# Yay! Republicans!!



## TheGreatSatan (Nov 2, 2010)

The house is ours!


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 2, 2010)

They cleaned up


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 2, 2010)

yes they did. even made it interesting in the senate. this is the best thing for our government. now the white house and congress will fight, not accomplish anything, and thereby not be able to interfere in our lives as much as they have previously done. Good to be an American on this day


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> yes they did. even made it interesting in the senate. this is the best thing for our government. now the white house and congress will fight, not accomplish anything, and thereby not be able to interfere in our lives as much as they have previously done. Good to be an American on this day



I hope nobody was expected a pay raise in the next decade as we hoover around a double-dip recession for a while.

However, I'm very happy that Nevada stepped up and keep another sociopath out of office.  Unfortunately nobody can help the economy in Nevada.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 3, 2010)




----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> I hope nobody was expected a pay raise in the next decade as we hoover around a double-dip recession for a while.



I just got a raise


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2010)

awesome, does that mean everything will be back to the greatness we had when the Bush administration was in office?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> awesome, does that mean everything will be back to the greatness we had when the Bush administration was in office?



so you are a fan of the wonderful CHANGE that obama and the democrats have brought us since the horrible evil Bush left office?  yeah, its been utopia since we got obama. the american people have been so happy with the democrats over the last two years (who had an overwhelming majority) that they decided to keep the CHANGE obama promised.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Nah, at beast, the Obama admin just won't be able to make things any worse for the time being.  Hopefully, they'll be able to repeal most of the healthcare disaster, completely shelve the cap and tax scam, and keep taxes from going up next year.  We prolly will have a double dip recession (although I think we've been in a depression for at least two years now), but it would be a lot longer and deeper if more of Obama's agenda were to get rammed thru.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> so you are a fan of the wonderful CHANGE that obama and the democrats have brought us since the horrible evil Bush left office?  yeah, its been utopia since we got obama. the american people have been so happy with the democrats over the last two years (who had an overwhelming majority) that they decided to keep the CHANGE obama promised.



considering that Obama's economic policies have only been in place for a good year what was expected?  How exactly does one stop an economic avalanche once it's started?  once again the id based society here in the US and the need for instant gratification has screwed itself, people forget so quickly how we got to were we are today.  that fucking POS John Boehner talks about reducing the deficient and the size of government, his party grows the size of government and the federal deficit EVERY SINGLE time it occupies the office of POTUS.

you may want to check the history books if you think that the economic policies of the GOP benefit the middle class because they don't and never have. people don't realize that a stalled economy acts the same as a pay cut, no pay or cost of living increases while the dollar continues to deflate.


----------



## irish_2003 (Nov 3, 2010)

this is a true sign of how Americans feel towards the current admin.....the gop didn't just barely win the house, they dominated....a sure sign people are fed up with obama's regime and their agenda


----------



## I Are Baboon (Nov 3, 2010)

Meh, it's just a new set of assholes to fock things up even more.  That said, I voted for some of them.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> this is a true sign of how Americans feel towards the current admin.....the gop didn't just barely win the house, they dominated....a sure sign people are fed up with obama's regime and their agenda



"Obama's regime" ok there Rush...

those of you that favor the economic policies may want to check and see what their favorite politician really does when not on camera.  the site below tells you the legislation that they propose and their voting records.

http://votesmart.org/site_search.ph...rg_cay&q=john+boener&x=0&y=0&cof=FORID:11#277


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

Well, let's see what the new crop of folk can do.  Personally, I'm not very optimistic considering the future speaker of the house said compromise is not on the horizon, but I anxiously anticipate the cuts to entitlements that have been promised.  I hope the shitty healthcare bill gets re-done, but I have a feeling the only way it gets re-done AND funded is if the Bush tax cuts get continued for all, which will essentially drive our dollar further in to the shitter by jacking up our debt.  It will certainly be an interesting next couple of years, for our sake I hope most of the rhetoric is just rhetoric.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> considering that Obama's economic policies have only been in place for a good year what was expected?  How exactly does one stop an economic avalanche once it's started?  once again the id based society here in the US and the need for instant gratification has screwed itself, people forget so quickly how we got to were we are today.  that fucking POS John Boehner talks about reducing the deficient and the size of government, his party grows the size of government and the federal deficit EVERY SINGLE time it occupies the office of POTUS.
> 
> you may want to check the history books if you think that the economic policies of the GOP benefit the middle class because they don't and never have. people don't realize that a stalled economy acts the same as a pay cut, no pay or cost of living increases while the dollar continues to deflate.



maybe you missed my original post in this thread were i am happy if the only outcome is that the government is unable to interfere in my life less? if no one can get the ball rolling for their agenda then im happy. I'm not a die hard republican. im a registered independent, but of the two parties I absolutely believe the republicans are the lesser of the two great evil whores of the earth that the two US parties have become.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> so you are a fan of the wonderful CHANGE that obama and the democrats have brought us since the horrible evil Bush left office?  yeah, its been utopia since we got obama. the american people have been so happy with the democrats over the last two years (who had an overwhelming majority) that they decided to keep the CHANGE obama promised.




I don't know about Prince, but I am pretty apathetic towards the whole situation. Nothing will change. This is not a situation to be happy over unless you are a partisan republican and your team just made it to the playoffs. 

My hate for republicans dwindled down a little since they have been out of power, and my disgust for democrats has risen while they blundered everything in the last two. I don't care who won, because they were both as refreshing as a spoonful of shit. I didn't even vote. I don't think I will ever vote again or take part in American politics. It's fucking pointless.

This election season feels like the worst ever and reminds me why I hate people.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

kelju said:


> this election season feels like the worst ever and reminds me why i hate people.



lol


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 3, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> The house is ours!



