If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   If it weren't for GOP obstructionism and austerity measures unemployment would be under 6%   (dailykos.com) divider line 510
    More: Interesting, GOP, American Recovery, austerity measures, ARRA, spillover effect, economic cost, Health Care, International, unemployment  
•       •       •

5246 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 7:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-09 10:41:18 PM

randomjsa: No, we're stating as a fact that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to wreck the economy


Take you blinders off, of course they are. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest are doing everything they can to tank the economy before the November elections. The GOP will do anything to try and regain power before America's changing demographics relegate them to permanent minority party status.
 
2012-07-09 10:44:33 PM

Mrtraveler01: I just think the people who said the stimulus did NOTHING are just flat out wrong when study after study shows the contrary to be true.


I think it would be awful hard to make a case that it did nothing. I don't see how it's possible to dump all that money in the economy with no effect.

I also think the CBO is a trusted source and is for all practical purposes non-partisan. But it is part of the government, and there is an agenda there. They, just like any other part of the government, want to maintiain the idea that government can actually fix the problems they attempt to fix.
 
2012-07-09 10:47:07 PM

James F. Campbell: paygun: The only thing I can come up with it that this manufactured drama imparts meaning to a pretty empty life.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.


Is there any reason why you shouldn't feel that way too?
 
2012-07-09 10:49:58 PM

WombatControl: Mrtraveler01: If we didn't deregulate the markets and allow them to do the things that got use into a financial crisis, then the markets would've done the things they wouldn't have been to do unless we deregulated the markets?

[www.lolwut.com image 533x594]

Except Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, or any of the things that actually caused the crisis. Allowing investment and commercial banks to hold mutual interests allowed the diversified banks to buy up assets from the failing banks, helping stabilize the markets.

sno man: (Assuming shareholders are just like you and me...)The fraction that goes to the shareholders is kinda like what the dog that's been sitting near the dinner table gets after the people have finished eating.
(Assuming shareholders are the people with most of the money already....) The fraction that goes to the shareholders is kinda like mutual masturbation.

No, that's utterly wrong. Repeat after me:

Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity

Do you have a retirement account? A pension? A mutual fund? Then you are a shareholder is a public corporation. And when a corporation allegedly "sits" on money, that, by definition, becomes part of owner's equity. A balance sheet must balance. And that means that the value of your shares is greater, which means that your retirement account has more money for your retirement, etc.

It's shocking how many people have no clue how finance works - if all you know is that one equation, you can at least start thinking about basic finance in an intelligent manner - but you can actually graduate from high school in this country having never even looked at a balance sheet...


Oh good I'm not on ignore... You, me and the rest of those mutual funds that you clearly have one of amount to about 15% of all the money in play in the stock market. That equity you are repeatedly trumpeting is not just sitting there is actually just sitting there....
Company... "look we have lot's of cash" Market...(should be)... "yea and...?" Company... "we have lot's of cash" Market (20 years ago) "And what are you going to do with that cash?"... Market now "Cool, you got cash, what did we used to do with that again?"
 
2012-07-09 10:50:58 PM

paygun: I think it would be awful hard to make a case that it did nothing. I don't see how it's possible to dump all that money in the economy with no effect.


Except you had to first take that money OUT of the economy before putting it in.

I also think the CBO is a trusted source and is for all practical purposes non-partisan. But it is part of the government, and there is an agenda there. They, just like any other part of the government, want to maintiain the idea that government can actually fix the problems they attempt to fix.

People simply don't work that way. There are Democrats and Republicans who work at the CBO. People whose interests are on their careers, not the interests of an employer they may not even intend on staying with. Government workers are not mindless drones.
 
2012-07-09 10:52:40 PM
there have been ZERO AUSTERITY MEASURES PASSED OR PUT IN PLACE IN THE USA

farkING ZERO

ZERO
 
2012-07-09 10:52:41 PM
Mrtraveler01:
Some idiots on the right seem to think that.

When asked how though, they usually don't have an answer and just resort to blaming Obama for everything.

