# Obama Rejects Latest GOP Spending Bill as Government Shutdown Looms



## Arnold (Apr 5, 2011)

*Obama Rejects Latest GOP Spending Bill as Government Shutdown Looms*

A visibly frustrated President Obama said Tuesday that Democrats have agreed to how much to cut from the budget and that he won't accept another temporary spending bill that House Republicans are rallying behind to prevent a government shutdown. 

"We've already done that twice," Obama said in a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room. "That is not a way to run a government. "I can't have our agencies making plans based on two-week budgets."

Republicans are already blaming the White House for not considering another temporary spending bill.

"The White House has increased the likelihood of a shutdown," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.

House Speaker John Boehner told the president that House Republicans were rallying behind a third option because the House refused to be "put in a box and forced to choose between two options that are bad for the country (accepting a bad deal that fails to make real spending cuts, or accepting a government shutdown due to Senate inaction)," according to a readout from Boehner's camp.

The resolution was a backup that Boehner would only "break glass" on if he had to, and senior budget negotiators say they weren't sure it had the votes to pass even if it were accepted by Democrats. 

Talks of a new resolution come as top-ranking lawmakers met at the White House Tuesday in what could be the last chance to reach a deal before the lights go out, which both the Obama administration and House Republicans are preparing for with notices to federal workers.

After the closed-door meeting of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Boehner and their respective appropriations committee chairmen, Boehner said no budget agreement was reached. He added that Republicans are now rallying behind a seventh short-term resolution to keep government operating for one more week so Congress can get through the machinations needed to pass a compromise spending plan. 

The meeting was a last-ditch effort to find a satisfactory number for operating the government for the remaining six months of the fiscal year. Republicans, fired up by the Senate's refusal to accept a $61 billion cut to current spending levels, said Democratic intransigence has led the nation to the brink. 

Tea Party-backed freshmen lawmakers said they will support the new resolution, particularly since it is attached to a Defense spending bill. 

But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who wouldn't comment on whether the White House had rejected the GOP bill, said it is premature to talk about any short-term solution. 

"What we have said, it is not necessary and not acceptable to create toll booths to keep the government going," he said.

A spokesman for House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the new resolution "irresponsible and unacceptable."

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he will oppose the one-week resolution and added that he hopes other Democrats will follow his lead. Hoyer, who has voted for previous temporary spending bills, said they are "ineffective, inefficient and costly."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a Senate legislative committee Tuesday that forcing the government to live week-by-week this far into the fiscal year risks undermining the economic recovery underway.

The last-ditch deal -- which had been drawn up because the House needs to allow a three-day buffer before considering a longer-term budget, pushing back a vote beyond Friday night's deadline for a shutdown -- includes $12 billion in cuts from an array of places and a funding plan to provide for the Pentagon through the end of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. 

Most every department of the government would face some kind of cut from prior spending levels, including military construction, high speed rail corridor funding, first responder grants, foreign assistance accounts and hospital readiness grants. 

Other "riders" are not as high-profile as earlier proposals to cut government aid to Planned Parenthood or de-fund the health care overhaul, but would include a ban on federal and local money from paying for abortions in the District of Columbia, prohibition from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States and a requirement that the secretary of defense certify the transfer of a detainee to another country that would not put the U.S. at risk. 

Stopgap measures, though, have become increasingly unpopular in Congress, particularly among House conservatives, and Republicans could have to look to moderate Blue Dog Democrats to help pick up votes. At the same time, congressional leaders were at the White House trying to work out a deal to fund the government for the rest of the year. 

As the president meets with Boehner, Reid, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, over a number that could range from $33 billion to $61 billion in cuts -- or 2-4 percent of the total discretionary budget, the administration is preparing for a possible government shutdown. 

A top official at the White House Office of Management and Budget has written a memo to agency heads directing them to review and share their contingency plans for a shutdown. 

The Committee on House Administration also sent out a memo instructing employers in the House of Representatives to determine which "essential personnel" should keep working should funding lapse. The only House employees allowed to keep working would be those whose jobs are "directly related to constitutional responsibilities, related to the protection of human life, or related to the protection of property." 

Read more: Obama Rejects Latest GOP Spending Bill as Government Shutdown Looms - FoxNews.com


----------



## LAM (Apr 5, 2011)

lol stupid GOP doesn't remember the election results after their last government shutdown..


----------



## phosphor (Apr 5, 2011)

They lost and gained last time - however this was based on the Republicans over-interpreting the degree to which the public supported their agenda to reduce government spending and shut down of the government, twice, in their efforts to force dramatic budget cuts. 

This is an entirely different animal and it seems that the democrats are now playing a very dangerous shell game. Look at it this way: do you want some piddly cuts that are just barely superficial and actually do nothing except make your party look good - or do you want very substantial cuts that would make a difference that both parties can take credit for. The democrats have not proposed anything substantial and you know it - and if the dems pass the one they want now, don't count on anything else coming down the pike from them.

Cuts are a good thing and we need ALLOT of them to get back on track. Snarky remarks aside, LAM, we both want the same thing regardless of who gets the credit - I hope.


----------



## LAM (Apr 5, 2011)

phosphor said:


> This is an entirely different animal and it seems that the democrats are now playing a very dangerous shell game. Look at it this way: do you want some piddly cuts that are just barely superficial and actually do nothing except make your party look good - or do you want very substantial cuts that would make a difference that both parties can take credit for. The democrats have not proposed anything substantial and you know it - and if the dems pass the one they want now, don't count on anything else coming down the pike from them.
> 
> Cuts are a good thing and we need ALLOT of them to get back on track. Snarky remarks aside, LAM, we both want the same thing regardless of who gets the credit - I hope.



cuts in social services that did not cause the problem isn't a solution..fixes can be made to medicare and there needs to be cost control between them and the for profit health care industry.

4-6T in cuts over X amount of time isn't a real solution to the debt we are already in.  these types of cuts will only hurt those struggling and trying not to fall into poverty.

I am not for any types of cuts that will cost more americans the low paying jobs that they already have when there are no others to go to.  I am definitely not for anything that will further effect the elderly on fixed incomes either.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 5, 2011)

LAM said:


> cuts in social services that did not cause the problem isn't a solution..fixes can be made to medicare and there needs to be cost control between them and the for profit health care industry.
> 
> 4-6T in cuts over X amount of time isn't a real solution to the debt we are already in.  these types of cuts will only hurt those struggling and trying not to fall into poverty.
> 
> I am not for any types of cuts that will cost more americans the low paying jobs that they already have when there are no others to go to.  I am definitely not for anything that will further effect the elderly on fixed incomes either.



