Aaron, for your children and grandchildren to "be on the hook" for excessive federal spending you must first have children. Your children and grandchildren...that is funny!
Ha, ha. At 1:30 Mr. Madcow chokes on his own bile. Aaron handles himself well and is well-spoken and is not hypocritical at all. Madcow is full of hate for any Republican and conducts herself in a most undiplomatic way.
@ffelix422 You wish! --only in your demented mind. Why don't you get your fag friend Anderson Cooper to totally come out like the Madcow has? Leave Aaron alone; he is a decent human being and doesn't need
@ffelix422 Right on! The Beast would have to be alive currently, I think--ready to step in at the right moment.
With Satan's power behind him, it could be anyone. O has illuminati bloodlines through his mother and we don't know who his father is because we have not seen a real birth certificate.
@ffelix422 It is not logical to accept his birth certificate when it appears after 21/2 years of our asking for it.
There are expert analyses on the web showing that it has been made up of elements from various other
birth certificates. Yes, Antichrist can be a system and the Bible says many Antichrists will appear, and I
think we are seeing that. The False Prophet of Revelation who works with the Beast will probably be the leader of the end-time, one-world false religion.
@onthewall888 He provided the birth certificate in the beginning, racist nutjobs wouldn't accept it, any more than they'd accept the one he just provided - which was provided as an exception to what the law normally permits. If you think he's not American, you are operating on your last fucking brain cell.
@SGhockeychika4 As for Bush, this is from presidential profiles dot com -
"Bush's transcript at Yale shows that he was a solid C student. A history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. The transcript indicates in his freshman year, he was in the 21st percentile of his class—meaning that four-fifths of the students were above him".
@SGhockeychika4 The right is pushing to teach creationism in public schools wherever they find support (nearly always red states). In spite of the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community it is also fighting global warming). Much of the rhetoric is coming from the likes of Glenn Beck. He must have had some awesome high school science courses. By the way, Harvard and Yale have massive endowments. If Beck had been that smart, he WOULD have been admitted w/ scholarship.
@SGhockeychika4 I have to chuckle at your comment that Standford is a 'step down' from Brown. Right. I will make some generalizations - the conservative punditry as evidenced by the likes of the Fox morning team shows a real lack of intellectual ability or curiosity. The tea party people are profoundly anti-intellectual. Please give me evidence of liberal support for "Creation World" being built in Kentucky? While we can argue about journalists and TV personalities, let's look at that (cont).
@SGhockeychika4 I'm 37, attended Rice in Houston, and continued at the University of Texas for a J.D. I assure you, the University of Texas law school is one of the most competitive in the country. Bush applied and was rejected. He then turned to the Ivy league. As for SAT scores, Bush scored 1206 which should not have earned admittance. Al Gore by the way scored 1355. As for Kerry, he scored 1190 which compared to 1206 is not statistically significant. But that's not the point. (cont)
@SGhockeychika4 Since when is NYU a "step down from Ivy League"?. I worked my way through college, but Glenn was too busy dealing with personal problems. I was able to obtain a scholarship and continued to complete a graduate degree. There has been some indication that O'Reilly had "help" getting into an Ivy. As for Hannity, that he was accepted to NYU doesn't impress me (see above), what is more important is that he did not obtain a college degree. But you miss the point. (cont)
@canisdormit - Rachel hates America? What a ridiculous thing to say! She merely pointed out the duplicity of the Republican platform. They say they're against Government pork yet they gleefully accept big government stimulus money, making sure to call a press conference and pose with one of those REALLY BIG CHECKS.
They seem to be the ones who really hate America. The poor Americans anyway.
i refused my inheritance from my grandfather because i thought he was a horrible person with horrible views...why can't republicans take the same stand?
@xsuzheartx I find it funny how Democrats are the ones who enjoy pointing at people and calling them gay when they don't agree with what they're saying. I thought liberals wanted men and women to dress however they want. Then again Dems have never been known for their consistency have they?
@JermzzzyFTW Or I'm just well aware of the long history of rampantly anti-gay "family values" conservatives getting outed. I find it funny that a conservative is lecturing me on hypocrisy, though.
sounds like he wants the government involved in the economy in a way that does not comport with GOP talking points. and he's seriously going to pin "pork" solely on the Dems (mean, eff the Dems, but that's for another time), GTFO of here douchekins.
@contessa61 Nobel prize in economics. Hey, if you think that TNTdude is OK, then I am checking out. It has been good to have this back and forth and I believe there are things to be learned from all sides of the debate, but TNT is not someone I wish to deal with or see his comments. There is no place for that behavior in my world. I am not perfect and have lost it at times, but this guy starts and ends with the same profanity everywhere he goes. I think it is computer generated spam.
@chevboy2 Uhh, which video were you watching? The one I saw had little Aaron, hands folded, swallowing hard once he got called out on his blatant hypocrisy. I'll take Dr. Maddow anyday over some pink cheeked freshman republican.
@tonewheel LOL funny you call her doctor when she hosts a low rated cable television show and the "pink cheeked freshman" as u refered to him holds a seat that rachel never could
@chevboy2 Chev, I think you're wrong. Very wrong. Dr. Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford, England. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Rachel is infinitely more qualified to hold a position in politics.
@tonewheel Unfortunately no amount of education can teach common sense, and sometimes I just worry about her when she rambles from the telepromter on msnbc and says some pretty ridiculous things
@tonewheel Actually yes I do tune into her show when i get the stomach for it but i can only take so much of her bias views, and have you ever met "Dr. Maddow" in person?
@chevboy2 And your point is what? She holds a doctorate from Oxford. That she could not "hold" a seat representing rural Illinois is something to be ashamed of is a bizarre argument to make. If you identify as a conservative, I assume you celebrate other intellectual politicians like Palin and O'donnell, or their media supporters e.g. Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh- none of the latter having more than a couple of courses beyond high school. It appears repubs are in love with anti- intellectualism.
@chevboy2" -holds a seat that rachel never could." Um, according to who? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't? Does it ever occur to you that some people are content in their stations for whatever reason? Perhaps she feels she's in a better position as a TV/Radio host of her own show to address certain things, and effect certain changes that way opposed to being a member of Congress.
Thank you, Rachel, for once again calling to attention the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP jerks who slam Obama and then crow about the money they got for THEIR district.
Too bad Americans can't seem to notice these obvious things for themselves......
If the bill Schock voted on included ONLY the Illinois project and Schock voted against it then praised it, then Rachel would have a point. But the fact is, the bill included many, MANY things that basically increased the role of the federal government which Schock has always stood against. Those small things were only included to try and convince the individual senators to support the whole thing.
Why can't this Schock guy not answer the questions "Yes, I do take any federal money that I can, even if I voted against the bill providing it" and "Yes, for Republicans voting on bills right now is not what helps the country, but how can Republicans block anything good the Democrats suggest."
Glad, someone like Rachel Maddow is calling Schock on his hypocrisy.
@socalsifu It's one thing to expect your fair share.
It's another thing to celebrate the positive results of the Stimulus package on one's constituency while voting against and criticizing the very bill that brought about those positive results. If Schock were principled, he would have went to his constituency and said, "You know what, all of these jobs you men and women are keeping, if I had had my way, we wouldn't be here celebrating." Instead, he's taking credit, and that's hypocritical.
Rachael has been shooting The Right down lately because they talk big shit about the stimulus money, but they praise it as their own when it's dispersed in their state, and some have even sent letters questioning when it would arrive! Cops are getting jobs here in MN due to it. They are calling the Obama Cops! A job is a job in today's economy! LMFAO, T. Pawlenty should be putting some of the money into our crumbling infrastructure because the roads are shit here in MN!