Well, then, who IS to blame?

bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com
 
2012-07-09 10:54:38 PM

Spaz-master: Shvetz: Spaz-master: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

All you need to know. Obama has been for all the things on top, the things that are creating jobs and economic stimulus, and therefore government revenue. See the return on food stamps? Food stamps actually pay for themselves. The Bush tax cuts? Negative returns.

You keep using this slanted image as though it were fact. Why not try to cite some documentation (from an unbiased source) instead of posting a ideological image?

Moody's is now biased towards food stamps? Do your homework, the numbers are good

You showed a picture not text.. Post a real link. That isn't the exact report and you (should) know that...



Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index. h tm
 
2012-07-09 10:54:42 PM

paygun: I think it would be awful hard to make a case that it did nothing. I don't see how it's possible to dump all that money in the economy with no effect.


The chart seems to be showing current unemployment trending down as it was projected to do, it was just off by a couple percentage points. I think conservatives should admit the stimulus saved and created jobs and liberals should admit that tax cuts work.
 
2012-07-09 10:56:37 PM

MikeMc: randomjsa: No, we're stating as a fact that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to wreck the economy

Take you blinders off, of course they are. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest are doing everything they can to tank the economy before the November elections. The GOP will do anything to try and regain power before America's changing demographics relegate them to permanent minority party status.


you know there are more than just federal elections that go on, right?

why don't you take a look at your own city and see how many D's and R's there are. Then go to your county and state and see how many there are there, too.

then take a look at some of the other cities in your state, and some of the other counties, then look at other states. look at their cities, then their counties, etc etc.

stupid rhetoric is stupid.
 
2012-07-09 10:58:00 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Some idiots on the right seem to think that.

When asked how though, they usually don't have an answer and just resort to blaming Obama for everything.
Well, then, who IS to blame?

[bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com image 521x347]


So you think the stimulus INCREASED unemployment?

Because those are the idiots I'm talking about.
 
2012-07-09 11:01:05 PM

Bob Dolemite:

stupid rhetoric is stupid.


Except that in this case it's true.
 
2012-07-09 11:01:23 PM

paygun: Mikey1969: You can't believe that the Right is going to be this big of pricks until it actually happens.

Really dude? Aside from everything else, "I didn't know the Republicans were going to act like dick holes" is a pretty lame story to tell.


Not 4 years ago. they weren't this kind of obstructionist assholes before then. Sure, they were jerks, but so were the Dems, they have been becoming BIGGER pricks since 2000, back then they were equal sized pricks. I thought they may have reached their zenith in '08, I didn't think any Party could be THIS greedy, at least not one of the Big Two.

Yes, they were assholes, but this fight-everything-just-because-a-Democrat-proposed-it,-even-if-it-was-o riginally-based-on-one-of-our-ideas-just-to-be-assholes thing has reached all new heights, and I doubt anyone that wasn't a major glass half empty cynic would have thought that the 'Pubs were capable of going to the extremes that they have gone. Look at all of the big name Righties who are leaving because it's gotten "too goofy".
 
2012-07-09 11:03:39 PM

Giltric: paygun: I think it would be awful hard to make a case that it did nothing. I don't see how it's possible to dump all that money in the economy with no effect.

The chart seems to be showing current unemployment trending down as it was projected to do, it was just off by a couple percentage points. I think conservatives should admit the stimulus saved and created jobs and liberals should admit that tax cuts work.


Tax cuts work when taxes are too high, but I dont't think the left has a problem with admitting that. The right is quick to say that the left will never get enough as far as taxes go, but that's not what the left says they want. Obama just said today that he wants to return taxes on the 250k+ group to Clinton era levels. Of course the right will portray that as the taxpocalypse.

I don't think the stimulus can ever be definitively proven to be effective one way or the other but I do think the right should get over it. Bush started that mess and it happened. It's too late to argue about it now.
 
2012-07-09 11:04:30 PM

Evil High Priest: Ambivalence: And Democrats woudln't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if republicans' weren't obstructionist douch nozzles over anything more controversial than naming post offices.