There are many places you can cut with relatively little pain - government has a lot of needless redundancy and overhead.

That said - 2/3 of government spending is mandatory spending.  It would be foolish to think we can get our house in order without addressing that.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 5, 2011)

*John Boehner: Democrats 'win' in government shutdown* 
_By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JAKE SHERMAN _

Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Republican leaders speak with the media after Obama's briefing room appearance regarding the budget in Washington, D.C. | 

Speaker John Boehner is warning his Republican colleagues that Democrats would “win” a government shutdown and the GOP would suffer a political catastrophe if the federal government runs out of money at the end of this week.

“The Democrats think they benefit from a government shutdown. I agree,” Boehner said during a closed-door, 90-minute meeting on House Republicans on Monday night, according to several lawmakers who attended the session.

Boehner’s opinion was quickly backed up GOP lawmakers who were serving in Congress during 1995, when former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) squared off with then President Bill Clinton by shutting down the government twice. Reps. Don Young (Alaska), Dana Rohrbacher (Calif.) and Buck McKeon (Calif.) — a close ally — supported Boehner’s position. Dozens of other Republicans rallied to support Boehner as well, in a moment that one GOP insider called a “turning point” for House Republicans.

“My view is that a government shutdown doesn’t benefit anyone necessarily, but if one party or the other is going to get an edge, it’s probably the Democrats. I agree with the speaker there,” Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) told POLITICO. “If you look at the government shutdown of 1995, it guaranteed President Clinton’s reelection. And that’s what this would do. If you want to cede the presidential race in 2012, you shut down the government.”

But while Boehner may have backing from the old veterans in his camp, he’s run headlong into the tea-party group of House Republicans who believe that Obama and Senate Democrats would come off the worse if a shutdown actually takes place.

These hard-line Republicans, not all of whom are freshmen, have forced Boehner to play hardball with the Democrats or face a potential threat to his own survival as speaker. This hard-core faction is insisting on no less than the $61 billion spending cut package passed by the House in February, and they’ve refused to back to any proposal that includes smaller reductions. Reid and Senate Democrats have pushed a much smaller reduction of $33 billion. As of Tuesday afternoon, the potential of a shutdown was growing, but could be headed off by a Boehner offer of $40 billion in cuts plus certain policy riders favored by GOP lawmakers.

The split among Republicans breaks somewhat along generational lines, but even more clearly between those who have served in government — either in the state, local or federal level — and those who have never done so.

The Republicans favoring a shutdown are convinced the political landscape is radically different this time around. They believe the power of the president’s “bully pulpit” isn’t as overwhelming as it was in Clinton’s time, and more voters will sympathize with the GOP’s efforts to shut down the government.

*Read the rest of the article here:* John Boehner: Democrats 'win' in government shutdown - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 5, 2011)

Shut it down, we won't have to pay taxes when they are shutdown since they aren't working, right?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 5, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Shut it down, we won't have to pay taxes when they are shutdown since they aren't working, right?


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 5, 2011)

phosphor said:


> They lost and gained last time - however this was based on the Republicans over-interpreting the degree to which the public supported their agenda to reduce government spending and shut down of the government, twice, in their efforts to force dramatic budget cuts.
> 
> This is an entirely different animal and it seems that the democrats are now playing a very dangerous shell game. Look at it this way: do you want some piddly cuts that are just barely superficial and actually do nothing except make your party look good - or do you want very substantial cuts that would make a difference that both parties can take credit for. The democrats have not proposed anything substantial and you know it - and if the dems pass the one they want now, don't count on anything else coming down the pike from them.
> 
> Cuts are a good thing and we need ALLOT of them to get back on track. Snarky remarks aside, LAM, we both want the same thing regardless of who gets the credit - I hope.



Let's start by demanding our TARP money back from the banks. Then stop the Fed from printing money and handing it over to European banks. Then take the damn money back from the European banks. Then kick all the lobbiests out of Washington and publically fund elections.  Then install a line item veto.  Then install pay-go rules. There everything fixed in less than a paragraph. Fuck the repugnicans and the demorats and fuck everybody that buys into this BS shell game and cast of actors.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 5, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Let's start by demanding our TARP money back from the banks. Then stop the Fed from printing money and handing it over to European banks. Then take the damn money back from the European banks. Then kick all the lobbiests out of Washington and publically fund elections.  Then install a line item veto.  Then install pay-go rules. There everything fixed in less than a paragraph. Fuck the repugnicans and the demorats and fuck everybody that buys into this BS shell game and cast of actors.



+1 On everything except line item veto.  It gives the executive branch too much power over legislation.  I'm not saying it wouldn't be extremely useful at times, but it's too much power in one branch.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 5, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Let's start by demanding our TARP money back from the banks. Then stop the Fed from printing money and handing it over to European banks. Then take the damn money back from the European banks. Then kick all the lobbiests out of Washington and publically fund elections.  Then install a line item veto.  Then install pay-go rules. There everything fixed in less than a paragraph. Fuck the repugnicans and the demorats and fuck everybody that buys into this BS shell game and cast of actors.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> cuts in social services that did not cause the problem isn't a solution..fixes can be made to medicare and there needs to be cost control between them and the for profit health care industry.
> 
> 4-6T in cuts over X amount of time isn't a real solution to the debt we are already in. these types of cuts will only hurt those struggling and trying not to fall into poverty.
> 
> I am not for any types of cuts that will cost more americans the low paying jobs that they already have when there are no others to go to. I am definitely not for anything that will further effect the elderly on fixed incomes either.


 
Glad your a critic of the new proposal, it proves my point of liberals in general. Liberals don't have to balls to make the cuts nessesary to get this country back on track because they are the very same people enabling the parasites to bleed this country dry. You say on one hand, 6.2T isn't enough but then dismiss the whole thing because it 'hurts' people. Well, what's your proposal? What's the Dem's proposal? The amount? The cuts?

Bleeding heart BS from people so quick to throw around other people's money. How brave and big hearted you are.


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Liberals don't have to balls to make the cuts nessesary to get this country back on track because they are the very same people enabling the parasites to bleed this country dry.



same old tired bull shit from the far shit about "certain" people bleeding the government dry...

please show the empirical data showing that social services are bankrupting the government...

good luck to you and your family when they take away your EITC and the ability to deduct your mortgage insurance from your taxes but they don't take any welfare away from the corporations...

once again the GOP will be on the wrong side of history as the harsh edges of capitalism send more people into poverty simple because the labor wages that they make do not enable them to afford the basic needs in this country anymore...