Medicare prescription drug plan Bush passed ended up costing 1.2 trillion dollars and NO plan to pay for it. Plus, you had the Bush 1trillion dollar tax cuts!! You can spend and cut taxes at the same time people. Have you tried that with your checkbooks? The hypocrisy is coming right. Bush inherited a surpass and left us with massive debt under his watch.
Bush made a big mistake in caving into Dems demands for Medicare prescription drug plan. Had Obama been prez at the time, the bill would have been much bigger.
Bush the the GOP paid for proliferate spending the same way the Dems will pay for it in November.
@contessa61 Amazing how Republicans cannot take responsibly for anything. So blame it on the Dems? Really..kind of lame. Bush paid for 8 years of nothing besides a war. No health care plan or anything. Just allowed the housing market to crash. GOP need to find themselves first which is the reason they lost everything. Tell your party to focus on their own party instead attacking the Dems. That won't help them at all.
>> The Republcians tried over 2 dozen times to get more oversight into Fran and Freddie Mac. Each time, it was blocked in committee.
It was Clinton in 1995 that changed the CRA and lowered banking standards. Subprime loans were 3-5% of all loans until 1997 when they started to skyrocket.
At the top of housing bubble, 20% of all loan were subprime.
Don't rewrite history. This was purely a Republican bill (and yes there were some Dems that voted for it). The Republicans wrote it with the help of the drug lobby that put in that drug cost could not be negotiated with big pharm. Tom DeLay repressed testimony of the true cost of the program and the vote was held open hours while DeLay made deals with dissenting republicans - like promising campaign funds to get them to switch votes.
Bush inherited a surpass and left us with massive debt under his watch.
>>What surplus?? the stock market bubble surplus? any prez can get a surplus when the stock market bubbles up like it did and internet and broadband growth caused excessive and false GDP that imploded.
clinton just got lucky...and with that luck he was able to raise taxes without untoward effects.
That's when you raise taxes. Not in a fragile economy.
The party of NO to score political points. To say what? "Obama didn't accomplish anything during his presidency" I think this will back fire on the Republicans. Also, please allow Palin to continue to speak. She is digging her own hole.
@eelzen aren't the dems guilty of that too?? prominent dems like gore, pelosi supported the iraq war. yet they crucified bush later on for the war. yeah, sounds like hypocrisy to me.
What is hypocrisy is how Biden and the Dems did everything possible to make Iraq a failure. Now that things are honkey dorey, the dems are trying to take credit for Iraq. Do they really think the American people are that stupid?
I get to vote against helping the American people and get to claim "look what i did."
If he didn't think the stimulus helped anyone, why attend the ribbon cutting ceremony?
Once again, the republicans go back to form. They take all the credit ('Because of me, you get this green job' Photo Op) and none of the blame ('I didn't vote for this failure of a bill.')
@diah4 When Rachel Maddow said Bush's tax cuts were bad in the last administration, she didn't write a check back to the IRS saying here's this money back Bush, I disagree with this policy. But Aaron Schock does the same thing and she takes big issue with it...?
At the same time, I disagree with the amount of taxes the working class pays, but I still pay them. Either pay or get locked up. I understand your point tho.
That doesnt make this guy and the many republicans ike him right for saying one thing to the public and doing another behind closed doors., and then complaining about the other side. Get some work done b/c the public needs real leadership, not lames arguing at my expense.
You argument doesn't hold up. I'll tell you why: Rachel Maddow didn't like the tax cuts, because she didn't think it helped out the majority of American people. Aaron Schock - a representative of the people - voted against a bill that helped out his people. He then goes on to claim how great it was for his district, AFTER voting AGAINST it! Maddow didn't say these tax cuts do me no good, and then proceed to exclaim how awesome they were. Comparing a politician to a private citizen doesn't work.
Here's why THAT argument doesn't hold up: Aaron Schock was voting on a bill that included an enormous number of things and not just the IL project. It greatly expanded the government's reach. If only the IL project was being voted on, and Schock voted against it then praised it, then you have a point. But that's not the case. These small things were included to try and gain votes for the bigger picture, the type of large government picture that Schock has always spoken out against.
The poor guy has to pivot his response by saying "with all due respect." Just answer the question, Schock.
In any event, Maddow probably didn't attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a tax cut. And I didn't do the same thing either when Obama sent me one. I just, you know, put that money toward my credit card debt. Jackass.
Schock got bitch-slapped by Rachel on "Meet The Press". Hipocrisy at its finest the republicans are known for this and she called his ass out. Way to go Rachel.
How do you 'create certainty in the markets' when you deregulate those markets?
>>How do you create certainty in the markets when you regulate lower standards for subprime mortgage loans and then regulate that Fannie and Freddie buy up those loans and 1/2 of all loans in the US. Then when Fran and Fred are falling apart, you call them financially sound institutions?
Rachel "schooled" him, but all things considered, he was very professional and respectful to the panel. He's going to be president someday soon... probably our youngest president ever.
" He's going to be president someday soon... probably our youngest president ever. "
After which the country shall seize to exist.
No one is talking about it yet, but the Republican Party is obsolete. They have no ideological basis, and the Southern Strategy that they have been pushing for 4 decades is more and more irrelevant. It has them boxed into the Deep South and 23% of the electorate.
That is why they are now locked into a cycle of fake outrage on non-issues (terrorism) and outright obstructionism.
They have no ideological base left. They represent the 0.5% of the population that owns most of the country's economy, but in a democracy they need 50% of the voters.
That is their problem. The only thing they can do is to have as many people be misinformed about everything (the economy, the war, politics) which is why you can count on them to lie and misrepresent the facts.
@tigerone1970 you're 100% right this is why Fox News has to misinform their viewers and play left vs right 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They're all about keeping the status quo.
The Republc ian ideology is less government, less taxes and less spending which the majority of Americans side with. The obsolete party is the one spending us into oblivion.
'Less government' means 'more corporations'. This is how democracy ends - in a corporate takeover of the body politic. It is called 'fascism', and I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans side with it.
'Less taxes' means fewer public services. 'Less spending'? The Republican Party stands for 'less spending'?
What do you think paid for Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Star Wars (SDI), the War On Drugs...
Not having a (functioning) government is not an ideology. Not wanting to part with your taxes is not an ideology. Destroying democracy with crony hires and defunding regulatory institutions is not an ideology.
Believing that corporations should govern America IS an ideology, and we call that fascism.
Remember that Paulson's $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs) happened under the Republicans.
So don't every come to me now with this fiscal responsbility garbage.
Remember that Paulson's $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs) happened under the Republicans.
>> Yeah, I remember. And I am aware that we got all that money back. Unlike the 800 billion stimulus package of Obama that had only 6% going to infrastructure. How's that stimulus program workin' for ya?
'Less government' means 'more corporations'. This is how democracy ends - in a corporate takeover of the body politic. It is called 'fascism', and I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans side with it.
>>Ha ha. You're worried about corporate takeovers? Me too...General Motors, AIG, etc. Small businesses grow into big businesses. That's what makes capitalism and makes better standards of living. Just ask China.
" >>>Less taxes leads? to greater economic growth which leads to more federal revenue to help the needy. "
I take it you are referring to the Laffer Curve? :)
And 'the needy' would be the army, police, post service, public road construction, etc?
Actually 'the needy' means every citizen/serf, because when you have supply side economics, the destruction of demand (wages and total personal incomes) always follows.
NOPE. I am referring to the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan when revenue went up.. And every time capital gains taxes have been lowered, revenues have gone up. Of course there is some sense in the Laffer curve.
" I am referring to the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan when revenue went up.. "
Apples and oranges. Kennedy closed so many tax loopholes that even though he lowered the tax rate, he raised the overall dollar amount taken in from taxes.