And Democrats wouldn't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if they had had the balls to kill the filibuster at the start of the session in 2009.


Or, maybe, y'know, actually do the filibuster, instead of this "someone wants to talk, so let's just move on" pseudo-filibuster that passes for it nowadays.

/In 1957, Strom Thurmond talked for 24 hours straight to delay the Civil Rights Act.
//Had Harry Reid been majority leader instead of LBJ, that Civil Rights Act would never have been passed.
///But on the plus side, one day of the Senators' lives would've been freed up to do whatever.
 
2012-07-09 11:05:21 PM

Ricardo Klement: People simply don't work that way. There are Democrats and Republicans who work at the CBO. People whose interests are on their careers, not the interests of an employer they may not even intend on staying with. Government workers are not mindless drones.


I don't think they consistently lean one way or the other. That's really all that matters to me.
 
2012-07-09 11:06:30 PM
Mrtraveler01:
GeneralJim: Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist. . .

The guy that backed McCain for President in 2008?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]

The fact that Lieberman was a Democrat, and didn't back Obama can only mean he's a racist.

i889.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-09 11:10:19 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist. . .

The guy that backed McCain for President in 2008?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]
The fact that Lieberman was a Democrat, and didn't back Obama can only mean he's a racist.

[i889.photobucket.com image 640x512]


no. no you are not.
 
2012-07-09 11:10:24 PM

toddism: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

All you need to know. Obama has been for all the things on top, the things that are creating jobs and economic stimulus, and therefore government revenue. See the return on food stamps? Food stamps actually pay for themselves. The Bush tax cuts? Negative returns.

hokay - let me 'splain:

1: the govt takes in 10.00 in taxes
2: it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 7.00 left
3 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
4 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
5 the government now has 7.10
7 it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 4.10 left
8 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
9 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
10 the government now has 4.20

this does not end well.


Actually that chart explains this is bullshiat, and in fact you need to replace "food stamps" with "tax cuts" to be correct.

Also you can't count to ten.

Also, 420, durhur, durhur, weed joke.
 
2012-07-09 11:11:02 PM

Bob Dolemite: MikeMc: randomjsa: No, we're stating as a fact that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to wreck the economy

Take you blinders off, of course they are. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest are doing everything they can to tank the economy before the November elections. The GOP will do anything to try and regain power before America's changing demographics relegate them to permanent minority party status.

you know there are more than just federal elections that go on, right??

why don't you take a look at your own city and see how many D's and R's there are. Then go to your county and state and see how many there are there, too.

then take a look at some of the other cities in your state, and some of the other counties, then look at other states. look at their cities, then their counties, etc etc.

stupid rhetoric is stupid.


Say Bob, we're talking about the federal government here, at least try to keep up with the conversation. OK? Thanks.
 
2012-07-09 11:11:34 PM
Mrtraveler01:
GeneralJim: On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority." That super-majority was uninterrupted from September 25, 2009, when Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. That's more than four months when the Republicans could do NOTHING to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do.

You really fail to grasp the passage of time do you?

September 25, 2009-February 4, 2010 = 4 months and 11 days

Your own citations prove your wrong.

/I think you should quit while you can

Help me out here, I don't speak Retard. Are you saying that "4 months and 11 days" is not "more than four months?" Or, could it be that I confused you by spelling out the number?
 
2012-07-09 11:14:01 PM

Bob Dolemite: there have been ZERO AUSTERITY MEASURES PASSED OR PUT IN PLACE IN THE USA


Protip: putting something in all-caps doesn't make it true. In this case, you're way, way off. We've been doing the slow-melt austerity program in the US for decades; government services have been drastically scaled back, are more expensive, or both.

Just because we don't call it austerity doesn't mean we aren't doing it.
 