----------



## andyo (Apr 6, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Glad your a critic of the new proposal, it proves my point of liberals in general. Liberals don't have to balls to make the cuts nessesary to get this country back on track because they are the very same people enabling the parasites to bleed this country dry. You say on one hand, 6.2T isn't enough but then dismiss the whole thing because it 'hurts' people. Well, what's your proposal? What's the Dem's proposal? The amount? The cuts?
> 
> Bleeding heart BS from people so quick to throw around other people's money. How brave and big hearted you are.



This is pretty funny considering the Repiglicans were elected last November and have done nothing but blame the White House for every one of their inabilities to get anything done ever since.Boner or whatever his name is gets up there and cries every chance he gets.  When is the government actually going to get their shit straight and do something for the people? Fire them all! Both sides.


----------



## andyo (Apr 6, 2011)

Isn't it funny to think that during the Civil War era the Republican party was the liberal side and the Democrat side was actually the conservative side? Sean Hannity and Rush would disagree because they're too one-sided to check their facts.


----------



## DEATH MATCH (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol stupid GOP doesn't remember the election results after their last government shutdown..


 

16 years ago dumbo time has changed and the people have a different view on politics now. Boy your dumb


----------



## KelJu (Apr 6, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Let's start by demanding our TARP money back from the banks. Then stop the Fed from printing money and handing it over to European banks. Then take the damn money back from the European banks. Then kick all the lobbiests out of Washington and publically fund elections.  Then install a line item veto.  Then install pay-go rules. There everything fixed in less than a paragraph. Fuck the repugnicans and the demorats and fuck everybody that buys into this BS shell game and cast of actors.



Good Stuff!


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Glad your a critic of the new proposal, it proves my point of liberals in general. Liberals don't have to balls to make the cuts nessesary to get this country back on track because they are the very same people enabling the parasites to bleed this country dry. You say on one hand, 6.2T isn't enough but then dismiss the whole thing because it 'hurts' people. Well, what's your proposal? What's the Dem's proposal? The amount? The cuts?
> 
> Bleeding heart BS from people so quick to throw around other people's money. How brave and big hearted you are.



You seriously think the Republicans have your best interests in mind?  I'll let you in on a little secret.  They don't.  They don't give one flying shit about you.  The Democrats are the same way.  They don't give a shit about the people.  Both are in the pockets of and controlled by the rich and by corporations.  

If you honestly believe either side is acting in your or the country's best interests you are a fucking moron and you should have been swallowed.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2011)

andyo said:


> Isn't it funny to think that during the Civil War era the Republican party was the liberal side and the Democrat side was actually the conservative side? Sean Hannity and Rush would disagree because they're too one-sided to check their facts.



And too stupid.


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

DEATH MATCH said:


> 16 years ago dumbo time has changed and the people have a different view on politics now. Boy your dumb



I take shits more intelligent than you...

get back to me when you cut the cord from your family, stop reciting the politics of your father, join the working world then come talk to me when you have some real world and life experience...


----------



## phosphor (Apr 6, 2011)

you know who you are.


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol stupid GOP doesn't remember the election results after their last government shutdown..



???

White House = Democrat
Senate = Democrat
House = Republican


With 2/3 of the gubmint being run by Democrats, tell us again who's shutting things down?


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

"Republicans continue to fight for the largest spending cuts possible to help end Washington's job-crushing spending binge," Boehner said.

Read more: Tick, tick, GOP: Government shutdown looms - UPI.com

WTF does Washington and social programs have to do with creating jobs? Bonner needs to drink another 6-pack maybe..

why all the big cuts NOW...why not when GWB was in office? the numbers are still the same in-regards to the costs of most of the social services in question...


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> "Republicans continue to fight for the largest spending cuts possible to help end Washington's job-crushing spending binge," Boehner said.
> 
> Read more: Tick, tick, GOP: Government shutdown looms - UPI.com
> 
> ...




#1  Why NOT now?  The cuts have to be made sooner or later or were all fucked.

#2  GWB = BHO  &  BHO =  GWB  They're two peas from the same pod.  The only difference is that a few in the House and Senate have finally realized the people have had enough.  SOMETHING has to be done.  The assholes that haven't realized that are the ones causing the shutdown and they're from BOTH sides of the aisle.


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

ALBOB said:


> #1  Why NOT now.  The cuts have to be made sooner or later or were all fucked.
> 
> #2  GWB = BHO  &  BHO =  GWB  They're two peas from the same pod.  The only difference is that a few in the House and Senate have finally realized the people have had enough.  SOMETHING has to be done.  The assholes that haven't realized that are the ones causing the shutdown and they're from BOTH sides of the aisle.



your right something has to be done..but not the GOP's big "conservative" attack on the poor.  not with high unemployment and a weak dollar and no jobs now or in the foreseeable future...

the only thing that is keeping the economy going right now is gov spending.  anything that costs people jobs right now isn't even an option.

even with the most drastic cuts in services we will still be a good 8T in the whole thanks to the monies we had to borrow and now finance the loans on for those wars and "tax" cuts that we couldn't afford under GWB.

and Boehner want to continue those Bush tax cuts and/or make them permanent...


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> the only thing that is keeping the economy going right now is gov spending..



And that right there boys and girls is the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say government spending is the answer.  Conservatives say that government spending is the problem.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Only history will be able to tell us.  

So for now, the only thing we can do is agree to disagree and finally meet face to face so you can buy me that drink you've owed me for the past 10 years.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> same old tired bull shit from the far shit about "certain" people bleeding the government dry...
> 
> please show the empirical data showing that social services are bankrupting the government...
> 
> ...



Working at McDonald's or Wal-mart shouldn't provide you with a living wage.


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> Working at McDonald's or Wal-mart shouldn't provide you with a living wage.



how do you discount the labor wage (low skilled jobs, etc.) if that is currently the largest growing job market in the US?

how can a family that all make "labor" wages afford, housing, energy, health-care, etc. if they make no profits on that labor but are expected to pay constantly increasing expenses as if they were?


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> how do you discount the labor wage (low skilled jobs, etc.) if that is currently the largest growing job market in the US?
> 
> how can a family that all make "labor" wages afford, housing, energy, health-care, etc. if they make no profits on that labor but are expected to pay constantly increasing expenses as if they were?



I don't really give a fuck. And I don't see how it's my problem to make sure they are supportrd on my tax dollars.

My father came to this country with 300 dollars in his pocket and didn't even speak the language. He managed to put himself through school while working as a mechanic, and became an electronic test engineer. I've got no sympathy for people who are either too lazy or too incompetent to make a better life for themselves. If they are really that bad off, they can always enlist. Uncle Sugar is always looking for new boots.  

In other words, "Cry me a River."