Reagan just lowered taxes on the rich, cut social spending programs (hence for instance the explosion of the homeless population) and spent all he could on the military, even though there was no war.
Demand was destroyed in the Republican Great Depression of the 1930s, again in the Reagan/Bush 1980s/early 1990s, and again today.
It is always the same - deregulation and lower taxes lead to a boom in realestate/stocks, followed by a crash, and a recession/depression greater than if the market had not been manipulated by republican policies. That a few *corporate* (not progressive) Democrats (Bill Clinton) buy into this does not change the Republican nature of these policies.
@tigerone1970 It is always the same - deregulation and lower taxes lead to a boom in realestate/stocks, followed by a crash, and a recession/depression
>> oh shame on Clinton for that internet and stock market bubble.
>>and shame on Dems, rating agencies, Paulson, Bush, the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the banks, etc for the housing bubble.
Less government leads to greater productivity, lower unemployment and higher GDP.
" Less government leads to greater productivity, lower unemployment and higher GDP. "
It leads to the flipping of more burgers.
'Greater Productivity' = working 2 or 3 jobs where 1 used to be enough.
'Lower unemployment' = See above.
'higher GDP' = more profits for corporations.
Now let's see what happened to purchasing power over the last 30 years. Let's look at what happened to people's incomes, not how many jobs they work ('efficiency').
'Greater Productivity' = working 2 or 3 jobs where 1 used to be enough
>>To pay for cell phones, cable, 2 or 3 cars, a boat, internet and all that other stuff. Also, manufacturing jobs used to pay a lot more when we didn't have to compete with China. Now, unions ruin multinational companies.
Educate yourself in new jobs or flip burgers. There are choices.
"The average person changes jobs 7 times in their life. "
Entry level jobs don't last long, and technically you are performing another job when you are promoted. What you are missing here is that these things occur within the _same profession_.
People do not go to college 7 times in their lifetime on average, indeed less than half of the entire US population has ONE 4 year degree.
>> Low at Europe. Socialized medicince and bigger government gives them higher taxes. When our unemployment rate was 5% under Bush, Europe's was 8-10%. Under Obama's big spending, unemployment will stay high
Bzzt! Wrong! The employment rate/growth under Bush turned out to be false. What you are seeing today is the fallout from Bush using the illusory affects from the CDO/CDS MBS/etc. for political gain.
Like a true moron you ate it all up hook, line, and sinker.
Contessa, the financial crisis hit in full in the last 3 months of Bush's tenure. Of course the jobless rate didn't plummet until he was mostly out of office, purely by the nature of how financial crises work. The "average unemployment rate" over his tenure is a meaningless statistic, because the current unemployment rate is a direct result of his and Clinton's (to be fair) policies of financial deregulation.
What part of " the employment rate was false", growth was an "illusion", and "housing bubble" don't you understand? Here let me make it simple for you...
The economy under Bush was FALSE because it was based on a speculative bubble thanks to a banking regulation loophole.
The jobs and satellite industries were ALL TEMPORARY and we LOST trillions of dollars instead of making it.
@Starry2000 The economy under Bush was FALSE because it was based on a speculative bubble thanks to a banking regulation loophole.
then the economy under Clinton was false because it was based on a speculation bubble thanks to internet-dotcom-broadband buying frenzie that collapsed
It's one thing to disagree w/ a bill, but at the same time, ppl need help. They're hendering help to ppl hurt by the recession, while the midclass still foots the bill. it didnt take them long to pass the bill that gave money to corps, so why cant the ppl who paid the bill get relief, too? They would rather the poor ppl, who cannot afford heath insurance b/c of the sorry rep bills and leadership, die instead of help fix what you broke. Bush was a big spender. i didnt hear you all bitchin then...
People need help but there are plenty of Welfare mothers getting a manicure every two weeks (verified by 3 friends who work as beauticians). Soooo much fraud and ineffeciencies when government runs anything.
Better to let the private sector handle whatever they can.
Over 40% of people pay NO taxes.
That is way too high. too much entitltments will break our backs and our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill.
A single mother of six is getting more than 80,000 pounds a year from taypayers to live in a 2 million dollar mansion not far from Paul McCartney. She also receives 15,000 pounds a year in payouts.
Not true. In the form of tax cuts, they steal money from us. not to mention, they just got bailed out on US. That was a big bill. Have you forgotten that fast?
@contessa61, The free loaders are the corporate executives. They sit behind a desk and find new ways on how to rob americans and make it legal. They also blow our money on ridiculous risk, and then expect us to save them, which the govt will, b/c they're all in bed together. In reality, we're nothing but money circulating for them.
They also blow our money on ridiculous risk, and then expect us to save them, (WHICH OBAMA DID, and the car companies, and AIG, and FANNIE AND FREDDIE.
OBAMA=LOSER
The other parasites that are ruining this country?? State and federal workers and their pensions.
Now let's see what happened to purchasing power over the last 30 years. Let's look at what happened to people's incomes, not how many jobs they work ('efficiency').
>> Incomes have not increased much because benefits have risen quite nicely. If you add benefits to income, standard of living and quality of life has gone up over last few decades.
@contessa61 Ridiculous argument and intellectually lazy. The only reason that we have such high unemployment is that we have a horrible trade policy and the big Corps. are sucking the public dry. We need to bring back Tariffs and tie them to the price of a living wage. Let's make it as expensive for Nike to import from Machiadores in Mexico or from Indonesia as it would be to make them here in the US. Walmart used to brag about "Make in America". I challenge you to find one thing at WM that is.
There are many reasons why we have high unemployment right now. Under Obamacare and big government, we will have 8-10% permanent unemployment which has nothing to do with our trade policy. It will be directly related to high taxes, high regulation, more money in public hands than in private hands, etc. Look at Europe. 8-10% unemployment while we had 4-5% unemployement under Clinton and Bush. Kiss those low numbers good-bye. You voted for this loser, you live with it.
@contessa61 I find all your assumptions to be wrong. Europe has consistently had lower unemployment, 8-10% is simply not true. In Germany, they even pay when there is a downturn in the economy so that people don't lose their jobs and homes, and the downward cycle gets stopped. The idea that independent money will always do the right thing, well just look at the Banksters and what they did to us all. Its the big business thing that has to go. peace.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
@contessa61 The current employment crisis is simple. We don't make things here any more. We have been living on credit during Clinton/Bush and have seen the results, along with all the deregulation of the banking industry. Also, when we have our top marginal tax rate under 50%, we get boom and bust cycles. Look that one up, historically relevant "facts".
And that is a big change from 10 years ago when our unemployment rate was 5%?
NOPE. The current employment crisis is from the recession, made worse by Obama's health care bill, talk of cap and trade, more welfare and unmeployment compensation, and big government spending. We have the second highest business tax in the industrialized world. Taxes are too high. Boom and bust cycles are a normal part of economies.
@contessa61 When you have republicans in office that don't believe in government, they end up doing things like deregulating the banks, allowing mortgages to be split up and traded on the open market and allowing greedy Wall Street to screw it all up. You are wrong also about the CRA. That was simply about getting rid of redlining. It had nothing to do with deregulation, which came first with the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal and the creation of mortgage derivatives.
The government required banks to lower mortgage lending standards. Anyone with a heartbeat could get a loan. Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans leaving banks with no risk. CRA, Hank Paulson, rating agencies, the Fed, Bush and the Dems ALL had a hand in this economic crisis
@contessa61 The government deregulated. This allowed for the greed of the banks to do all the shady deals. Just read Paul Krugman, he explains it all very clearly. The CRA was about redlining. Yes, everyone had a hand in it, but it wasn't the government forcing businesses to do anything, they simply opened the door to a lot of greed and "free marked" BS. Hank-bad, Fed-bad. I agree. Dems too. Started with Reagan 30 years ago.
Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" gives an excellent overview of the cause of this recession. The CRA and Dems had a big part in it, as well as many other factors. Free Market capitalism is what makes this country great. Does it need to be regulated? Of course. But the alternative of free market capitalism is not what this country is about.
@tombeardman SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU IGNORANT BRAINWASHED LYING COMMIE FUCKTARD!!!!!!
You never met a MYTH you didn't buy into! The idea that deregulation caused the current mess is a LIE!!!
Banks don't want to loan large sums of money to people on welfare! They had to be FORCED to do it!!!!!!! Krugman is a stupid COMMIE just like YOU!!!!!!!
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
Aaron, for your children and grandchildren to "be on the hook" for excessive federal spending you must first have children. Your children and grandchildren...that is funny!
edgwaterprog 6 months ago
rachel, exposes republican lies one at a time!
jrwel14 6 months ago
Closeted case...
popokatipetl 8 months ago
Ha, ha. At 1:30 Mr. Madcow chokes on his own bile. Aaron handles himself well and is well-spoken and is not hypocritical at all. Madcow is full of hate for any Republican and conducts herself in a most undiplomatic way.
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888
Rachel was just retooling to go in for stirke two on Mrs. Schock.
Yes! he's a Sista! LOL
ffelix422 8 months ago
@ffelix422 You wish! --only in your demented mind. Why don't you get your fag friend Anderson Cooper to totally come out like the Madcow has? Leave Aaron alone; he is a decent human being and doesn't need
your slurs.
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888 ,
He is what he is... He just hasn't been found out yet.
ffelix422 8 months ago
@ffelix422 Since you know everything, please give us the scoop on Tom Cruise, Barack and Rahm, and Janet Napolitano.
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888 ,
Gay, Satanic-puppet, Ditto, and misguided...
ffelix422 8 months ago
@ffelix422 Agreed. Any clue as to who The Beast is?
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888 ,
being serious now- don't know who the beast is but I beileve Obama will help his/it's cause.
Obama's charisma, charm, intelligence, reasurring ease will convince many to trust the beast, I think.
Oh, and I'm black too. But still find it interesting how Obama claims to be a Christian all the while
fulfilling end-time phropehcy...
ffelix422 8 months ago
@ffelix422 Right on! The Beast would have to be alive currently, I think--ready to step in at the right moment.
With Satan's power behind him, it could be anyone. O has illuminati bloodlines through his mother and we don't know who his father is because we have not seen a real birth certificate.
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888 ,
Dude, he showed the birth certificate... He does have one. His leaders have made sure that wouldn't be an issue.
Also, some say the Antichrist is a system, (i.e. the Catholic Church) and not a person. See video on my YT-Page.
ffelix422 8 months ago
@ffelix422 It is not logical to accept his birth certificate when it appears after 21/2 years of our asking for it.
There are expert analyses on the web showing that it has been made up of elements from various other
birth certificates. Yes, Antichrist can be a system and the Bible says many Antichrists will appear, and I
think we are seeing that. The False Prophet of Revelation who works with the Beast will probably be the leader of the end-time, one-world false religion.
onthewall888 8 months ago
@onthewall888 He provided the birth certificate in the beginning, racist nutjobs wouldn't accept it, any more than they'd accept the one he just provided - which was provided as an exception to what the law normally permits. If you think he's not American, you are operating on your last fucking brain cell.
ltflermy 6 months ago
@onthewall888 Oh, and fuck your bible. It's the Book of Moron.
ltflermy 6 months ago
@SGhockeychika4 As for Bush, this is from presidential profiles dot com -
"Bush's transcript at Yale shows that he was a solid C student. A history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. The transcript indicates in his freshman year, he was in the 21st percentile of his class—meaning that four-fifths of the students were above him".
dsindc 8 months ago
@SGhockeychika4 The right is pushing to teach creationism in public schools wherever they find support (nearly always red states). In spite of the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community it is also fighting global warming). Much of the rhetoric is coming from the likes of Glenn Beck. He must have had some awesome high school science courses. By the way, Harvard and Yale have massive endowments. If Beck had been that smart, he WOULD have been admitted w/ scholarship.
dsindc 8 months ago
@SGhockeychika4 I have to chuckle at your comment that Standford is a 'step down' from Brown. Right. I will make some generalizations - the conservative punditry as evidenced by the likes of the Fox morning team shows a real lack of intellectual ability or curiosity. The tea party people are profoundly anti-intellectual. Please give me evidence of liberal support for "Creation World" being built in Kentucky? While we can argue about journalists and TV personalities, let's look at that (cont).
dsindc 8 months ago
@SGhockeychika4 I'm 37, attended Rice in Houston, and continued at the University of Texas for a J.D. I assure you, the University of Texas law school is one of the most competitive in the country. Bush applied and was rejected. He then turned to the Ivy league. As for SAT scores, Bush scored 1206 which should not have earned admittance. Al Gore by the way scored 1355. As for Kerry, he scored 1190 which compared to 1206 is not statistically significant. But that's not the point. (cont)
dsindc 8 months ago
@SGhockeychika4 Since when is NYU a "step down from Ivy League"?. I worked my way through college, but Glenn was too busy dealing with personal problems. I was able to obtain a scholarship and continued to complete a graduate degree. There has been some indication that O'Reilly had "help" getting into an Ivy. As for Hannity, that he was accepted to NYU doesn't impress me (see above), what is more important is that he did not obtain a college degree. But you miss the point. (cont)
dsindc 8 months ago
@canisdormit - Rachel hates America? What a ridiculous thing to say! She merely pointed out the duplicity of the Republican platform. They say they're against Government pork yet they gleefully accept big government stimulus money, making sure to call a press conference and pose with one of those REALLY BIG CHECKS.
They seem to be the ones who really hate America. The poor Americans anyway.
suvariboy 8 months ago
@canisdormit
suvariboy 8 months ago
Hmm, rachel hates america, so do the agents of our government. This video shows it's twoface nature, they really both agree with each other.
canisdormit 8 months ago
Well done Rachel.
david030491 11 months ago
i refused my inheritance from my grandfather because i thought he was a horrible person with horrible views...why can't republicans take the same stand?
theEricWalker 1 year ago
THANK YOU RACHEL!
cjm608 1 year ago
Aaron Schock, your wardrobe is out of the closet--why aren't you?
xsuzheartx 1 year ago 9
@xsuzheartx I find it funny how Democrats are the ones who enjoy pointing at people and calling them gay when they don't agree with what they're saying. I thought liberals wanted men and women to dress however they want. Then again Dems have never been known for their consistency have they?
JermzzzyFTW 7 months ago
@JermzzzyFTW Conservatives have never been known for being smart, Have they?
jrwel14 6 months ago
@JermzzzyFTW Or I'm just well aware of the long history of rampantly anti-gay "family values" conservatives getting outed. I find it funny that a conservative is lecturing me on hypocrisy, though.
xsuzheartx 5 months ago
sounds like he wants the government involved in the economy in a way that does not comport with GOP talking points. and he's seriously going to pin "pork" solely on the Dems (mean, eff the Dems, but that's for another time), GTFO of here douchekins.
wvfii 1 year ago
Shine light on Rabids, they smoke like vampires.