*In 2012 Most of the American public will be complaining, pointing their fingers, and blaming so-and-so.

It's Coke vs. Pepsi: what's the difference?*


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> "Obama's regime" ok there Rush...
> 
> those of you that favor the economic policies may want to check and see what their favorite politician really does when not on camera.  the site below tells you the legislation that they propose and their voting records.
> 
> Project Vote Smart - Search Results



Project Vote Smart - Representative Jason Chaffetz - Voting Record

I'll take it


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2010)

*bio-chem*,

Are you a multi-millionaire? 

The reason I ask is because I am curious why you think that the Republican party represents and benefits anyone besides millionaires?

If I recall Bush passed around 8 tax cuts in his term ALL of which only benefited the very rich.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> lol



I'm not kidding. Every campaign ad starts off with that ominous tone:
"My name is Jim Poopburger and my opponent Bob Fafitnugen claims to embrace family values, but did you know that he rapes babies? Vote against baby raping this November.

Paid for by douche partisan fucks to get rich people elected"


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Nope.  You got a tax cut also.  So did I.  But, obviously it benefits the rich the most since they pay most of the taxes.  Most of us little guys don't have a lot in the way of For a tax cut to have any real effect, it has to actually cut something.  The bottom half aren't paying taxes as it is.  They're the ones receiving the govt handouts.  

If I'm having to pay for someone else's food stamps, then they shouldn't be concerned if I get a little tax relief once in a while.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> *bio-chem*,
> 
> Are you a multi-millionaire?
> 
> ...


nope, im not a millionaire.

care to take a look at the stats of what the disproportionate ratio of taxes paid by the millionaires is? tax cuts to those who make millions benefits all. honestly I think that we need to be giving tax breaks to corporations first, but thats just me.

the democrats have yet to see a tax they didn't like. I'm for lower taxes all around. and if that means the government can't afford to spend money on different social programs I'm ok with that. I support the social programs i want on my own anyways. money should stay in the pockets of those who make it. millionaire or not.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> *bio-chem*,
> 
> Are you a multi-millionaire?
> 
> ...



a person that knows economics doesn't champion for tax cuts for the rich.  the taxes levied on them only effect the returns on their investments those monies have no positive effect on the economy.  reducing these taxes only burdens the fed more which causes more money to be printed to make up for the loss of tax revenue which further deflates the dollar.  stupid people still selling supply-side economics when no other country in the world does.  you will not find a business school anywhere in the world selling that bullshit, not in Japan, UK, Germany, France, India, Canada, no where.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> nope, im not a millionaire.
> 
> care to take a look at the stats of what the disproportionate ratio of taxes paid by the millionaires is? tax cuts to those who make millions benefits all. honestly I think that we need to be giving tax breaks to corporations first, but thats just me.
> 
> the democrats have yet to see a tax they didn't like. I'm for lower taxes all around. and if that means the government can't afford to spend money on different social programs I'm ok with that. I support the social programs i want on my own anyways. money should stay in the pockets of those who make it. millionaire or not.



okay, but how did the 8 years of Bush benefit you/us? 

he started a war that was a second Vietnam, and gave us a trillion dollar deficit, and we gained absolutely NOTHING from it.

that trillion dollars could have been spent on SO MANY other things that would of benefit Americans, i.e. health care. 

Just for "major medical" insurance I spend $550/month, the only way I would use it is if if me or my wife hits the $2500 annual deductible, anything else before that is out of pocket...how many Americans have NO health care coverage?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Very few have no health coverage available to them.  Many choose not to buy it and many who can't afford it already qualify for Medicaid benefits.  

Anyone who thinks the tax cuts had anything to do with devaluing the $ has obviously never taken an economics course.  Out of control spending and printing of $ will certainly drive it into the shitter. The returns on investments has a huge impact on the economy.  WTF do you think they do with it, just sit around and light their fucking cigars with $100 bills?  That money is invested into other companies that have employees, customers, shareholders, retirees living on pensions, etc.

 On the other hand, tax cuts across the board with proportional and permanent spending cuts and shrinking of an bloated govt would be a move in the _*right *_direction.

Last nights election results were certainly a move in the *right *direction also!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> nope, im not a millionaire.
> 
> care to take a look at the stats of what the disproportionate ratio of taxes paid by the millionaires is? tax cuts to those who make millions benefits all. honestly I think that we need to be giving tax breaks to corporations first, but thats just me.
> 
> the democrats have yet to see a tax they didn't like. I'm for lower taxes all around. and if that means the government can't afford to spend money on different social programs I'm ok with that. I support the social programs i want on my own anyways. money should stay in the pockets of those who make it. millionaire or not.



Let's say we went with a flat tax and cut all entitlements.  Having a 15% flat tax would generate approximately $1.38 trillion.  The 2010 military budget is $663.8 Billion, leaving roughly $700 billion to pay for roads, federal buildings, employees in those federal buildings (FBI, CIA, NASA, judges, politicians, EPA, Depts of commerce, interior, state, labor, transportation, homeland security, health and human services, pentagon, etc.) and all of the other infrastructure.  So, who picks up the trash, cleans the streets?  Oh yeah, that also leaves people with disabilities and those over 65 on the streets, how do you take care of that?  A flat tax will never work and is not based in reality.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> The returns on investments has a huge impact on the economy.



really please show me the raw data on the BEA.gov website that supports those statements?