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> I don't really give a fuck. And I don't see how it's my problem to make sure they are supportrd on my tax dollars.
> 
> My father came to this country with 300 dollars in his pocket and didn't even speak the language. He managed to put himself through school while working as a mechanic, and became an electronic test engineer. I've got no sympathy for people who are either too lazy or too incompetent to make a better life for themselves. If they are really that bad off, they can always enlist. Uncle Sugar is always looking for new boots.
> 
> In other words, "Cry me a River."



you may want to read a little more because the "they" I am talking about is about 1/3 of the US population that gets paid a low skilled labor wage...

and yes the old tire conservative excuse about the poor all being lazy or incompetent maybe used to fly but once you involve monetary policy and the intermingling of government and for profit business all the class economic theory's no longer apply.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> I don't really give a fuck. And I don't see how it's my problem to make sure they are supportrd on my tax dollars.
> 
> My father came to this country with 300 dollars in his pocket and didn't even speak the language. He managed to put himself through school while working as a mechanic, and became an electronic test engineer. I've got no sympathy for people who are either too lazy or too incompetent to make a better life for themselves. If they are really that bad off, they can always enlist. Uncle Sugar is always looking for new boots.
> 
> In other words, "Cry me a River."


What about the soldier who got shrapnel in his ass and is suffering from PTSD, but was conveniently discharged for a Personality Disorder and now can't get a decent job, still suffers from his condition, isn't able to get the treatment he needs, and so on...just fuck'em right and the mother trying to raise her four kids after her husband died in "a training accident" in Iraq....

My brother is a lazy no good crankhead and he was denied welfare because he is lazy and refuses to work, the system can smell the stinkers so don't assume that everyone who needs assistance is just freeloading....


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> you may want to read a little more because the "they" I am talking about is about 1/3 of the US population that gets paid a low skilled labor wage...
> 
> and yes the old tire conservative excuse about the poor all being lazy or incompetent maybe used to fly but once you involve monetary policy and the intermingling of government and for profit business all the class economic theory's no longer apply.





maniclion said:


> What about the soldier who got shrapnel in his ass and is suffering from PTSD, but was conveniently discharged for a Personality Disorder and now can't get a decent job, still suffers from his condition, isn't able to get the treatment he needs, and so on...just fuck'em right and the mother trying to raise her four kids after her husband died in "a training accident" in Iraq....
> 
> My brother is a lazy no good crankhead and he was denied welfare because he is lazy and refuses to work, the system can smell the stinkers so don't assume that everyone who needs assistance is just freeloading....


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


>



try reading world history all this has happened before.  you may also want to look at the incomes of red states vs blue states and which states get the most federal aid...it's the red "conservative"  states that don't have any money...lol

I will find it most comical when many of you "conservatives" find your-self's on the receiving end of your own spear...


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> try reading world history and comparing the incomes of red states vs blue states...it's the red states that don't have any money...lol
> ..



When did New York and California become red states???


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> try reading world history all this has happened before.  you may also want to look at the incomes of red states vs blue states and which states get the most federal aid...it's the red "conservative"  states that don't have any money...lol
> 
> I will find it most comical when many of you "conservatives" find your-self's on the receiving end of your own spear...



It's not worth even arguing with you; you are delusional.

*Calif. delegation to visit Texas, study job growth*

(04-06) 16:26 PDT Sacramento, Calif. (AP) --

A Republican-led group of California lawmakers announced Wednesday they will head to Texas next week with Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to hear from businesses that left the state about ways to encourage job creation.

GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who is leading the delegation, said the two-day trip is not intended to bash California but rather to examine how Texas has been able to lure companies in recent years.

Texas has added 165,000 jobs during the past three years while California has lost 1.2 million jobs, he said.

"We want to sit down with these businesses that could not stay in our state and find out why they left, what caused them to pick up their family, their roots, and move to another state in order to compete, in order to grow their businesses," Logue told reporters during a Capitol news conference.

Calif. delegation to visit Texas, study job growth

The 2011-12 Budget: California's Fiscal Outlook

Are you fucking kidding me? LMAO!


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> I don't really give a fuck.



Of course you don't.  You're under the impression that somebody else is trying to steal from you.  You're a weak minded individual who will believe whatever it is the political douchebags tell you.  The joke is on you because they are laughing all the way to the bank because they have you bamboozled.  They are taking from everyone and trying to pawn it off as the guy next door taking it all.  

Who gives a shit your father came here with $300 in his pocket?  Back when he came here people were far more giving of themselves and were willing to give him a job and an opportunity to better himself.  Now we have braindead assholes, like yourself, believing that people, like your father was back in the day, are nothing but freeloaders.


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

ALBOB said:


> When did New York and California become red states???



you know I was referring to the traditional red and blue states not just the results of the last presidential election cycle.

the conservative right to work states don't fare well overall in any category, they also get the most federal aid...so they may not want to bite the hand that feeds them


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 6, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Of course you don't.  You're under the impression that somebody else is trying to steal from you.  You're a weak minded individual who will believe whatever it is the political douchebags tell you.  The joke is on you because they are laughing all the way to the bank because they have you bamboozled.  They are taking from everyone and trying to pawn it off as the guy next door taking it all.
> 
> Who gives a shit your father came here with $300 in his pocket?  Back when he came here people were far more giving of themselves and were willing to give him a job and an opportunity to better himself.  Now we have braindead assholes, like yourself, believing that people, like your father was back in the day, are nothing but freeloaders.








*Socialism Is Evil *

by Walter E. Williams 

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/04/socialism.html

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of those left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property is eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it's done collectively we use the euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well. 

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget. 

Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another. 

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats and coercion take that dollar from some other American. 

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal but did that make them moral? 

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus. 

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation. 

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well. 

Walter E. Williams 
C16-04 
July 26, 2004


----------



## LAM (Apr 6, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> *Socialism Is Evil *



and believing that the markets are still free and that once the evil "government" is reduced that everyone will magically make money and be prosperous is pure delusion....


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

LAM said:


> and believing that the markets are still free and that once the evil "government" is reduced that everyone will magically make money and be prosperous is pure delusion....



I don't believe that all people would be prosperous were that to happen. 

But I do believe that people with any drive to succeed, or any potential to elevate themselves, would be much better off without the government digging into their pockets, and without the dregs of society latched onto their tit.

We'll never agree on this issue, and that's fine. You probably grew up on government assistance, and hence, your bias. I hope that government cheese tasted good.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 7, 2011)

ALBOB said:


> When did New York and California become red states???