816cameron 1 year ago
boy he sho nuff talk pretty
Duchess118 1 year ago
@contessa61 Nobel prize in economics. Hey, if you think that TNTdude is OK, then I am checking out. It has been good to have this back and forth and I believe there are things to be learned from all sides of the debate, but TNT is not someone I wish to deal with or see his comments. There is no place for that behavior in my world. I am not perfect and have lost it at times, but this guy starts and ends with the same profanity everywhere he goes. I think it is computer generated spam.
tombeardman 1 year ago
Damn Right! Aaron speaks the truth
chevboy2 1 year ago
@chevboy2 Uhh, which video were you watching? The one I saw had little Aaron, hands folded, swallowing hard once he got called out on his blatant hypocrisy. I'll take Dr. Maddow anyday over some pink cheeked freshman republican.
tonewheel 1 year ago
@tonewheel LOL funny you call her doctor when she hosts a low rated cable television show and the "pink cheeked freshman" as u refered to him holds a seat that rachel never could
chevboy2 1 year ago
@chevboy2 Chev, I think you're wrong. Very wrong. Dr. Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford, England. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University. Rachel is infinitely more qualified to hold a position in politics.
tonewheel 1 year ago
@tonewheel Unfortunately no amount of education can teach common sense, and sometimes I just worry about her when she rambles from the telepromter on msnbc and says some pretty ridiculous things
chevboy2 1 year ago
@chevboy2 you don't really watch her show, now do you?
You shouldn't put such faith in politicians.
tonewheel 1 year ago
@tonewheel Actually yes I do tune into her show when i get the stomach for it but i can only take so much of her bias views, and have you ever met "Dr. Maddow" in person?
chevboy2 1 year ago
@chevboy2 And your point is what? She holds a doctorate from Oxford. That she could not "hold" a seat representing rural Illinois is something to be ashamed of is a bizarre argument to make. If you identify as a conservative, I assume you celebrate other intellectual politicians like Palin and O'donnell, or their media supporters e.g. Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh- none of the latter having more than a couple of courses beyond high school. It appears repubs are in love with anti- intellectualism.
dsindc 1 year ago
@dsindc THANK U SOOOOOOOOO MUCH for your comments. Please look at mind I made!
Ediva75 1 year ago
@chevboy2 this Doctor called out the hypocrisy of this Alex P, Keaton MFer. How you like that asshat? LMAO
Ediva75 1 year ago
@chevboy2" -holds a seat that rachel never could." Um, according to who? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't? Does it ever occur to you that some people are content in their stations for whatever reason? Perhaps she feels she's in a better position as a TV/Radio host of her own show to address certain things, and effect certain changes that way opposed to being a member of Congress.
jealousofmypuddin 8 months ago
Schock ripped them a new asshole.
TheDizzun 1 year ago
schock got pwned
KataVideo 1 year ago
Thank you, Rachel, for once again calling to attention the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP jerks who slam Obama and then crow about the money they got for THEIR district.
Too bad Americans can't seem to notice these obvious things for themselves......
OrmEmber 1 year ago
If the bill Schock voted on included ONLY the Illinois project and Schock voted against it then praised it, then Rachel would have a point. But the fact is, the bill included many, MANY things that basically increased the role of the federal government which Schock has always stood against. Those small things were only included to try and convince the individual senators to support the whole thing.
zeecee1 1 year ago
Why can't this Schock guy not answer the questions "Yes, I do take any federal money that I can, even if I voted against the bill providing it" and "Yes, for Republicans voting on bills right now is not what helps the country, but how can Republicans block anything good the Democrats suggest."
Glad, someone like Rachel Maddow is calling Schock on his hypocrisy.
Mediantes 1 year ago
ahahhaha 1:20 look at the look on his bitch ass face
aramic1989 1 year ago
pwned
gutadolf 1 year ago
treated
shockeyvz 1 year ago
Lets put it this way, Republicans voted against this stimulus Package They lost,
Now the people in there states are going to have to pay for this.
Of course they going to want there fair share. There paying for the dame thing against their control.
So F..U Mad-Cow
socalsifu 1 year ago
@socalsifu It's one thing to expect your fair share.
It's another thing to celebrate the positive results of the Stimulus package on one's constituency while voting against and criticizing the very bill that brought about those positive results. If Schock were principled, he would have went to his constituency and said, "You know what, all of these jobs you men and women are keeping, if I had had my way, we wouldn't be here celebrating." Instead, he's taking credit, and that's hypocritical.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago 2
@JonathanM00r3 Well you see, that's where you just don't get it.
When the stimulus pass with only Dems. unemployment was NOT supposed to go over 8%, Obama's words.
Unemployed got to 10%..Now 9.7%
Now you just tell me where are the jobs?
Obama has lie to us all.
STOP DRINKING OBAMA'S KOOL AID AND WAKE THE F...K UP
You want to use Repub word agaist them but not Obama against him
YOU ARE WRONG & you will see just how wrong you are this Nov. 2010
socalsifu 1 year ago
Rachael has been shooting The Right down lately because they talk big shit about the stimulus money, but they praise it as their own when it's dispersed in their state, and some have even sent letters questioning when it would arrive! Cops are getting jobs here in MN due to it. They are calling the Obama Cops! A job is a job in today's economy! LMFAO, T. Pawlenty should be putting some of the money into our crumbling infrastructure because the roads are shit here in MN!
MyRiseToHonor 1 year ago 2
Q. Why do we have two on going wars an a broke economy?
A. Republicans were for an Imperial Presidency before they were against it.
eelzen 1 year ago 4
Owned. hahaha
risoto27 1 year ago
@letsshagbaby1 What about the Bush spending spree?
Medicare prescription drug plan Bush passed ended up costing 1.2 trillion dollars and NO plan to pay for it. Plus, you had the Bush 1trillion dollar tax cuts!! You can spend and cut taxes at the same time people. Have you tried that with your checkbooks? The hypocrisy is coming right. Bush inherited a surpass and left us with massive debt under his watch.
CASF2007 1 year ago 2
@CASF2007
Bush made a big mistake in caving into Dems demands for Medicare prescription drug plan. Had Obama been prez at the time, the bill would have been much bigger.
Bush the the GOP paid for proliferate spending the same way the Dems will pay for it in November.
Less government is good.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61 Amazing how Republicans cannot take responsibly for anything. So blame it on the Dems? Really..kind of lame. Bush paid for 8 years of nothing besides a war. No health care plan or anything. Just allowed the housing market to crash. GOP need to find themselves first which is the reason they lost everything. Tell your party to focus on their own party instead attacking the Dems. That won't help them at all.
CASF2007 1 year ago
@CASF2007
Just allowed the housing market to crash.
>> The Republcians tried over 2 dozen times to get more oversight into Fran and Freddie Mac. Each time, it was blocked in committee.
It was Clinton in 1995 that changed the CRA and lowered banking standards. Subprime loans were 3-5% of all loans until 1997 when they started to skyrocket.
At the top of housing bubble, 20% of all loan were subprime.
50% of all forclosures were subprime.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CASF2007 Amazing how Republicans cannot take responsibly for anything.
can you discuss the facts set forth or do you like to throw around ad hominem attacks?
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
profligate, not proliferate.
My bad.
contessa61 1 year ago
Don't rewrite history. This was purely a Republican bill (and yes there were some Dems that voted for it). The Republicans wrote it with the help of the drug lobby that put in that drug cost could not be negotiated with big pharm. Tom DeLay repressed testimony of the true cost of the program and the vote was held open hours while DeLay made deals with dissenting republicans - like promising campaign funds to get them to switch votes.
mledwards1940 1 year ago
@CASF2007
Bush inherited a surpass and left us with massive debt under his watch.
>>What surplus?? the stock market bubble surplus? any prez can get a surplus when the stock market bubbles up like it did and internet and broadband growth caused excessive and false GDP that imploded.
clinton just got lucky...and with that luck he was able to raise taxes without untoward effects.