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page

in the 2000's middle class spending and consumption drives the US economy now.  when the middle class has no money, there is no economy...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Very few have no health coverage available to them.  Many choose not to buy it and many who can't afford it already qualify for Medicaid benefits.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the tax cuts had anything to do with devaluing the $ has obviously never taken an economics course.  Out of control spending and printing of $ will certainly drive it into the shitter. The returns on investments has a huge impact on the economy.  WTF do you think they do with it, just sit around and light their fucking cigars with $100 bills?  That money is invested into other companies that have employees, customers, shareholders, retirees living on pensions, etc.
> 
> ...



If that were true we should have just come out of the most prosperous 8 years ever.  The Bush tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy, they drove our debt up and that's essentially it.  There was little to no reutrn on that investment.  Rich people don't spend that money, they invest it, in to companies who ship jobs overseas because they are the most profitable.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't need to look up raw numbers to back the statement up.  It's like looking for "raw data" to prove that 1+1+1=3.  When investments produce a return, there is then more money to be invested in stocks, bonds, business ventures, etc.  IOW, it circulates.  Return on an investment  simply means good performande, i.e. economic growth.   That's why when the DOW is up, we feel good, when it's down we worry.  It is a general indicator of overall health of the economy as demonstrated by "returns on investments".  This is pretty basic stuff...........




































Unless of course, you're a liberal, then it's over your head because all you understand is class warfare, wealth envy, and whatever your elected masters tell you.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Very few have no health coverage available to them.  Many choose not to buy it and many who can't afford it already qualify for Medicaid benefits.



apparently the latest data from the CDC says the opposite.

Products - Early Release - Health Insurance - 2009


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> If that were true we should have just come out of the most prosperous 8 years ever.  The Bush tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy, they drove our debt up and that's essentially it.  There was little to no reutrn on that investment.  Rich people don't spend that money, they invest it, in to companies who ship jobs overseas because they are the most profitable.



Werd!  Some of that $ doesn't make it back to the states.  The Bush admin failed to cut spending.  Cutting taxes can give the economy a jolt, but when you start two wars to the tune of a trillion $, then increase domestic spending 36%, the tax cuts don't do much other than drive up debt.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> apparently the latest data from the CDC says the opposite.
> 
> Products - Early Release - Health Insurance - 2009



It doesn't say the opposite.  I wonder how many of those people are eligible for medicade and haven't signed up or have kids who qualify for SCHIP.  Also, some of them may simply not to pay for it.  Some of them may also be illegal aliens.  I'd prefer they not have any access to medical care, let alone insurance.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> It doesn't say the opposite.  I wonder how many of those people are eligible for medicade and haven't signed up or have kids who qualify for SCHIP.  Also, some of them may simply not to pay for it.  Some of them may also be illegal aliens.  I'd prefer they not have any access to medical care, let alone insurance.



46 million of 306 million is 15% with no health care coverage at all.  this number is acceptable to you in supposedly the wealthiest most powerful nation in the world?


----------



## KelJu (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> I don't need to look up raw numbers to back the statement up.  It's like looking for "raw data" to prove that 1+1+1=3.  When investments produce a return, there is then more money to be invested in stocks, bonds, business ventures, etc.  IOW, it circulates.  Return on an investment  simply means good performande, i.e. economic growth.   That's why when the DOW is up, we feel good, when it's down we worry.  It is a general indicator of overall health of the economy as demonstrated by "returns on investments".  This is pretty basic stuff...........
> 
> 
> Unless of course, you're a liberal, then it's over your head because all you understand is class warfare, wealth envy, and whatever your elected masters tell you.




By that logic, our economy was extremely healthy right before the housing bubble popped and the whole damn system almost collapsed. The Dow Jones means diddly shit.  

The stock market has recovered somewhat, but nobody has done shit to get people back to work. Again, the rich have been served and everyone else got fucked. I believe in the trickle down affect. It's called getting pissed on.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

It was overheated, partially because of artificially low interest rates and other regulations that made obtaining credit far too easy.  Overall, the economy was fairly healthy before it became over heated and the bubble formed.  It certainly wasn't because the rich were making too much money or not paying enough in taxes.  Afterall, the top 5% pay over 58% of all taxes collected.  The bottom roughly 50% pay nothing.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> okay, but how did the 8 years of Bush benefit you/us?
> 
> he started a war that was a second Vietnam, and gave us a trillion dollar deficit, and we gained absolutely NOTHING from it.
> 
> ...


my schooling is paid for and I have a good job. not saying bush is responsible for that, but it happened under his watch.

in the 10 years of vietnam we lost nearly 60k men and left the country to those we were fighting.
in the war bush "started" roflmao we have lost less than 7k taken over two countries and so far haven't left with our tails tucked between our legs. 

you really want to complain about bush's spending when the guy you are supporting has made bush look like a scrooge?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Overall, it was healthy until it became over heated and the bubble formed.  Interest rates were artificially low for far too long.  There were regulations making credit too easy to obtain and banks basically abandoned sound underwriting practices in order to get on the real estate gravy train.  It was bound to burst eventually.  But, it certainly had nothing to do with rich people not paying enough in taxes.  Afterall, the top 5% pay 58% of all taxes collected and the bottom 50% pay nothing.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you really want to complain about bush's spending when the guy you are supporting has made bush look like a scrooge?



No, I want to know what you think the lower and middle class gains with Repulicans in office. I already know how the upper class prosper. But I cannot figure out why a middle class person like yourself thinks they will be better off with Republicans running the country.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

republicans


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

I personally dont like working 3 jobs and giving 30% off the top to "poor" people. I was poor, like one gas burner in the winter poor, grew up on food stamps and such. It wasnt because my dad was disabled, had alot to do with him being lazy and not wanting a job. I worked my ARSE off to make the money I have now. Im happy to say Im republican. Ive worked hard for my money.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> I don't need to look up raw numbers to back the statement up.  It's like looking for "raw data" to prove that 1+1+1=3.  When investments produce a return, there is then more money to be invested in stocks, bonds, business ventures, etc.  IOW, it circulates.  Return on an investment  simply means good performande, i.e. economic growth.   That's why when the DOW is up, we feel good, when it's down we worry.  It is a general indicator of overall health of the economy as demonstrated by "returns on investments".  This is pretty basic stuff...........
> Unless of course, you're a liberal, then it's over your head because all you understand is class warfare, wealth envy, and whatever your elected masters tell you.