I think he is referring to how many federal tax dollars the states get for every dollar they put in.  18 out of the 28 blue states including New York and California get less than a dollar back for every dollar they put in while Texas is the only red state that gets less than they put in at $0.96.

red state, blue state, welfare state, subsidizing state « scatterplot


----------



## LAM (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> We'll never agree on this issue, and that's fine. You probably grew up on government assistance, and hence, your bias. I hope that government cheese tasted good.



nope..grew up in a 10k sq foot house with a gas pump next to the garage on 6 acres in valley forge, pa..where did you grow up?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> I don't believe that all people would be prosperous were that to happen.
> 
> But I do believe that people with any drive to succeed, or any potential to elevate themselves, would be much better off without the government digging into their pockets, and without the dregs of society latched onto their tit.
> 
> We'll never agree on this issue, and that's fine. You probably grew up on government assistance, and hence, your bias. I hope that government cheese tasted good.



How about we adopt complete "socialism".
And equalize all the money across the board.

That way everyone can stop chasing the carrot on a stick in front of their faces.

Nothing's worth accomplishing. Lets just all be happy and share.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

LAM said:


> nope..grew up in a 10k sq foot house with a gas pump next to the garage on 6 acres in valley forge, pa..where did you grow up?



If true, it's not uncommon. There are plenty of Hollywood types, who are filthy rich, yet total commies. I still believe you've tasted the government cheese more than once in your life though. LOL.


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 7, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I think he is referring to how many federal tax dollars the states get for every dollar they put in.  18 out of the 28 blue states including New York and California get less than a dollar back for every dollar they put in while Texas is the only red state that gets less than they put in at $0.96.
> 
> red state, blue state, welfare state, subsidizing state « scatterplot



Oh I know exactly what he was saying.  It's just that these arguments get so tiresome and boring.  They accomplish nothing.  I'm just being snarky at this point.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 7, 2011)

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job. *Recovery is when Obama loses his job.*


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> If true, it's not uncommon. Plenty of Hollywood types who are filthy rich, yet total commies. I still believe you've tasted the government cheese more than once in your life though. LOL.



You're pretty repugnant. Wake up. Your idol Glen Beck just got his ass canceled. Your heroes on the right attached legislation to the latest  2011 budget prop to cut funding to the EPA, jack around Gitmo and cut fed funding to Planned Parenthood.  All these are obviously poison pills designed to make it impossible for Dems to vote for.  Your Republican heros always begin their replies to any question with "the American people want" which is a horse shit misleading statement designed for fucktards to nod in agreement to whilst drooling into their drool bucket. Tell your granny that she needs to give up her social security check since you feel so adamantly against anything with the word social in it. Another one of your heros, Ayn Rand, railed against regulation of big tobacco, Social Security and Medicare all the way up to the day she found out she had lung cancer from her 4 pack a day life long habit.  At that point she quickly signed up for Medicare. What a wonderful pack of nut-jobs you all have for idols.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job. *Recovery is when Obama loses his job.*



Brilliant! Did you spend $20 for the T-shirt?


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Brilliant! Did you spend $20 for the T-shirt?



no, just reposting from another place because i agree with it


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> no, just reposting from another place because i agree with it



You probably think time started when Obama swore in. You want to blame people for the financial straits we are in blame the banks and their Ponzi schemes not the guy that got the pail of shit dumped on his head.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> You probably think time started when Obama swore in. You want to blame people for the financial straits we are in blame the banks and their Ponzi schemes not the guy that got the pail of shit dumped on his head.



what is the statute of limitations for the democratic party and it's chronies to accept responsibility for their mistakes and stop blaming Bush? that's really what you're saying without mentioning names......and if Bush was wrong, then why is Barry Hussein "flip flopping" or as Alan Colmes says "comprising" in almost every decision he's made recently?


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> what is the statute of limitations for the democratic party and it's chronies to accept responsibility for their mistakes and stop blaming Bush? that's really what you're saying without mentioning names......and if Bush was wrong, then why is Barry Hussein "flip flopping" or as Alan Colmes says "comprising" in almost every decision he's made recently?


Your republican collegues wasted no time at all blaming the whole of the impending recession on Obama even before he took the oath.  Are you really trying to deflect the fact that your party is completely and wholly dishonest? You must have a pretty short memory. Bush was a BIIIIIIIIIIGGGG spender.  Under his watch an 800 billion Medicare drug entitlement that stripped the HHS of the capacity to bargin for drug prices greatly increasing cost over time.  He also added Dept of Home Land Security funded at 50 billion a year. He suspended Davis-Bacon indefineitely after Katrina draining those stated of wealth. he contracted out military responsibilities at about and average of 600% the cost. 

Your wonderful Republicans wasted no time in repeal of the Glass???Steagall Act in 1999 with their Senate Majority, which lead to the huge increase in the Ponzi scheme derivatives market that caused the collapse of the housing market and resultant near financial collapse.  You want me to go on about your wonderful party and how they have fucked you willingly out of your country?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 7, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> what is the statute of limitations for the democratic party and it's chronies to accept responsibility for their mistakes and stop blaming Bush? that's really what you're saying without mentioning names......and if Bush was wrong, then why is Barry Hussein "flip flopping" or as Alan Colmes says "comprising" in almost every decision he's made recently?



Here's a little secret the republicans are keeping from you:  THEY ARE NOT LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY LET ALONE YOU.  THEY ARE IN THE POCKETS OF BIG BUSINESS.  

When we get boned big business is raking in the bucks.  The only trickle down is what business trickles into the pockets of the politicians.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Your republican collegues wasted no time at all blaming the whole of the impending recession on Obama even before he took the oath.  Are you really trying to deflect the fact that your party is completely and wholly dishonest? You must have a pretty short memory. Bush was a BIIIIIIIIIIGGGG spender.  Under his watch an 800 billion Medicare drug entitlement that stripped the HHS of the capacity to bargin for drug prices greatly increasing cost over time.  He also added Dept of Home Land Security funded at 50 billion a year. He suspended Davis-Bacon indefineitely after Katrina draining those stated of wealth. he contracted out military responsibilities at about and average of 600% the cost.
> 
> Your wonderful Republicans wasted no time in repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999 with their Senate Majority, which lead to the huge increase in the Ponzi scheme derivatives market that caused the collapse of the housing market and resultant near financial collapse.  You want me to go on about your wonderful party and how they have fucked you willingly out of your country?



Medicare Part D is the biggest socialized program since Medicare.  

The latter was a democratic invention, the former a republican. 