That's when you raise taxes. Not in a fragile economy.
contessa61 1 year ago
The party of NO to score political points. To say what? "Obama didn't accomplish anything during his presidency" I think this will back fire on the Republicans. Also, please allow Palin to continue to speak. She is digging her own hole.
CASF2007 1 year ago
@CASF2007
OKAY. What has Obama accomplished?? ...other than Dems jumping ship like a bunch of rats.
contessa61 1 year ago
@CASF2007
Also, please allow Palin to continue to speak. She is digging her own hole.
She's already dug her own hole. Just hope the Repubs don't help her out of it.
contessa61 1 year ago
GOP = Politics first and screw the truth.
eelzen 1 year ago
@eelzen aren't the dems guilty of that too?? prominent dems like gore, pelosi supported the iraq war. yet they crucified bush later on for the war. yeah, sounds like hypocrisy to me.
jimpodi 1 year ago
@jimpodiGore wasn't in office and Pelosi didn't support the war.
eelzen 1 year ago
@eelzen watch the youtube video on "democrats hypocrisy on the iraq war". i rest my case.
jimpodi 1 year ago
@jimpodi
What is hypocrisy is how Biden and the Dems did everything possible to make Iraq a failure. Now that things are honkey dorey, the dems are trying to take credit for Iraq. Do they really think the American people are that stupid?
contessa61 1 year ago
I get to vote against helping the American people and get to claim "look what i did."
If he didn't think the stimulus helped anyone, why attend the ribbon cutting ceremony?
Once again, the republicans go back to form. They take all the credit ('Because of me, you get this green job' Photo Op) and none of the blame ('I didn't vote for this failure of a bill.')
Political. Hypocrites.
kefluv 1 year ago
This guy is such a hypocrite. smh... He's saying spending is bad, but he wont turn down any money if it comes his way.
either you are or ya aint.
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4 When Rachel Maddow said Bush's tax cuts were bad in the last administration, she didn't write a check back to the IRS saying here's this money back Bush, I disagree with this policy. But Aaron Schock does the same thing and she takes big issue with it...?
zeecee1 1 year ago
At the same time, I disagree with the amount of taxes the working class pays, but I still pay them. Either pay or get locked up. I understand your point tho.
That doesnt make this guy and the many republicans ike him right for saying one thing to the public and doing another behind closed doors., and then complaining about the other side. Get some work done b/c the public needs real leadership, not lames arguing at my expense.
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
Get some work done
the republicans are doing important work. They are saying NO to bad policy.
Only 6% think the 800 billion stimulus plan is working. They tried to pass another bill, but Harry Reid read the tea leaves.
contessa61 1 year ago
You argument doesn't hold up. I'll tell you why: Rachel Maddow didn't like the tax cuts, because she didn't think it helped out the majority of American people. Aaron Schock - a representative of the people - voted against a bill that helped out his people. He then goes on to claim how great it was for his district, AFTER voting AGAINST it! Maddow didn't say these tax cuts do me no good, and then proceed to exclaim how awesome they were. Comparing a politician to a private citizen doesn't work.
Painsandwich 1 year ago
Here's why THAT argument doesn't hold up: Aaron Schock was voting on a bill that included an enormous number of things and not just the IL project. It greatly expanded the government's reach. If only the IL project was being voted on, and Schock voted against it then praised it, then you have a point. But that's not the case. These small things were included to try and gain votes for the bigger picture, the type of large government picture that Schock has always spoken out against.
zeecee1 1 year ago
The poor guy has to pivot his response by saying "with all due respect." Just answer the question, Schock.
In any event, Maddow probably didn't attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a tax cut. And I didn't do the same thing either when Obama sent me one. I just, you know, put that money toward my credit card debt. Jackass.
DeeBlackthorne 1 year ago
Schock got bitch-slapped by Rachel on "Meet The Press". Hipocrisy at its finest the republicans are known for this and she called his ass out. Way to go Rachel.
kevhar12 1 year ago 4
Kick his monkey ass, Rachel !!!
c588414 1 year ago
How do you 'create certainty in the markets' when you deregulate those markets?
" Incentivizing entrepreneurialism, job creation and risk taking. "
Everything the republicans have targeted and destroyed.
Incentivizing entrepreneurialism - if you like corporate free trade.
Job creation - if you like working 2 or 3 jobs instead of 1.
Risk taking - we have $192 TRILLION in derivatives to show for that.
I guess it's all about how you look at things, isn't it?
tigerone1970 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you 'create certainty in the markets' when you deregulate those markets?
>>How do you create certainty in the markets when you regulate lower standards for subprime mortgage loans and then regulate that Fannie and Freddie buy up those loans and 1/2 of all loans in the US. Then when Fran and Fred are falling apart, you call them financially sound institutions?
contessa61 1 year ago
If less taxes for the Rich worked with 8 years with bush, then John would be President right now.
eye7view 1 year ago 3
Rachel "schooled" him, but all things considered, he was very professional and respectful to the panel. He's going to be president someday soon... probably our youngest president ever.
wayne2k33 1 year ago
" He's going to be president someday soon... probably our youngest president ever. "
After which the country shall seize to exist.
No one is talking about it yet, but the Republican Party is obsolete. They have no ideological basis, and the Southern Strategy that they have been pushing for 4 decades is more and more irrelevant. It has them boxed into the Deep South and 23% of the electorate.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
That is why they are now locked into a cycle of fake outrage on non-issues (terrorism) and outright obstructionism.
They have no ideological base left. They represent the 0.5% of the population that owns most of the country's economy, but in a democracy they need 50% of the voters.
That is their problem. The only thing they can do is to have as many people be misinformed about everything (the economy, the war, politics) which is why you can count on them to lie and misrepresent the facts.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@tigerone1970 you're 100% right this is why Fox News has to misinform their viewers and play left vs right 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They're all about keeping the status quo.
aptex 1 year ago
@aptex
" Fox News has to misinform their viewers and play left vs right 24 hours a day 7 days a week. "
Fox News is making propaganda. I believe that at some time that was illegal. They certainly have the most misinformed audience of all the networks.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
The Republc ian ideology is less government, less taxes and less spending which the majority of Americans side with. The obsolete party is the one spending us into oblivion.
contessa61 1 year ago
'Less government' means 'more corporations'. This is how democracy ends - in a corporate takeover of the body politic. It is called 'fascism', and I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans side with it.
'Less taxes' means fewer public services. 'Less spending'? The Republican Party stands for 'less spending'?
What do you think paid for Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Star Wars (SDI), the War On Drugs...
tigerone1970 1 year ago 2
Not having a (functioning) government is not an ideology. Not wanting to part with your taxes is not an ideology. Destroying democracy with crony hires and defunding regulatory institutions is not an ideology.
Believing that corporations should govern America IS an ideology, and we call that fascism.
Remember that Paulson's $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs) happened under the Republicans.
So don't every come to me now with this fiscal responsbility garbage.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember that Paulson's $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs) happened under the Republicans.
>> Yeah, I remember. And I am aware that we got all that money back. Unlike the 800 billion stimulus package of Obama that had only 6% going to infrastructure. How's that stimulus program workin' for ya?
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
Just 6% of Americans believe the $787 stimulus boondoggle created any jobs according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll.
800 billion down the drain
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
" Just 6% of Americans believe the $787 stimulus boondoggle created any jobs according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll. "
Then they have been misinformed - by Fox News Channel.
Representative Schock certainly believed it created jobs when he took credit for it in his home state.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@tigerone1970
Then they have been misinformed - by Fox News Channel.
HA HA. I do not think 92% of the population listens to FOX. If they did, they would be much more informed.
contessa61 1 year ago
'Less government' means 'more corporations'. This is how democracy ends - in a corporate takeover of the body politic. It is called 'fascism', and I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans side with it.
