmibSm 2 years ago
Tell you what, Medicare is technically unconstitutional. Does that answer your question? So what do you propose we do about it? Abolish it?..okay!
allwalker 2 years ago
I propose that if you are against something, you have the balls to fight against it, even if unpopular. Are you willing to go out to the next town hall meeting and challenge your leaders on it if it's something you believe, or you only challenge it because Obama proposed it? How do you pick which unconstitucional policies you will stand up to oppose? So far I see a lot of hot air.
nyguy 2 years ago
You have to start somewhere. At the current rate both Dems & Repubs are stating that Medicare will go broke in the next 2-7 years. I was not around when Medicare was instituted or I would have opposed it then. I would oppose this bill no matter who proposed it. Typical libs everything is about Obama and not his policies.
allwalker 2 years ago
I felt I answered your question when I wrote "you have to start somewhere". When you sit down to eat a burger do you shove the whole thing in your mouth? No, you eat it one bite at a time. I am young and I am in this for the long haul. Sun Tzu would advise not to fight the unneccessary battle. As I said, Medicare unless reformed properly, will cease to exist soon enough. Our country can only survive on borrowed money for so long which is just another reason I am against this current bill.
allwalker 2 years ago
back to the "don't eat a burger all at once" analogy, that is another reference to this bill. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP you don't pass something like this ovrnght unless u want to destroy our economy. UR correct this is a massive cluster&^*&^*, we need to take our time and slowly and methodically solve the problem, piece by piece. Yes, we are in a large vicious cycle and a big bill passed in a hurry in an attempt to have a govt takeover (& it will be) cure all our ills is not the answer.
allwalker 2 years ago
thats the problem the fed gov thinks we need their help,hwo about take a pay cut ,no more retirement for life ,or any this isn't a real job only a duty to your country,fair trade, stop exporting our companies and jobs,BUT LETS FIRST FIX THE PRIVATE THIEVING FED RESERVE, END THE FED AND MOST OF OUR PROBLEMS WILL END WITH IT! I mean who really runs our gov? Maybe the owners of the fed? how many of Obama's click worked for the fed?
MrHr1207 2 years ago