DOW and NASDAQ has nothing to do with true economic growth and the majority of those monies are held by 5-10% of persons and organizations.  

* only NEW GOODS and SERVICES count towards the GDP. the US economy stalled when we stopped making things and shuffling money around instead, GE is a perfect example of this. the GOP solution of opening up credit markets and creating false prosperity has helped the US middle class spend it's way into debt it can never pay off.

to the middle class the ONLY thing that matters is the % of Disposable Income Saved.  it is not how much money you make but how much of that money is left after typical expenses.  when you compare that number to the rising trends of consumer spending and debt to keep up with the rising costs of goods and services wages simply do not pay enough and accruing debt is the only option for many.  since 1970 the % of disposable income saved has decreased while spending and debt have increased this is not even debatable.

so maybe you need to go back and learn the basics or did Fox News not tell you these things?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> nope, im not a millionaire.
> 
> care to take a look at the stats of what the disproportionate ratio of taxes paid by the millionaires is? tax cuts to those who make millions benefits all. honestly I think that we need to be giving tax breaks to corporations first, but thats just me.
> 
> the democrats have yet to see a tax they didn't like. I'm for lower taxes all around. and if that means the government can't afford to spend money on different social programs I'm ok with that. I support the social programs i want on my own anyways. money should stay in the pockets of those who make it. millionaire or not.



15% of the population controls 90% of the wealth yet only pay 60% of the tax revenue.  That means the other 10%, you and I, are paying a disproportionately higher amount in taxes.  But if that's okay with you....


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> I personally dont like working 3 jobs and giving 30% off the top to "poor" people. I was poor, like one gas burner in the winter poor, grew up on food stamps and such. It wasnt because my dad was disabled, had alot to do with him being lazy and not wanting a job. I worked my ARSE off to make the money I have now. Im happy to say Im republican. Ive worked hard for my money.



30% is a dream to me...


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> my schooling is paid for and I have a good job. not saying bush is responsible for that, but it happened under his watch.
> 
> in the 10 years of vietnam we lost nearly 60k men and left the country to those we were fighting.
> in the war bush "started" roflmao we have lost less than 7k taken over two countries and so far haven't left with our tails tucked between our legs.
> ...



We have taken over two countries?  Which two would those be?  Less than 7000 dead soldiers but how many are permanently disabled that would have otherwise died with Vietnam era medical technology and practices?  The number of casualties would be much higher.  

The bailouts began with Bush.  An easy and convenient fact to forget.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

30% is a rough estimate. Depends on which job we are talking about. My fiance' is a dent guy, so they make hella money and hella money gets taken away. Then the repo business, good money, but insurance is really high....And I keep 3 jobs insurance, high end clothings store (i dont own it), and bookeeping. I just sux that I get to work 80 hour weeks while others, including my family sit at home, sell pot and make money of the government of which I had to give. There are alot of people who are poor by choice and it really stinks!!!


----------



## REDDOG309 (Nov 3, 2010)

An e-mail i got, 


 Remember January 3rd, 2007



I don't understand WHY the people running for office don't say this in their ads!!!

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the  liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress




At the time:


The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77


The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%



The Unemployment rate was 4.6%


George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!





Remember the day...




January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.




The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!





Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 46% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's! 
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).



And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?





OBAMA.




And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???



OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.




So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!



So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn't listen to you when you said you didn't want all the bailouts, you didn't want the health care bill, you didn't want cap and trade, you didn't want them to continue spending money we don't have.

I'm not forgetting their complicity in getting us into this mess, and I'll be marking my vote accordingly!




"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so."



Ronald Reagan


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

Fuck conservatives, it's folks like them that held Prop 19 back....I know more republicans who have had DUI's or who drive drunk regularly and they have issues with marijuana.....besides that aren't they always worried about fiscal issues, the tax revenue would have helped so much and they had to go and let their morals get in the way....thought I suspect a few tokers probably voted against it not wanting to pay taxes for something they use everyday anyhow.....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> No, I want to know what you think the lower and middle class gains with Repulicans in office. I already know how the upper class prosper. But I cannot figure out why a middle class person like yourself thinks they will be better off with Republicans running the country.



both parties spend like there is no tomorrow. I just like what the republicans choose to spend it on more than the democrats.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

maniclion said:


> Fuck conservatives, it's folks like them that held Prop 19 back....I know more republicans who have had DUI's or who drive drunk regularly and they have issues with marijuana.....besides that aren't they always worried about fiscal issues, the tax revenue would have helped so much and they had to go and let their morals get in the way....thought I suspect a few tokers probably voted against it not wanting to pay taxes for something they use everyday anyhow.....



as conservative as I am I probably would have voted in favor of it. then again its california. a state i dont reside in and i don't smoke so it still wouldn't have effected me directly


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> honestly I think that we need to be giving tax breaks to corporations first, but thats just me.



How about only giving it to them if they don't ship their companies overseas.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

REDDOG309 said:


> An e-mail i got,
> 
> 
> Remember January 3rd, 2007
> ...


 
Reddog if I could kiss you I would!!!