2012-07-09 11:14:05 PM
Shvetz:
Somebody gets a food stamp, the spend it at a local market. That local market now needs cashiers, shelf stockers, etc. Those newly employed people have their wages taxed. They go out and spend all their money because they have low-income jobs, and can't afford to save in a bad economy. They create demand/jobs, which now pay federal income tax. It's a cycle, and it's trickle up.

And, of course, without food stamps, they would simply not eat. You know you ARE assuming that, right?
 
2012-07-09 11:15:16 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist. . .

The guy that backed McCain for President in 2008?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 363x310]
The fact that Lieberman was a Democrat, and didn't back Obama can only mean he's a racist.

[i889.photobucket.com image 640x512]


No, it just means that you don't know what you're talking about. Something that, coim

What has Lieberman done that's socialist? Especially to the scale of someone like Bernie Sanders who is an ACTUAL socialist.
 
2012-07-09 11:17:04 PM

GeneralJim: Help me out here, I don't speak Retard. Are you saying that "4 months and 11 days" is not "more than four months?" Or, could it be that I confused you by spelling out the number?


Are you really splitting hairs over 11 days?
 
2012-07-09 11:19:14 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority." That super-majority was uninterrupted from September 25, 2009, when Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. That's more than four months when the Republicans could do NOTHING to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do.

You really fail to grasp the passage of time do you?

September 25, 2009-February 4, 2010 = 4 months and 11 days

Your own citations prove your wrong.

/I think you should quit while you can
Help me out here, I don't speak Retard. Are you saying that "4 months and 11 days" is not "more than four months?" Or, could it be that I confused you by spelling out the number?


You barely type english that makes sense... and that you have ignored everything else about St. Reagan except this nit, suggests you got nothing. Go re-read your mutual fund statement and go have a good nights sleep... I dare you.
 
2012-07-09 11:27:29 PM
intelligent comment below:
Giltric: We were supposed to have unemployment below 6% by now due to the stimulus.....the dems farked that estimate...which makes every other estimate suspect.


That was before half the stimulus was tax cuts for the rich which depressed government spending because of a loss of revenue.

Are you farking retarded? No, I mean literally. Are you? If so, I'll cut you a little slack.

Not having "enough" money (Personally, I would think 5 TRILLION dollars would run the country, AND build up a "rainy day" fund at the same time) has never slowed them down. Listen, dumbass, have you ever heard of "deficit spending?" That means spending money in excess of revenues. Congress are past masters at that. Note, in the following chart, that there was a Democratic Congress setting the budget, which was in effect starting in 2008.


lucente.org
 
2012-07-09 11:32:44 PM

paygun: I don't understand why so many people here think the Republicans are the boogey man. It's a dying party, with an ever dwindling number of true believers.


Well, I would argue that the reason they're "boogey men" is that they're doing their damndest to insult women, anyone who isn't a Christian, etc, all while they're circling the drain.

I no longer fear Republicans in the long run. They'll be dead in 20 years and hopefully replaced with a less Jesus-y and maybe actually conservative party of younger, more reasonable people I can at least respect while disagreeing with. But damn, have you looked at this last-gasp clawing for relevance? The animal is most dangerous when its backed in a corner. Remember how the GOP used to talk a ton of sh*t about God and abortion but never actually did anything once elected? Now they're on a mission to stay glued to voter's hearts with nearly draconian bills and over-the-top rhetoric. They know they're fading into the wrong side of history, but are fighting to bring everyone else down with the ship.
 
2012-07-09 11:35:59 PM

paygun: rubi_con_man: Anyone with a business knows that doing it exclusively on the basis of having a large pool of cash that you own free and clear is almost unheard of. Most companies borrow.

The company I work for has never borrowed, and operates from cash. They're very small and I know they're an exception.


That is awesome. I salute your Boss & his financial prudence.

But to be 'realistic' even something as common as farming usually requires financing. and by and large, this is the 'good' use of capitalism : Lots of people pooling their money to lend to farmers who produce food. YAY. They rely on contracts, insurance, capital markets, and futures markets, and even derivatives. These allow many more, relatively independent persons to make more economic choices, and this is good. The Command economy system - whether it's a palace economy, manorialism, mercantilism, liberalism socialism or capitalism - none of these more centralized systems produce the large number of independent political actors.