 Not that anyone cares but the huge impending 30% cuts to physicians who take Medicare is due the the Balanced Budget Act ( sustainability act passed by repubs) so it could pay for this monstrosity of a social program (since they promised not to raise taxes to pay for it.)  That would be fine but the private plans have already told docs they will cut their fees correspondingly unless they  don't take medicare.  The former is doing it because they are running out of money, the private insurers are doing it because they are greedy sons of bitches and since it is a monopoly ( not true free market) they can do whatever the hell they want.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Apr 7, 2011)

LAM said:


> try reading world history all this has happened before.  you may also want to look at the incomes of red states vs blue states and which states get the most federal aid...it's the red "conservative"  states that don't have any money...lol
> 
> I will find it most comical when many of you "conservatives" find your-self's on the receiving end of your own spear...



Many of my small business owners ( are also republicans) have their children on peachcare for kids ( georgia's socialized insurance program) since they can't afford the premiums for their children's insurance.  Many now who are without a job ( staunch repubs who were construction workers etc.) now all want me to put them on social security for their "back pain" so they can draw a social security check since they no longer have a job. 
Reminds me of Ann Ryand who dipped heavily into social security and medicare when she found out that true individual responsibility ( libertarian view which she is) for medical bills when something catastrophic happens ( her lung cancer) is almost impossible, even for a mildly wealthy individual like her. ( she said she had to to avoid depleting all the funds from the proceeds of her books. ) I guess she forgot medicare decreased geriatric poverty by 80% once it was implemented.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 7, 2011)

bandaidwoman said:


> Medicare Part D is the biggest socialized program since Medicare.
> 
> The latter was a democratic invention, the former a republican.
> 
> Not that anyone cares but the huge impending 30% cuts to physicians who take Medicare is due the the Balanced Budget Act ( sustainability act passed by repubs) so it could pay for this monstrosity of a social program (since they promised not to raise taxes to pay for it.)  That would be fine but the private plans have already told docs they will cut their fees correspondingly unless they  don't take medicare.  The former is doing it because they are running out of money, the private insurers are doing it because they are greedy sons of bitches and since it is a monopoly ( not true free market) they can do whatever the hell they want.



The system is broke, no question about that.  The doctors screwed themselves a while back when they got greedy with the insurance companies, now the insurers are getting back at them because they can (and its not a fair marketplace).  Long story short, open the market up and remove state boundaries so there is competition to force insurers to be competitive.  This will help bridge the gap between medicare payments and those that are paid by insurers.  And if there is tort reform for medical malpractice, doctors won't be paying half their wages to, wait for it, insurance companies yet again.  Can we call that a total catch 22 if you are a doctor? Yes we can!


----------



## oufinny (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> It's not worth even arguing with you; you are delusional.
> 
> *Calif. delegation to visit Texas, study job growth*
> 
> ...



You want to know how TX did it... being that I live here, I am qualified to comment and was laid off not all that long ago.  Easy, if you want un-employment, the rules are strict and you don't get it for long.  Second, companies cost structures are very low because there is no state income tax.  Third, in cities like Houston, there is a diverse industry base so people can transfer to a new field relatively easy.  We have energy, technology, manufacturing, huge health care industry, entertainment, so much that even with upwards of 5 million people, unemployment here during the worst of 2009 was under 9% if memory serves.  That is good that people in CA are swallowing their pride and looking outside of the state, that is what legislators are paid to do, solve problems and make sensible laws.  If they didn't do something like that, it would be much more questionable because in my eyes, they aren't doing their job.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

bandaidwoman said:


> Medicare Part D is the biggest socialized program since Medicare.
> 
> The latter was a democratic invention, the former a republican.
> 
> Not that anyone cares but the huge impending 30% cuts to physicians who take Medicare is due the the Balanced Budget Act ( sustainability act passed by repubs) so it could pay for this monstrosity of a social program (since they promised not to raise taxes to pay for it.)  That would be fine but the private plans have already told docs they will cut their fees correspondingly unless they  don't take medicare.  The former is doing it because they are running out of money, the private insurers are doing it because they are greedy sons of bitches and since it is a monopoly ( not true free market) they can do whatever the hell they want.



Medicare D was primarily pushed by Billy Tauzin a Republican since 1995.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Apr 7, 2011)

i dont consider docs greedy, most of us can make a lot more working 90 plus hours a week with our level of education elsewhere ( like my roomate the coorparte lawyer from college).  We dont want todeal with medical insurance companies anymore. most us want a single payer so we can go back to being doctors, not led by the collar by insurance companies. \ Look at new england journal, archives of IM etc.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/1999/march/majority_57_of_ac.php
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/02.12/09-singlepayer.html
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/OPINION/808060352
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/22-21


I can decrease my staff from 45 to 12 if we only had to deal with medicare or a single payer, australia, new zealand and my home countery ( very capitalistic and still providing health care fee for service as private employees under a national health insurance plan) taiwan.


my salary as a doc is pitiful (i'm primary care and if you average my salary for the time worked per week I make less per hour than my Physicans assistant who only works 40 hours a week) , my salary from owning coorporate rental spaces to those that have survived recession is what gives me my nice cushy salary.  For the record, how is giving those of us making over 250 grand more of a tax break going to create jobs?  Those of us in this strata aren't big spenders, I'd just take that tax break and invest it in my daughter's college fund, not hire more employees or go out and buy a luxury car.  We have  a saying, I always wanted a BMW until I could afford one.

the insurance lobbiests make sure it will never be a free market.  They don't lower prices when demand is less , they raise them, patients are not smart consumers, they purchase a health care plan like kaiser because cheap meds and internet access, but then when they get really sick and need a million dollar bone marrow transplant they get dumped into the public system for the treatment, they have to provide a return to their stockholders and share holders, so they ration based on purely economic and contractile decisions. there needs to me more government regulation to prevent their future consolidation into more monopolies but that is socialism, the insruance companies are the new robber barons.

if i wanted pure capitalistic free market where humans have no collective bargaining power and pollution is rampant in our drinking waters and air for the sake of coorporate profitablility i would have stayed in china,


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> You're pretty repugnant. Wake up. Your idol Glen Beck



I stopped right there and didn't read any further. I hate Glenn Beck. And I hate the GOP.

They are no better than the Dems. Well, not by much. They both want to reach into my pocket and take my money for all kinds of social welfare and pork projects.

I hate Sarah Palin. She's a moron and not fit to lead a girl scout troop, let alone a country. I hate Obama, just the same. 

I hate Glenn Beck, just as I hate Bill Mahr.

You have my political philosophy fucked up. For me it isn't left or right that makes the difference. True, I despise the Left for their need to try and ban guns, tax me more, and for their repugnant hippy hygene, but I hate the right too. They are no friend of freedom. I have no need for people intruding into others bedrooms, telling them who they can marry, or those who would legislate into law that a woman cannot to abort their fetus. I think abortion is disgusting, but it doesn't affect me in anyway (well, to be fair, it probably saves me some tax dollars... less kids on welfare.)