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> And I keep 3 jobs insurance...



do you mean 3 different medical insurance coverages?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> as conservative as I am I probably would have voted in favor of it. then again its california. a state i dont reside in and i don't smoke so it still wouldn't have effected me directly


There are rare breeds, one of my dope suppliers is conservative leaning, I just had a discussion with him about gays in the military he was like "Ok these fucking liberals think it's cool, send 12 yr old little Johnny to summer camp next year let him bivouac with some flaming homo counselors in a tiny tent for a few months and see if he doesn't come home crying about getting his biv whacked"  I agree to an extent that it should remain don't ask don't tell...I knew some of the guys on my ship were gay but they weren't flaming about it and kept to themselves and weren't total meat gazers....He also is glad they didn't pass Prop 19 because he knows guys like him and me can handle our shit, he likes that the only folks who normally get busted are imbeciles who can't handle or who are drinking and doing other stuff to just get out of their minds and end up doing stupid shit, so we disagree on that.....


----------



## REDDOG309 (Nov 3, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> Reddog if I could kiss you I would!!!



A pos rep wouldn't hurt


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

It says I have to spread my love around before I rep you again. I didnt wear my skirt today, so kinda been hard. lol


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> do you mean 3 different medical insurance coverages?


 
no, I have 3 jobs..
One in insurance, two in a clothing store and the other bookeeping.
And of thoe two, I do have insurance coverage.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> How about only giving it to them if they don't ship their companies overseas.



look at why they are doing it. we have a corporate tax rate here in the states thats like 35%. we are forcing companies to leave. lower that tax rate and the incentives to stay keep them here. If you owned a company and you could save your company SIGNIFICANT amounts of money to head quarter overseas you would do it. our government is hostile to corporations and therefore hostile to economic growth.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> Reddog if I could kiss you I would!!!



lol at quoting an idiot like Reagan...I love it when people talk about the Dems and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.  

GOP sponsored deregulation in the 80's and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Republicans Phill Gram and Jim Leach allowed certain banks to become to big to fail you might want to check and see who their biggest campaign contributors where...

Regardless of the legislation passed by the Dems in the 90's to open up housing to the poor, etc. ultimately the loan terms were decided upon by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nothing at all to do with the Democrats.  Only a freaking moron would sell somebody a house when they can't come up with the down-payment! the fact that they can't come up with the 20% down-payment tells you that they don't have the skills to save the monies.

But for the most part the lack of regulation and over-site on Wall Street allowed these banks to sell these toxic loans and assets with no risks.  The US taxpayers were set up and the people running those banks knew it and constant GOP sponsored deregulation of banking allowed it to happen.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> look at why they are doing it. we have a corporate tax rate here in the states thats like 35%. we are forcing companies to leave. lower that tax rate and the incentives to stay keep them here. If you owned a company and you could save your company SIGNIFICANT amounts of money to head quarter overseas you would do it. our government is hostile to corporations and therefore hostile to economic growth.


No it's our fault for continuing to buy from these companies who turn traitor to their own country, they aren't doing it just for tax cuts...they are going for cheap labor and not having to pay for health insurance, not to mention tax incentives in the countries they are moving to.....  And then they rub it in our face by saying shit like "Our tech support will be open on Christmas day!"  Of course it will, not many Indians celebrate christian holidays....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

maniclion said:


> No it's our fault for continuing to buy from these companies who turn traitor to their own country, they aren't doing it just for tax cuts...they are going for cheap labor and not having to pay for health insurance, not to mention tax incentives in the countries they are moving to.....  And then they rub it in our face by saying shit like "Our tech support will be open on Christmas day!"  Of course it will, not many Indians celebrate christian holidays....



im going to have to disagree with you on this one. i'm too much of a capitalist pig. we buy from wall mart because they are cheap and don't care about their business practices. corporations are the same way. if they can cut costs they will do it. and should in my opinion.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> im going to have to disagree with you on this one. i'm too much of a capitalist pig. we buy from wall mart because they are cheap and don't care about their business practices. corporations are the same way. if they can cut costs they will do it. and should in my opinion.



but at what costs?  the obsession with our society and the accumulation of wealth has created a very sick sense of business.  goods and services are beyond the costs of many thanks to low and stagnant wages in many markets and the lack of high paying jobs, there just aren't that many.  companies constantly raising the costs of goods and services to increase profits and yearly dividends to shareholders.

the middle class in American has no more money to spend. opening up credit markets in the 90s allowed many to continue to spend much more than they made.  there is no way to fix this anytime soon, and this is good how?  for the sake of "free enterprise"?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> im going to have to disagree with you on this one. i'm too much of a capitalist pig. we buy from wall mart because they are cheap and don't care about their business practices. corporations are the same way. if they can cut costs they will do it. and should in my opinion.


In my opinion this is the main reason our country is going down the shitter and China is starting to prosper, how can we compete against slave labor?  How many of our manufacturing jobs have been lost to moves overseas?  And then manufacturers here have to drop their prices to compete against the shoddy workmanship of Chinese made products, yet still keep the quality up.  This above all else infuriates me....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> but at what costs?  the obsession with our society and the accumulation of wealth has created a very sick sense of business.  goods and services are beyond the costs of many thanks to low and stagnant wages in many markets and the lack of high paying jobs, there just aren't that many.  companies constantly raising the costs of goods and services to increase profits and yearly dividends to shareholders.
> 
> the middle class in American has no more money to spend. opening up credit markets in the 90s allowed many to continue to spend much more than they made.  there is no way to fix this anytime soon, and this is good how?  for the sake of "free enterprise"?



I have many issues of the policies being taken, but I've yet to see any other countries economic structure work better than "free enterprise". Communism? even communists agree that communism doesn't work. socialism? after a time period they always start to open the market back to free enterprise policies.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

You're right.  Too bad we lost so many dem seats.  Everyone knows they're not corrupt and don't take campaign contributions from special interest groups who expect favours in return.  