The sad part is that it becomes very hard to separate the good uses of capitalism from the poor ones.
 
2012-07-09 11:36:31 PM
sno man:
Yes because a 4 month super majority in the Senate means they could have done anything they wanted. Period.
You type like you know how government works, but the words you type pretty much say you don't.

A long time a ago, the Soviets were vetoing every U.N. action that called for human rights. At one point, they got all pissy, and walked out of the U.N. In the ensuing several hours, bills that the Soviet Union had vetoed were brought up, one after another, and passed. The Soviets finally heard what was going on and rushed back, but a great deal of things were already passed.

Don't blame the Republicans if Democrats are too stupid, or fractious, or disorganized, or WHATEVER, to get things accomplished when there is no possible impediment. Give Republicans the Presidency, the House, and a super-majority in the Senate for four DAYS, and see what happens...
 
2012-07-09 11:42:15 PM

GeneralJim: Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.


I guess at that point, the ex-rich would have to go get real jobs. Oh, the horror.
 
2012-07-09 11:42:51 PM

GeneralJim: Give Republicans the Presidency, the House, and a super-majority in the Senate for four DAYS, and see what happens...


Another War or Depression?
 
2012-07-09 11:43:33 PM

GeneralJim: sno man: Yes because a 4 month super majority in the Senate means they could have done anything they wanted. Period.
You type like you know how government works, but the words you type pretty much say you don't.
A long time a ago, the Soviets were vetoing every U.N. action that called for human rights. At one point, they got all pissy, and walked out of the U.N. In the ensuing several hours, bills that the Soviet Union had vetoed were brought up, one after another, and passed. The Soviets finally heard what was going on and rushed back, but a great deal of things were already passed.

Don't blame the Republicans if Democrats are too stupid, or fractious, or disorganized, or WHATEVER, to get things accomplished when there is no possible impediment. Give Republicans the Presidency, the House, and a super-majority in the Senate for four DAYS, and see what happens...


I bet they'd get about as much done in the same time frame, especially in the beginning of a new administration.
The difference is they wouldn't have quite as rabid opposition.
 
2012-07-09 11:45:19 PM

AirForceVet: Bontesla: DeaH: Now that will be an interesting election ad.

Seriously.
Please.
Someone. Anyone?
Please.

It's a tough sale of a political ad. It's complex, probably too much so for a 30-second TV or radio spot. No sound bites and/or catchy phrases.

This information requires a fully informed electorate. But, unfortunately, most Americans don't stay informed, much less vote. So, while I believe the GOP is responsible for obstructing recovery attempts with increased spending, it's tough to say they're doing this deliberately to sink President Obama. They can simply claim they have a different philosophy, but with no facts to back up their claims. The given chart in the article explains it very well though during previous recessions.

By the way, Republicans have no problem screwing America over to gain power. Look how they went to war in Iraq and cut taxes to make future Americans pay the bills. The GOP is a really messed up bunch of dysfunctional people.


Its a tough sale of a politcal ad because everyone who sees it who isnt already a solid obama supporter is going to squint for a second and then call bullshiat.

Made up numbers only impress the choir, people. (on both sides. try some honesty next time -- whoever decides to try honesty will probably win)
 
2012-07-09 11:45:50 PM
intelligent comment below:
paygun: Letting someone keep more of their money through a tax cut doesn't have shiat to do with what they chose to do with it, it's their money.


No, it's not their money. It's the government's money for all the services you use. You want a free lunch don't you?

Well... that about sums it up. Usually, leftist jackasses (like you) usually are not honest... or stupid... enough to say that they think all the money belongs to the government.

So, I'm assuming that if I hold you up at gunpoint, and demand that you ask me a question about computers, which I answer, you won't have a problem with me taking all your money for "the services you used?"


www.dw.de
That's a very nice business you have there.
It would be a shame if it was to burn down.
May I interest you in some fire insurance?
 