I want Government to leave me alone. Let me keep the majority of what I earn (minus a nominal percentage for national defense and maintenance of critical infrastructure), and leave everyone else to take care of themselves. 

Look... I'm not heartless. I fully believe in charity, and helping your fellow man. But it should be of your own volition, and not forced by government coercion.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> You probably think time started when Obama swore in. You want to blame people for the financial straits we are in blame the banks and their Ponzi schemes not the guy that got the pail of shit dumped on his head.



Actually, the people to blame are the Clinton Administration, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Had they never de-regulated the home mortgage industry in the first place, this would have never happened. Selling derivatives was illegal prior to their "restructuring" of the CRA.

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was a Democratic invention of the Carter Administration and which was strengthened by President Clinton. The purpose of CRA was to make sure banks didn't discriminate--a good idea, in theory, if properly implemented. 

But President Clinton, in 1995, pushed to have the evaluation of CRA compliance based not on subjective assessment but based on strict numeric analysis. That meant that, essentially, if a bank wasn't loaning the "right" amount of money to minorities and low-income clients, etc. that they would be found to be in violation--even if the reason minorities weren't receiving the same amount of loans was because they weren't credit-worthy . This obviously lead to the beginning of the sub-prime market as most (if not all) of these CRA-driven loans were not made to prime borrowers that would normally be accepted by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It all began with the first securitization of CRA loans in October 1997  and snowballed from there.

Banks would normally have not been inclined to lend money to uncreditworthy borrowers but the government essentially compelled them to. In the exploding housing market with constantly-increasing house prices it turned out that even these high-risk borrowers were not defaulting because even if they couldn't afford the mortgage they could just sell their home. At a profit. At that point the free market took over. It figured that if these highly-profitable sub-prime securities weren't defaulting, heck, they might as well start getting into the market as well. And it worked fine for a number of years... as long as home prices continued to increase.

The Community Reinvestment Act was an ostensibly noble effort to help the poor in our economy. But despite their presumably good intentions, it should be painfully obvious--especially today--that forcing banks to lend money to people that have bad credit or insufficient income is not a good idea.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 7, 2011)

A very informative post.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> Actually, the people to blame are the Clinton Administration, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Had they never de-regulated the home mortgage industry in the first place, this would have never happened. Selling derivatives was illegal prior to their "restructuring" of the CRA.
> 
> Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
> 
> ...



It's all to blame.  All sides.  There are no angels in the room.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> I stopped right there and didn't read any further. I hate Glenn Beck. And I hate the GOP.
> 
> They are no better than the Dems. Well, not by much. They both want to reach into my pocket and take my money for all kinds of social welfare and pork projects.
> 
> ...



we're not so different.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> It's all to blame.  All sides.  There are no angels in the room.



That's not what you said before. You put it on republicans. I see now you want to let the liberals take a little blame, since I called you on your bullshit.

It's a start.


----------



## LAM (Apr 7, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> Actually, the people to blame are the Clinton Administration, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Had they never de-regulated the home mortgage industry in the first place, this would have never happened. Selling derivatives was illegal prior to their "restructuring" of the CRA.
> 
> Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)



there is tons of data out there that shows CRA banks are not the cause of the mortgage meltdown but the non-CRA Wall Street banks, mortgage brokers and mortgage companies.

the banking industry was already made to big to fail thanks to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which which was slipped in as a rider to the Omnibus Spending bill.  the CFMA not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street. Which makes it makes it sound like the sponsors (of course texas republicans) knew it was illegal or at least prosecutable.


----------



## AlphaONE (Apr 7, 2011)

Man...fuck all these kids....if I don't get  a pay check this month....I think I just may be telling my entire CoC to fuck off.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 7, 2011)

LAM said:


> there is tons of data out there that shows CRA banks are not the cause of the mortgage meltdown but the non-CRA Wall Street banks, mortgage brokers and mortgage companies.



Provides some, and maybe I won't think you spreading bullshit. Until then... meh. Make sure to cite your sources please. Moveon.org isn't going to cut it.


----------



## LAM (Apr 8, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> Provides some, and maybe I won't think you spreading bullshit. Until then... meh. Make sure to cite your sources please. Moveon.org isn't going to cut it.



http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner | Reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18barr.html

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek


Wall Street banks and hedge funds are directly responsible for the subprime crisis.  they were the non-CRA banks that took the bulk of suprime loans, no doc loans, etc. and bundled them up, sold them and had to assume 0% financial risk while raking in profits.

Bear Sterns was unloading subprime loans to investors in the Cayman Islands as early as 2006.  they took investors out of the jurisdiction of the feds and the investors host country.  not a single one of them has gone to jail charged with anything and they made 100's of billions.  then they bet against the loans and made even more money.

Emails, Wall Street crisis key in Bear Stearns trial | Reuters

Financial Crisis Commission Hearing UPDATES: Bear Stearns, SEC Officials Grilled

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLBUXL1oXSCM&refer=home


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> That's not what you said before. You put it on republicans. I see now you want to let the liberals take a little blame, since I called you on your bullshit.
> 
> It's a start.



You need to see both sides. You see no blame in your Party.  If you can't or refuse to see more than one side then there is no point to further discussion. At that point it is like arguing with an automaton. If you stop doing cut-and-paste you may start forming your own opinion.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

LAM said:


> http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
> 
> UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner | Reuters
> 
> ...



Wait wait... don't muddy the water with facts.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Wait wait... don't muddy the water with facts.



None of that shit comes close to supporting your position with fact. It's all the opinion of people with an agenda. I'll take all that, and proceed to wipe my ass with it. That's all it's good for.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> Actually, the people to blame are the Clinton Administration, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Had they never de-regulated the home mortgage industry in the first place, this would have never happened. Selling derivatives was illegal prior to their "restructuring" of the CRA.
> 
> Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
> 
> ...



The CRA probably played a significant role but you should know that GW Bush was a proponent of the CRA.  See 2002 speach http://dealbreaker.com/2008/01/it-didnt-start-with-countrywid.php.

You also fail to address the effect the Gramm Leach repeal of the Glass???Steagall Act, which dropped barriers between commercial and investment banks thus the creation of and great expansion of these credit default swaps and the like.  This is what drove this Ponzi scheme.  You fail to address any of these facts.

Blaming the poor for the Great Recession 2008 is typical of right wing crazies.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> None of shit comes close to supporting your position with fact. It's all the opinion of people with an agenda. I'll take all that, and proceed to wipe my ass with it. That's all it's good for.