Some common sense regulation of the financial industry isn't necessarily a bad thing.  You can also try to blame the GOP for the whole mess.  But, your guys Dodd and Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie & Freddie.  It's just what happens when you put politicians in charge of entities they have no clue how to run.  How about the regulations that forced banks to make loans to people who can't afford them?  Ever heard of CRA?

Anyhoo, if Reagan was such an idiot and your guys are so brilliant, why was his administration such a success and your guys can't seem to get anything right these days?  Seriously, the dems can NOT run on a single accomplishment they've made in the 4 years they've had power now. 






LAM said:


> lol at quoting an idiot like Reagan...I love it when people talk about the Dems and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
> 
> GOP sponsored deregulation in the 80's and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Republicans Phill Gram and Jim Leach allowed certain banks to become to big to fail you might want to check and see who their biggest campaign contributors where...
> 
> ...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

maniclion said:


> In my opinion this is the main reason our country is going down the shitter and China is starting to prosper, how can we compete against slave labor?  How many of our manufacturing jobs have been lost to moves overseas?  And then manufacturers here have to drop their prices to compete against the shoddy workmanship of Chinese made products, yet still keep the quality up.  This above all else infuriates me....



drop the corporate tax rate, and companies don't leave. right now it is cheaper for them to ship shit across the pacific. that shows right there how high our tax rates are. the taxes are so high here that they can save money making something in another country and paying the fuel costs to get it here?


----------



## awhites1 (Nov 3, 2010)




----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

TheGreatSatan said:


> The house is ours!



You know what happened after the last time Republicans had a House majority of this size? The Great Depression!


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> You know what happened after the last time Republicans had a House majority of this size? The Great Depression!



didn't the Republicans have a large majority during Clinton's term?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> drop the corporate tax rate, and companies don't leave. right now it is cheaper for them to ship shit across the pacific. that shows right there how high our tax rates are. the taxes are so high here that they can save money making something in another country and paying the fuel costs to get it here?



Come on, you could drop their tax rate to 0% here and it would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas with virtually no cost for materials or facilities and paying wages at $.50 an hour with no benefits, no time off, no over time.  What's worse is that it costs a shit ton to ship it back to us so the gap in what they are saving on labor must be ridiculous.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> You're right.  Too bad we lost so many dem seats.  Everyone knows they're not corrupt and don't take campaign contributions from special interest groups who expect favours in return.
> 
> Some common sense regulation of the financial industry isn't necessarily a bad thing.  You can also try to blame the GOP for the whole mess.  But, your guys Dodd and Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie & Freddie.  It's just what happens when you put politicians in charge of entities they have no clue how to run.  How about the regulations that forced banks to make loans to people who can't afford them?  Ever heard of CRA?
> 
> Anyhoo, if Reagan was such an idiot and your guys are so brilliant, why was his administration such a success and your guys can't seem to get anything right these days?  Seriously, the dems can NOT run on a single accomplishment they've made in the 4 years they've had power now.



oh yes the glorious 80's!  tons of mergers and acquisitions that helped to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of the few.  Exactly how much money in tax revenues did Reagan collected in constant dollars while he ran up the deficit?

I've been writing loans off and on since '94 so I have heard of CRA.  But CRA has nothing at all to do with the guidelines set by the mortgage underwriters who ultimately have the say if a loan gets approved or not.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> drop the corporate tax rate, and companies don't leave. right now it is cheaper for them to ship shit across the pacific. that shows right there how high our tax rates are. the taxes are so high here that they can save money making something in another country and paying the fuel costs to get it here?


No we the people need to tell these companies we're not going to stand for them abandoning us and ruining our economy, taking away our jobs and leaving us with shit products we have to replace every 5 years or that will kill our babies because the countries they move to have no regulation....a simple tax cut isn't going to compete against slave labor, cutting corners because no one is making sure these foreign countries are following any standards, cheap facilities because they don't have to deal with keeping it safe like in the US where organizations like OSHA will fine you for not having a first aid kit...and so many other reasons.....nope the burden is on us.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> didn't the Republicans have a large majority during Clinton's term?



Funny how that happens, eh?  So the rather than elect 100 people on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum, why don't we elect 50 of the ones in the middle?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> didn't the Republicans have a large majority during Clinton's term?



and according to some they were the worst of times.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 3, 2010)

This is a bigger victory. 

Republicans win most legislative seats in generations



> Republicans won smashing victories in state legislatures yesterday, capturing an outright majority of the nation's legislative seats and the largest majority for the party since 1928.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> Come on, you could drop their tax rate to 0% here and it would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas with virtually no cost for materials or facilities and paying wages at $.50 an hour with no benefits, no time off, no over time.  What's worse is that it costs a shit ton to ship it back to us so the gap in what they are saving on labor must be ridiculous.


Exactly....and then because prices are so low for those products American companies in competitive markets have to cut their margins so low they can't pay fair wages...granted a tax cut would help these companies, but it shouldn't come down to that not with our our financial troubles...  And you know who is making out like bandits, the oil companies keeping those container ships launching back and forth yet we still give those bastards tax breaks and subsidies....


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

maniclion said:


> In my opinion this is the main reason our country is going down the shitter and China is starting to prosper, how can we compete against slave labor?  How many of our manufacturing jobs have been lost to moves overseas?  And then manufacturers here have to drop their prices to compete against the shoddy workmanship of Chinese made products, yet still keep the quality up.  This above all else infuriates me....