2012-07-09 11:49:53 PM

GeneralJim: intelligent comment below: Giltric: We were supposed to have unemployment below 6% by now due to the stimulus.....the dems farked that estimate...which makes every other estimate suspect.


That was before half the stimulus was tax cuts for the rich which depressed government spending because of a loss of revenue.
Are you farking retarded? No, I mean literally. Are you? If so, I'll cut you a little slack.

Not having "enough" money (Personally, I would think 5 TRILLION dollars would run the country, AND build up a "rainy day" fund at the same time) has never slowed them down. Listen, dumbass, have you ever heard of "deficit spending?" That means spending money in excess of revenues. Congress are past masters at that. Note, in the following chart, that there was a Democratic Congress setting the budget, which was in effect starting in 2008.

[lucente.org image 640x459]



So where is Bush' spending on the wars in that graph? Just not there?
 
2012-07-09 11:49:54 PM
One can argue the degree to which Republican obstructionism has hampered economic recovery but it is very hard to argue that it did not and does not still.
 
2012-07-09 11:52:18 PM
Oh, I have an idea, even though democrats ruled both houses and the executive branch, AND the supreme court just gave the liberals a HUGE victory, lets still blame the republican minority for any and all of the problems in the nation.

This is why I say "liberals are stupid"
 
2012-07-09 11:54:00 PM

GeneralJim: Well... that about sums it up. Usually, leftist jackasses (like you) usually are not honest... or stupid... enough to say that they think all the money belongs to the government.


www.qsl.net

Who's name is on the bill?

The dollar is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

If you don't like it here, leave.
 
2012-07-09 11:56:56 PM

GeneralJim: Help me out here, I don't speak Retard.


It's your native tongue.
 
2012-07-09 11:58:38 PM

fuhfuhfuh: Giltric: Just one more beer...
Just one more bump....
Just one more hit....
Just one more fix...
Just one more empty shoebox to hoard...
Just one more stimulus.....

Just one more attempt at trickle down economics...
Just one more tax break for the "job creators" so they can finally create jobs...


What the idiot republicans will never understand (and we have tried to tell them again and again):

This is not a job creator:
www.android-spy-apps.com

This is a job creator:
www.communities.qld.gov.au

This is not a wealth creator:
www.tedmikulski.com

This is a wealth creator:
assets.goop.com

This person does not need a tax cut to stimulate the economy:
www.luxuryloft.com

This person could use a tax cut to stimulate the economy:
www.alaska-in-pictures.com

Trickle down doesn't work, republican'ts. You've had over 30 years to try it, and it failed. Time for a new way. Like any structure, an economy works best when its base is strong, and the only way that the base will be strong is for the people at the base to have more money and more spending power.

Your ongoing and repeated efforts to strip the base clean like wild dogs over the last few decades had damaged the economy of this country like nothing else before, and the worst part is that you don't give a rat f*ck about it. Who or what you destroy doesn't matter, as long as you can get the things you want most - money and power.

The sad part of all this is that you have found a way to exploit the stupid in such a way that they vote against their own best interests, almost to the point of fanaticism. You have found what they fear, what they hate, and what they want but will never have and used it against them to get what you want... and made them believe they were the smartest people in the world for doing it.

You have tricked them into protecting you, because they believe that someday they will be you. Of course the chances of that happening are as good as having a winning state lottery ticket, but they stupidly believe anyway.
 
2012-07-09 11:59:05 PM

thrgd456: Oh, I have an idea, even though democrats ruled both houses and the executive branch, AND the supreme court just gave the liberals a HUGE victory, lets still blame the republican minority for any and all of the problems in the nation.

This is why I say "liberals are stupid"


We''ll deal with the Republicans the Republican way next election cycle. Bipartisanship - BIG MISTAKE!!!
 
2012-07-10 12:45:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: LordJiro: Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.
Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

Alright let's cut some spending.

Let's start with the Department of Defense, they got tons of waste and fraud that we can cut.