You seem to feel you can dismiss facts by fiat with a phrase like 'I'll take all that, and proceed to wipe my ass with it.' Apparently you have no skills to challenge arguments or what is put before you as fact. You should be able to take apart an argument point by point.  There have been a number of arguments placed before you yet you fail to address any.  I contend that the  repeal of Glass - Steagall was the major contributor to the 2008 collapse.  I challenge you to refute my claim. LAM placed several more before you. I challenge you to drop your rhetoric and address these facts as well. It matters not who has put them forth even if you believe those persons had an agenda. If you are intellectually honest you should at least address them as arguments if your intent, which it should be in your position, is to dispute them as fact. If you can't do this then you are only putting forth rhetoric and senseless banter, both of which  are a waste of time.


----------



## M4A3 (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> I contend that the  repeal of Glass - Steagall was the major contributor to the 2008 collapse.



It was repealed in 1999 under the Clinton Administration, and by a bi-partisan vote in the house.

So, your whole point is moot. I said it was the Clinton Administration that was responsible due to the CRA. The repeal of the Glass - Steagall just makes them even more responsible.

Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal if he wanted to. He didn't, and signed it into law.

It's obvious that it was a combination of both these actions taken by the Clinton Administration that led to the crisis.

Forcing banks to lend to unqualified buyers was the fuel that got the fire started (the CRA). Allowing the selling of derivatives sustained that fire, and caused it rage out of control. 

And again, it all happened under a Democratic Administration. 

So, what was your point again?


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

M4A3 said:


> It was repealed in 1999 under the Clinton Administration, and by a bi-partisan vote in the house.
> 
> So, your whole point is moot. I said it was the Clinton Administration that was responsible due to the CRA. The repeal of the Glass - Steagall just makes them even more responsible.
> 
> ...



The house vote was Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69. Certainly more Dems were against than Republicans. You fail to mention that the sponsoring congressmen, Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa) and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), were all republicans and also that it passed on partisan vote in the Senate (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). Gramm now has a nice cushy Vice Chairmanship in the Investment Bank division of USB, obviously a payoff.  Leach is at the Council on Foreign Relations and we all know what they do.  Clinton was no saint and certainly a Globalist but you should look at the riders on that bill to explain why Clinton voted for it.  Again you only present part of your case. You have a view of the Republican rats that canonizes them for sainthood. Read a little deeper before Beatifying your idols.

About 40% of home mortgages are through your demonized Freddie and Fannie.  You would kill that and expect few or no consequences. That Frank and co opened up the language to allow more lower income participants was well intentioned but predatory loan practices by banks to pressure them into poorly structured instruments so they could be bundled and sold off in CDS is what fueled the collapse. Those CDSs estimates valued at 20-50 times the value of those mortgages, a complete Ponzi scheme that collapsed with the shifting interest rates and bloated home values. You should also admit that GW Bush supported CRA. He called for an "ownership society".


----------



## LAM (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Blaming the poor for the Great Recession 2008 is typical of right wing crazies.



U.S. Subprime Mortgage Crisis: Policy Reactions
http://www.jovenesporcr.com/storage/Subprime crisis_708036.pdf

they tried blaming the sub-prime crisis on the poor but that myth has been debunked so many times by so many reports none of them blaming CRA banks but all of them putting it on the unregulated wall street banks.  conservatives always blame the poor, the people that have the least amount of wealth, thus the least amount of power...

conservatives forget that being poor is simply an economic status and not a "type" of person.


----------



## LAM (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Clinton was no saint and certainly a Globalist but you should look at the riders on that bill to explain why Clinton voted for it.



riders on bills is the #1 sneaky way to get things done


----------



## LAM (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Blaming the poor for the Great Recession 2008 is typical of right wing crazies.



conservatives blame the poor for not becoming middle class.  who's fault is that the middle class conservative did not become wealthy?  are they both not failures in capitalism?


----------



## LAM (Apr 8, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> The house vote was Republicans 205???16; Democrats 138???69. Certainly more Dems were against than Republicans. You fail to mention that the sponsoring congressmen, Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa) and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), were all republicans and also that it passed on partisan vote in the Senate (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). Gramm now has a nice cushy Vice Chairmanship in the Investment Bank division of USB, obviously a payoff.  Leach is at the Council on Foreign Relations and we all know what they do.  Clinton was no saint and certainly a Globalist but you should look at the riders on that bill to explain why Clinton voted for it.  Again you only present part of your case. You have a view of the Republican rats that canonizes them for sainthood. Read a little deeper before Beatifying your idols.
> 
> About 40% of home mortgages are through your demonized Freddie and Fannie.  You would kill that and expect few or no consequences. That Frank and co opened up the language to allow more lower income participants was well intentioned but predatory loan practices by banks to pressure them into poorly structured instruments so they could be bundled and sold off in CDS is what fueled the collapse. Those CDSs estimates valued at 20-50 times the value of those mortgages, a complete Ponzi scheme that collapsed with the shifting interest rates and bloated home values. You should also admit that GW Bush supported CRA. He called for an "ownership society".



also let's not forget:

in 2002 the Bush Administration released its "Blueprint for the American Dream" (an ambitious plan to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families) which included $200 million to help 40,000 low-income families make downpayments to become homeowners annually through 2010. The loans were administered through Fannie and Freddie.

But low-income buyers were still having problems with credit - until 2004 - when the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws governing mortgage lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce state mortgage-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws. The Bush White House claimed that banks should ???only be subject to federal laws regulating mortgage credit.??? This allowed banks to issue "no-doc" and "low-doc" loans without verification creating a substantial additional capital pool for the derivatives market (no-doc sub-prime and subsidized sub-prime mortgages). Research from UNC-Chapel Hill's Center for Community Capital shows that those lending laws had actually worked. States that had stricter regulations on issuing mortgages were found to have fewer foreclosures.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 8, 2011)

LAM said:


> also let's not forget:
> 
> in 2002 the Bush Administration released its "Blueprint for the American Dream" (an ambitious plan to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families) which included $200 million to help 40,000 low-income families make downpayments to become homeowners annually through 2010. The loans were administered through Fannie and Freddie.
> 
> But low-income buyers were still having problems with credit - until 2004 - when the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws governing mortgage lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce state mortgage-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws. The Bush White House claimed that banks should ???only be subject to federal laws regulating mortgage credit.??? This allowed banks to issue "no-doc" and "low-doc" loans without verification creating a substantial additional capital pool for the derivatives market (no-doc sub-prime and subsidized sub-prime mortgages). Research from UNC-Chapel Hill's Center for Community Capital shows that those lending laws had actually worked. States that had stricter regulations on issuing mortgages were found to have fewer foreclosures.



Thanks for reminding me. But can't we still blame it all on the Democrats? Jeez those facts seem to always get in the way.


----------