We need to start innovating and making things again vs being a nation of consumers, we can't afford it.  the difference between wages in manufacturing jobs and the service jobs that replaced them in the US is only about 10%.

people need to start living with in their means, saving for houses and families "before" having them like they used to before the 70's ,etc.  If you can't afford to save up the 20% for a down payment for the house,  you shouldn't be able to buy it.  for the most part the American people need to stop living and spending money like poor people do, they need to delay gratification and stop living for today.


----------



## SpyWizard (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Nah, at beast, the Obama admin just won't be able to make things any worse for the time being.  Hopefully, they'll be able to repeal most of the healthcare disaster, completely shelve the cap and tax scam, and keep taxes from going up next year.  We prolly will have a double dip recession (although I think we've been in a depression for at least two years now), but it would be a lot longer and deeper if more of Obama's agenda were to get rammed thru.




sorry brother 6 billion in bail out money that is in place to be released... double digit inflation and the further devaluation of the dollar.. 

I've been saying for the past 3 yrs.. buy gold.. and eliminate interest payments.. because the cash you have today will be work 2--30% less tomorrow..


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 3, 2010)

Prince said:


> *bio-chem*,
> 
> Are you a multi-millionaire?
> 
> ...



you are assuming that everyone votes with the pocket book...there is a whole slew of people that straighline vote b/c its aligned with their social ideologies.


----------



## LAM (Nov 3, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> You're right.  Too bad we lost so many dem seats.  Everyone knows they're not corrupt and don't take campaign contributions from special interest groups who expect favours in return.



of course they take campaign contributions but they don't favor legislation and economic policy that allows business to rape the pockets of the tax payers for the sake of higher profits.  at least the Dems try to give back to the people and make society better her in the US what does the GOP do or have done?  

like that POS John Boehner...can't wait to repeal health care reform so those insurance companies can continue to raise premiums, bankrupt families all for the sake of "economic prosperity" for some...


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 3, 2010)

Big insurance took part in designing this bill you dumbass.  They knew it was going to be passed no matter what.  That's why there is no govt takeover of the industry, yet there is a mandate that everyone of us has to buy health insurance, and the insurance companies can raise premiums, as necessary, to absorb all of the new cost of insuring another 30 million people.  Yes, this is exactly what we needed.

And sorry to burst your bubble.  But, your guys do favor policies that would rape the average tax payer and benefit the filthy rich.  Cap and Trade is among the worst of them.  The only ones that would benefit are the utility companies, as well as the likes of people like Al Gore that were instrumental in founding the new exchanges for carbon offsets and stand to make billions when and if it passes.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

Dale Mabry said:


> Come on, you could drop their tax rate to 0% here and it would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas with virtually no cost for materials or facilities and paying wages at $.50 an hour with no benefits, no time off, no over time.  What's worse is that it costs a shit ton to ship it back to us so the gap in what they are saving on labor must be ridiculous.



I would honestly like to see some numbers on this. i truthfully believe dropping the corporate tax rate would bring business back here to the united states.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 3, 2010)

LAM said:


> We need to start innovating and making things again vs being a nation of consumers, we can't afford it.  the difference between wages in manufacturing jobs and the service jobs that replaced them in the US is only about 10%.
> 
> people need to start living with in their means, saving for houses and families "before" having them like they used to before the 70's ,etc.  If you can't afford to save up the 20% for a down payment for the house,  you shouldn't be able to buy it.  for the most part the American people need to stop living and spending money like poor people do, they need to delay gratification and stop living for today.



agreed. would be nice to see our government live by the same policy


----------



## bmw (Nov 4, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> I personally dont like working 3 jobs and giving 30% off the top to "poor" people. I was poor, like one gas burner in the winter poor, grew up on food stamps and such. It wasnt because my dad was disabled, had alot to do with him being lazy and not wanting a job. I worked my ARSE off to make the money I have now. Im happy to say Im republican. Ive worked hard for my money.



No WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to some people here, what you've done is just absolutely IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!  You overcame your environment, rose from a poor beginning of having virtually nothing, and actually have accomplished something in your life and either are financially stable or comfortable, or are on the path to such a lifestyle?  And dare I say, possibly even able to primarily fund your own retirement?

I just can't believe your story.  You must have started off rich.


----------



## irish_2003 (Nov 4, 2010)

i'm against obamacare.......i don't have insurance and frankly I DON'T NEED IT......anytime i go to urgent care i pay cash up front or have it billed and pay it......i'm a single healthy male and i for one will pay the no insurance fine which is cheaper than paying for healthcare under obamacare if it's not reapealed......i also don't want to pay for illegals....i would prefer to have a shoot at will policy towards anyone not of irish decent lol!!!


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> agreed. would be nice to see our government live by the same policy



government spending wasn't "that" bad until Nixon took the US off the gold standard but yes that's a big part of the problem....unlimited credit with out the means to make payment got the US to were it is today..

the question is how do we reduce the military budget which is crippling this country financially when many people are still living scared from the Cold War and the threat of terrorism today that is severely exaggerated by people like Glen Beck and his chicken little routine?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> *government spending wasn't "that" bad until Nixon* took the US off the gold standard but yes that's a big part of the problem....unlimited credit with out the means to make payment got the US to were it is today..
> 
> the question is how do we reduce the military budget which is crippling this country financially when many people are still living scared from the Cold War and the *threat of terrorism today that is severely exaggerated* by people like Glen Beck and his chicken little routine?



So it wasn't that bad since before I was born? yeah, its that bad. 