*cue Republican whining against it*


We can't because terrorism.
 
2012-07-10 12:49:15 AM

WombatControl: Except Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, or any of the things that actually caused the crisis. Allowing investment and commercial banks to hold mutual interests allowed the diversified banks to buy up assets from the failing banks, helping stabilize the markets.


Wha? Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks such as Citibank from speculating in high risk investments and acting as insurers by backing CDSs. It also prevented investment banks from getting the same loan guarantees as commercial banks. At least that is the part that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act removed.
 
2012-07-10 01:02:55 AM
In 1929 fueled by speculation with borrowed money and a lack of transparency the stock market crashed causing over 9,000 banks to fail over the course of the next 10 years. Unemployment rose to 25% and overseas trade dwindled to a mere fraction of its previous levels. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created in 1934 by the Securities Exchange Act in an attempt to rectify the situation. The Securities Act required that all interstate sales of securities be registered with the SEC in an attempt to ensure that transactions were transparent and buyers of securities have access to accurate information. This increased confidence and stimulated the market, it did not however make it illegal to sell bad investments as long as all information was available to the investor.

The Glass-Steagall Act was introduced in 1933 which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insuring all banking deposits up to $40,000. The Act also granted control to the Federal Reserve of interest rates lent to the banks and prevents them from acting as investment firms or insurance companies, effectively preventing them from gambling with their clients' money. This prevented major financial meltdowns from occurring for the next 50 years.

As Part of the New Deal in 1938 the FNMA or Fannie Mae was created as a not for profit government organization to help increase home ownership and provide liquidity. In 1968 the program is privatized as a government sponsored enterprise, a designation reserved for companies created by congress to serve a specific financial role, thus socializing its loses and privatizing its profits. In 1970 a secondary government sponsored enterprise is created to compete with Fannie Mae called Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHLMC). These two institutions would play a pivotal role in the crisis of 2007.

In 1945 the Bretton Woods system is signed by all forty-four allied nations, among other things this system tied all world currency to the US dollar which at the time was on the Gold Standard. Promoting currency stability for twendy-six years until 1971 when President Nixon removed the dollar from the Gold Standard creating the "Nixon Shock" without notifying either the allied nations or the department of state. Ten of the allied nations (who would come to be known as the G10) then formed the Smithsonian Agreement, in which they agreed to appreciate their currencies against the US dollar. This lays the ground work for our next financial crisis to have worldwide impact.

In an effort to promote equality congress passes The Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974, making it illegal for creditors to discriminate against loan applicants on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, marital status, or age. A double-edged sword that while it provides opportunity for investment to the disenfranchised it also exposes them to fraud.

The Net Capital Rule is established in 1975 by the SEC. In it investment firms must keep on hand enough liquid capital to cover their investments at a ratio of 12-to-1. This is meant to ensure that investments are not over leveraged to the point where a default will cause a collapse.

A continuation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Requiring banks which included savings and loans to make credit available to low-income households.

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 raised the FDIC insured amount from $40,000 to $100,000, allowed banks to merge, savings and loans to offer checking accounts, and deregulated interest rates. A step which further blurred the line between investment banks and commercial savings banks, bolstered by the 1982 Garn-St.Germain Depository Institutions Act which allowed savings and loans to offer money market deposit accounts.

One of the biggest factors in today's crisis is the creation of Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDOs by the financial firms Salomon Brothers and First Boston. These CDOs allow mortgage backed securities to be combined with bonds, loans, and other assets into a tradable commodity. These CDOs are the precursor to the bundled derivatives we hear about in the news today.

In 1992 the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act is passed in congress
requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to invest a percentage of their lending to affordable housing. This increases the number of subprime mortgages that are then bundled together in CDOs and sold throughout the world.

In 1994 JPMorgan creates the first CDSs or Credit Default Swaps intended to act as insurance for investors against defaults in credit. Attached to the bundled CDOs as insurance increased their appeal and helped garner them the AAA rating they carried through much of the 90s and 00s.