>>Ha ha. You're worried about corporate takeovers? Me too...General Motors, AIG, etc. Small businesses grow into big businesses. That's what makes capitalism and makes better standards of living. Just ask China.
contessa61 1 year ago
'Less taxes' means fewer public services. 'Less spending'? The Republican Party stands for 'less spending'?
>>>Less taxes leads to greater economic growth which leads to more federal revenue to help the needy.
GOP stands for less spending relative to Obama, Pelosi and Reid
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
" >>>Less taxes leads? to greater economic growth which leads to more federal revenue to help the needy. "
I take it you are referring to the Laffer Curve? :)
And 'the needy' would be the army, police, post service, public road construction, etc?
Actually 'the needy' means every citizen/serf, because when you have supply side economics, the destruction of demand (wages and total personal incomes) always follows.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@tigerone1970
take it you are referring to the Laffer Curve? :)
NOPE. I am referring to the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan when revenue went up.. And every time capital gains taxes have been lowered, revenues have gone up. Of course there is some sense in the Laffer curve.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
" I am referring to the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan when revenue went up.. "
Apples and oranges. Kennedy closed so many tax loopholes that even though he lowered the tax rate, he raised the overall dollar amount taken in from taxes.
Reagan just lowered taxes on the rich, cut social spending programs (hence for instance the explosion of the homeless population) and spent all he could on the military, even though there was no war.
tigerone1970 1 year ago 2
@contessa61
Demand was destroyed in the Republican Great Depression of the 1930s, again in the Reagan/Bush 1980s/early 1990s, and again today.
It is always the same - deregulation and lower taxes lead to a boom in realestate/stocks, followed by a crash, and a recession/depression greater than if the market had not been manipulated by republican policies. That a few *corporate* (not progressive) Democrats (Bill Clinton) buy into this does not change the Republican nature of these policies.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@tigerone1970 It is always the same - deregulation and lower taxes lead to a boom in realestate/stocks, followed by a crash, and a recession/depression
>> oh shame on Clinton for that internet and stock market bubble.
>>and shame on Dems, rating agencies, Paulson, Bush, the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the banks, etc for the housing bubble.
Less government leads to greater productivity, lower unemployment and higher GDP.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
" Less government leads to greater productivity, lower unemployment and higher GDP. "
It leads to the flipping of more burgers.
'Greater Productivity' = working 2 or 3 jobs where 1 used to be enough.
'Lower unemployment' = See above.
'higher GDP' = more profits for corporations.
Now let's see what happened to purchasing power over the last 30 years. Let's look at what happened to people's incomes, not how many jobs they work ('efficiency').
tigerone1970 1 year ago 3
@tigerone1970
'Greater Productivity' = working 2 or 3 jobs where 1 used to be enough
>>To pay for cell phones, cable, 2 or 3 cars, a boat, internet and all that other stuff. Also, manufacturing jobs used to pay a lot more when we didn't have to compete with China. Now, unions ruin multinational companies.
Educate yourself in new jobs or flip burgers. There are choices.
contessa61 1 year ago
"Educate yourself in new jobs"
4-1- years to get a full new education not to mention the time it takes to work up the ranks of corporate america only to have that collapse later.
Human beings don't fucking live that long, get with the program.
And yes the actual 'productivity' is assessed by hours and jobs worked per person by the government.
Starry2000 1 year ago
@Starry2000
The average person changes jobs 7 times in their life.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The average person changes jobs 7 times in their life. "
Entry level jobs don't last long, and technically you are performing another job when you are promoted. What you are missing here is that these things occur within the _same profession_.
People do not go to college 7 times in their lifetime on average, indeed less than half of the entire US population has ONE 4 year degree.
Starry2000 1 year ago
@tigerone1970
'Lower unemployment'
>> Low at Europe. Socialized medicince and bigger government gives them higher taxes. When our unemployment rate was 5% under Bush, Europe's was 8-10%. Under Obama's big spending, unemployment will stay high
contessa61 1 year ago
"When our unemployment rate was 5% under Bush,"
Bzzt! Wrong! The employment rate/growth under Bush turned out to be false. What you are seeing today is the fallout from Bush using the illusory affects from the CDO/CDS MBS/etc. for political gain.
Like a true moron you ate it all up hook, line, and sinker.
Starry2000 1 year ago
@Starry2000
Look it up moron.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was only 5.2%
contessa61 1 year ago
I'd like to refer you tho this chart for some real insight on which administration was hemorrhaging jobs...
imgur(.)com/04T6g(.)gif
Remove the brackets of course.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
*to
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
@Starry2000
EAT THIS
Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Look up
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey from 2000-2010 and you will see 5.2% average unemployment under Bush.
You will also see a hockey stick graph where unemployment skyrockets under Obama.
How do you like them apples?
contessa61 1 year ago
Contessa, the financial crisis hit in full in the last 3 months of Bush's tenure. Of course the jobless rate didn't plummet until he was mostly out of office, purely by the nature of how financial crises work. The "average unemployment rate" over his tenure is a meaningless statistic, because the current unemployment rate is a direct result of his and Clinton's (to be fair) policies of financial deregulation.
dafinchman 1 year ago 2
@dafinchman
Obama promised unemployed would not go above 8%. He and the Dems put out a lackluster 800 billion dollar spending plan.
He's pushing cap and trade, government run health care and higher taxes.
The Dems have been in control for over 3 years.
Exactly where does the buck stop??
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
Obama has been in Washington for 5 years. Dems have had control for over 3, yet it is still Bush's fault.
The only ones that beleive that are libs.
contessa61 1 year ago
"How do you like them apples? "
What part of " the employment rate was false", growth was an "illusion", and "housing bubble" don't you understand? Here let me make it simple for you...
The economy under Bush was FALSE because it was based on a speculative bubble thanks to a banking regulation loophole.
The jobs and satellite industries were ALL TEMPORARY and we LOST trillions of dollars instead of making it.
It was a LIE.
Starry2000 1 year ago
Not to mention they falsified their budget and lied by saying they paid for both wars when they hadn't paid a penny!
TOSHOKU 1 year ago
@Starry2000 The economy under Bush was FALSE because it was based on a speculative bubble thanks to a banking regulation loophole.
then the economy under Clinton was false because it was based on a speculation bubble thanks to internet-dotcom-broadband buying frenzie that collapsed
can't have it both ways
contessa61 1 year ago
@Starry2000
Who kept interest rates low? the fed
Who rated the mortgages too high? rating agencies
Who lowered lending standards? Clinton
Who pushed more subprime loans? DEMS
Who changed leverage on derivatives? Paulson
Who denied problems with fred and fran? Barney, maxine, Dodds & company.
EVERYONE IS TO BLAME
CONGRESS HAS AN 8% approval rating. No wonder the Dems are abandoning ship
contessa61 1 year ago
It's one thing to disagree w/ a bill, but at the same time, ppl need help. They're hendering help to ppl hurt by the recession, while the midclass still foots the bill. it didnt take them long to pass the bill that gave money to corps, so why cant the ppl who paid the bill get relief, too? They would rather the poor ppl, who cannot afford heath insurance b/c of the sorry rep bills and leadership, die instead of help fix what you broke. Bush was a big spender. i didnt hear you all bitchin then...
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
People need help but there are plenty of Welfare mothers getting a manicure every two weeks (verified by 3 friends who work as beauticians). Soooo much fraud and ineffeciencies when government runs anything.
Better to let the private sector handle whatever they can.
Over 40% of people pay NO taxes.
That is way too high. too much entitltments will break our backs and our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
Freeloaders...move to England
A single mother of six is getting more than 80,000 pounds a year from taypayers to live in a 2 million dollar mansion not far from Paul McCartney. She also receives 15,000 pounds a year in payouts.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61, Like the welfare mothers are any worsethan those crooked rich men hoarding their money while spending mine on spa treatments.
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
The crooked rich men took money from their shareholders. The welfare moms who get manicures twice a month take money from all of us.
contessa61 1 year ago
Not true. In the form of tax cuts, they steal money from us. not to mention, they just got bailed out on US. That was a big bill. Have you forgotten that fast?
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
The US has the second highest corporate tax rate( federal and state) in the world.
If we did nothing with our budget, entitlements would make up 100% of our budget in a couple of decades.
STOP the freeloaders.
They are killing this country
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61, The free loaders are the corporate executives. They sit behind a desk and find new ways on how to rob americans and make it legal. They also blow our money on ridiculous risk, and then expect us to save them, which the govt will, b/c they're all in bed together. In reality, we're nothing but money circulating for them.
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
They also blow our money on ridiculous risk, and then expect us to save them, (WHICH OBAMA DID, and the car companies, and AIG, and FANNIE AND FREDDIE.
OBAMA=LOSER
The other parasites that are ruining this country?? State and federal workers and their pensions.
contessa61 1 year ago
"The other parasites that are ruining this country?? State and federal workers and their pensions."
I agree 100%. washington is living it up ON US, and they are up there making life harder for us. its sickening.
diah4 1 year ago
@diah4
Do you want liberalism and a a country like California which is tettering on bankruptcy?
Or do you want conservatism and a country like Texas which is doing fine?
contessa61 1 year ago
What about Pennsyvania?
diah4 1 year ago
yeah, texas with the nation's worth smog, worst environmental controls. you go live in houston, contessa. go. I double dare ya.
KataVideo 1 year ago
@KataVideo
If the health care bill passes and taxes go through the roof, then I just might retire in Texas or Florida OR leave the US all together.
You can pay all the taxes for this mess you voted in to office.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
yeah, you should go to costa rica with rush limppole and enjoy universal health care
or fake a heart attack like the fat disgusting drug addled pig did in hawaii
where the government prepaid health care system insures 92% of teh people
LOL!!
KataVideo 1 year ago
@diah4
Let corporate execs make what they want.
Then have a millionaire tax bracket.
There are millions and millions of free loaders abusing medicaid, food stamps, day care handouts, welfare...
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tigerone1970
Now let's see what happened to purchasing power over the last 30 years. Let's look at what happened to people's incomes, not how many jobs they work ('efficiency').
>> Incomes have not increased much because benefits have risen quite nicely. If you add benefits to income, standard of living and quality of life has gone up over last few decades.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61
"If you tax people who work and pay people who don't work, don't be surprised if more people won't work."
Laffer on Glenn Beck today.
Check it out libs.
contessa61 1 year ago
Laffer?
Yes, I will certainly be laughing my ass off when I watch him tonight.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
As someone who works, I support Obama's middle class tax cut thank you very much.
smokin345 1 year ago 2
@smokin345
Enjoy your $13 per paycheck. But don't spend it all. You'll need it when Obama raises taxes to pay for tripling the deficit in one year.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61 Ridiculous argument and intellectually lazy. The only reason that we have such high unemployment is that we have a horrible trade policy and the big Corps. are sucking the public dry. We need to bring back Tariffs and tie them to the price of a living wage. Let's make it as expensive for Nike to import from Machiadores in Mexico or from Indonesia as it would be to make them here in the US. Walmart used to brag about "Make in America". I challenge you to find one thing at WM that is.
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman
There are many reasons why we have high unemployment right now. Under Obamacare and big government, we will have 8-10% permanent unemployment which has nothing to do with our trade policy. It will be directly related to high taxes, high regulation, more money in public hands than in private hands, etc. Look at Europe. 8-10% unemployment while we had 4-5% unemployement under Clinton and Bush. Kiss those low numbers good-bye. You voted for this loser, you live with it.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61 I find all your assumptions to be wrong. Europe has consistently had lower unemployment, 8-10% is simply not true. In Germany, they even pay when there is a downturn in the economy so that people don't lose their jobs and homes, and the downward cycle gets stopped. The idea that independent money will always do the right thing, well just look at the Banksters and what they did to us all. Its the big business thing that has to go. peace.
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman
FACTS are FACTS. 8-10% is the average unemployment rate in the EU. Please look it up. When ours was 4-5%, theirs was 8-10%
If trade policies were to blame for our present unemployment rate, then why 4-5% under Clinton/Bush with the same trade policies?
contessa61 1 year ago
@tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
@tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@contessa61
@tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61 The current employment crisis is simple. We don't make things here any more. We have been living on credit during Clinton/Bush and have seen the results, along with all the deregulation of the banking industry. Also, when we have our top marginal tax rate under 50%, we get boom and bust cycles. Look that one up, historically relevant "facts".
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman
"We don't make things here any more."
And that is a big change from 10 years ago when our unemployment rate was 5%?
NOPE. The current employment crisis is from the recession, made worse by Obama's health care bill, talk of cap and trade, more welfare and unmeployment compensation, and big government spending. We have the second highest business tax in the industrialized world. Taxes are too high. Boom and bust cycles are a normal part of economies.
contessa61 1 year ago 2
@contessa61 When you have republicans in office that don't believe in government, they end up doing things like deregulating the banks, allowing mortgages to be split up and traded on the open market and allowing greedy Wall Street to screw it all up. You are wrong also about the CRA. That was simply about getting rid of redlining. It had nothing to do with deregulation, which came first with the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal and the creation of mortgage derivatives.
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman
YOU are wrong.
The government required banks to lower mortgage lending standards. Anyone with a heartbeat could get a loan. Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans leaving banks with no risk. CRA, Hank Paulson, rating agencies, the Fed, Bush and the Dems ALL had a hand in this economic crisis
contessa61 1 year ago 2
@contessa61
Banks and greedy bankers are also to blame.
contessa61 1 year ago
@contessa61 The government deregulated. This allowed for the greed of the banks to do all the shady deals. Just read Paul Krugman, he explains it all very clearly. The CRA was about redlining. Yes, everyone had a hand in it, but it wasn't the government forcing businesses to do anything, they simply opened the door to a lot of greed and "free marked" BS. Hank-bad, Fed-bad. I agree. Dems too. Started with Reagan 30 years ago.
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman
Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" gives an excellent overview of the cause of this recession. The CRA and Dems had a big part in it, as well as many other factors. Free Market capitalism is what makes this country great. Does it need to be regulated? Of course. But the alternative of free market capitalism is not what this country is about.
contessa61 1 year ago 2
@contessa61 Sowell takes money the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded by the oil companies. Sorry.
tombeardman 1 year ago
@tombeardman SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU IGNORANT BRAINWASHED LYING COMMIE FUCKTARD!!!!!!
You never met a MYTH you didn't buy into! The idea that deregulation caused the current mess is a LIE!!!
Banks don't want to loan large sums of money to people on welfare! They had to be FORCED to do it!!!!!!! Krugman is a stupid COMMIE just like YOU!!!!!!!
LIEberalism is a mental disorder!!!!!
TNT93535 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombeardman @tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombeardman @tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombeardman @tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tombeardman @tombeardman
I find all your assumptions to be wrong...,of course you do. You're a lib.
Look at the Banksters and what they did ...
Well, look at what the government did to the banksters. They lowered the mortgage lending standards under the CRA in 1995. Starting in 1997 the percentage of sub-prime loans started to climb from 4-5% up to 20% at the height of the housing bubble.
50% of all foreclosures were sub-prime. There were MANY reasons to the housing crisis.
contessa61 1 year ago