A change to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 gives mortgage lenders credit towards their affordable housing lending obligations in exchange for buying subprime securities. In effect rewarding the lenders for taking on greater risk.

In 1999 Fannie Mae lowers credit requirements for subprime loans and encourages lending for those that do not qualify for conventional loans.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 partially repeals the part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits banks from operating as investment firms and insurance brokers. Thus the pensions of those who thought their investments were safe and not part of the high stakes world of finance were put in jeopardy. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act exempts CDSs from regulation. There is now no way to ensure that the insurance is actually insuring the client.
In 2000 and 2001 Alan Greenspan lowers the Fed's interest rate eleven times creating an easy credit environment for all.

Finally in 2004 the SEC changes the Net Capital Rule of 12-to-1 leverage on investments to state that if the institution has $5 billion on hand in assets they may leverage themselves an unlimited number of times. At the time of the 2007 crisis Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley had each leveraged themselves at 37-to-1. Meaning that they would not have the assets on hand to cover the loss if one of their investments defaulted. Because CDSs were not regulated when they did default there was no safety net to catch the investment firms.
 
2012-07-10 01:16:11 AM
No shiat, Sherlock.
 
2012-07-10 01:19:02 AM

timujin: Ambivalence: The democrats had 60 members in the senate for 6 months and at no time did Joe Lieberman or Max Baccus or that Nelson Farker let democrats get shiat done.

pssst... Lieberman's not a Democrat.


nope he's a crypto nazi.

or possibly charlie of chocolate factory fame.

either way will you assholes in Connecticut stop voting for him.
 
2012-07-10 01:19:03 AM
LordJiro:
They'll shut down the government and do everything in their power to hurt Obama, even if it means sending the country down in flames. And if, God forbid, Romney wins the election, the country will go down in flames anyway, because we'll just see more Bush-style tax-cutting, more bullshiat wars, more of the same style of deregulation that inflated the housing bubble...basically, all of the same Republican policies that have dragged America back for decades, and all but killed our middle class.

Republicans want to push America back all the way to the dark ages. Their dream for America is a theocratic, neo-feudalist state. Democrats aren't perfect, but at least they're SANE.

So, you LIKE the direction the country has gone the last four years? Well, it's true that command economies do work better. Just look at the Soviet Union... well, bad example... just look at Yugoslavia... well, bad example... just look at East Germany... well, bad example... just look at Democratic Republic of Afghanistan... well, bad example... just look at People's Socialist Republic of Albania... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Angola... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Benin... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Bulgaria... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of the Congo... well, bad example... just look at Czechoslovak Republic... well, bad example... just look at Czechoslovak Socialist Republic... well, bad example... just look at Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia... well, bad example... just look at People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia... well, bad example... just look at German Democratic Republic... well, bad example... just look at People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Hungary... well, bad example... just look at Democratic Kampuchea... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Kampuchea... well, bad example... just look at Democratic People's Republic of Korea... well, bad example... just look at Mongolian People's Republic... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Mozambique... well, bad example... just look at People's Republic of Poland... well, bad example... just look at Socialist Republic of Romania... well, bad example... just look at Somali Democratic Republic... well, bad example... just look at People's Democratic Republic of Yemen... well, bad example... just look at Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia... well, bad example.

All of the above countries no longer exist. The list is from WIKIPEDIA.
It's their "List of socialist countries." All of the above have collapsed. Current ones? China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. (North Korea is not listed under socialist, but Batshiat Insane)



 
2012-07-10 01:20:35 AM

Without Fail: GeneralJim: Well... that about sums it up. Usually, leftist jackasses (like you) usually are not honest... or stupid... enough to say that they think all the money belongs to the government.

[www.qsl.net image 355x322]

Who's name is on the bill?

The dollar is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

If you don't like it here, leave.


Tell me you're just farking with him.
 
2012-07-10 01:21:30 AM

LordJiro: Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.


I've got something that will trickle down Ann Romney's thigh anyway. Btw, Mittens hows your wife and my kids?
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report