Terrorism is severely exaggerated? I love how you say that just days after a terrorism plot was stopped. Terrorism is a part of our life today in the US. we often times overlook it in my opinion because its been 9 years since something happened on American soil, but terrorism is ongoing. I want a strong military not to be confused with a big military and I would much rather our tax dollars be spent on the military than on healthcare for instance. The founders believed that the military was a responsibility of the government. healthcare isn't.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> government spending wasn't "that" bad until Nixon took the US off the gold standard but yes that's a big part of the problem....unlimited credit with out the means to make payment got the US to were it is today..
> 
> the question is how do we reduce the military budget which is crippling this country financially when many people are still living scared from the Cold War and the threat of terrorism today that is severely exaggerated by people like Glen Beck and his chicken little routine?



Sure, there's no threat of muslim terrorism.  It's all an illusion created by Glenn Beck.  The guy that planted the bomb in Times Square was just fukkin with us.


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Terrorism is severely exaggerated? I love how you say that just days after a terrorism plot was stopped. Terrorism is a part of our life today in the US. we often times overlook it in my opinion because its been 9 years since something happened on American soil, but terrorism is ongoing. I want a strong military not to be confused with a big military and I would much rather our tax dollars be spent on the military than on healthcare for instance. The founders believed that the military was a responsibility of the government. healthcare isn't.



as we have seen spending billions on our military and continuing to go into debut can't stop a low budget terrorist attack.  safety is an illusion


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> as we have seen spending billions on our military and continuing to go into debut can't stop a low budget terrorist attack.  safety is an illusion



haven't had a successful attack on US soil in 9 years! safety isn't an illusion. it isn't a certainty either, but I give mad props to our guys. they are doing a hell of a job, and should be allowed the resources needed to keep it up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40003726/ns/us_news-airliner_security/?GT1=43001 17 minutes away from going off?


----------



## Arnold (Nov 4, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> i'm against obamacare.......i don't have insurance and frankly I DON'T NEED IT......anytime i go to urgent care i pay cash up front or have it billed and pay it......i'm a single healthy male and i for one will pay the no insurance fine which is cheaper than paying for healthcare under obamacare if it's not reapealed......i also don't want to pay for illegals....i would prefer to have a shoot at will policy towards anyone not of irish decent lol!!!



anything could happen, need of a surgery, an accident, etc. and you could be stuck with a $100,000.00 bill.


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> haven't had a successful attack on US soil in 9 years! safety isn't an illusion. it isn't a certainty either, but I give mad props to our guys. they are doing a hell of a job, and should be allowed the resources needed to keep it up.
> 
> Yemen bomb was 17 minutes from exploding - U.S. news - Airliner security - msnbc.com 17 minutes away from going off?



hasn't been a successful attack because the people perpetrating them are fucking idiots...if that Times Square bomber knew anything about basic electronics he could have made a functioning device, it's freaking easy if you didn't take the short bus to school.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> hasn't been a successful attack because the people perpetrating them are fucking idiots...if that Times Square bomber knew anything about basic electronics he could have made a functioning device, it's freaking easy if you didn't take the short bus to school.



sept 11th. 3k dead, another 6k injured. fucking idiots? you think these guys haven't tried elaborate plans since? ever since september 11th the only guys Al Qaeda can find to try again have have been morons who can't tie their own shoes? sorry dude, on this you are just wrong. plain and simple.

arguing that we should cut funding to intelligence agencies, or the military because terrorism is going to happen anyways is about as asinine a statement as I have ever heard in my life. 

i want my tax dollars spent less on government social programs. I want my tax dollars spent on the things I can't fund on my own. I regularly donate to social programs I believe in. I feel my money is much better spent on can food drives and volunteering at the shelter for instance than a ruinous federal healthcare plan. I can't fund the military or better roads without taxes. thats something the government has a responsibility for.


----------



## bmw (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> of course they take campaign contributions but they don't favor legislation and economic policy that allows business to rape the pockets of the tax payers for the sake of higher profits.  at least the Dems try to give back to the people and make society better her in the US what does the GOP do or have done?
> 
> like that POS John Boehner...can't wait to repeal health care reform so those insurance companies can continue to raise premiums, bankrupt families all for the sake of "economic prosperity" for some...



you can't seriously believe that any politician  (dem or repub) is really out to truly help anyone but themselves first, do you?

As long as they get theirs, and make it "look like" they're doing just enough for "the people" to get re-elected, they don't really give a shit about anyone else.  

Please.  I know you're smart.  This is plainly obvious.


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> ever since september 11th the only guys Al Qaeda can find to try again have have been morons who can't tie their own shoes? sorry dude, on this you are just wrong. plain and simple.
> 
> arguing that we should cut funding to intelligence agencies, or the military because terrorism is going to happen anyways is about as asinine a statement as I have ever heard in my life.



the results of their failed attempts show that you are wrong...me and my buddies built remote control devices to launch our model rockets remotely using off the shelf R/C components and syncro servo systems back in the 80's when we were in middle school...

Bush was warned that an attack was coming using commercial aircraft, a lot of good that intelligence did..

and who said anything about cutting funds for intelligence, I know I didn't...we have already perfected the art of killing the human with small arms and various munitions, I think we can tone it down for maybe a couple of years and direct those monies towards things that actually make life better vs taking it.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 4, 2010)

bmw said:


> you can't seriously believe that any politician  (dem or repub) is really out to truly help anyone but themselves first, do you?
> 
> As long as they get theirs, and make it "look like" they're doing just enough for "the people" to get re-elected, they don't really give a shit about anyone else.
> 
> Please.  I know you're smart.  This is plainly obvious.



yup, politicians are whores.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> the results of their failed attempts show that you are wrong...me and my buddies built remote control devices to launch our model rockets remotely using off the shelf R/C components and syncro servo systems back in the 80's when we were in middle school...
> 
> Bush was warned that an attack was coming using commercial aircraft, a lot of good that intelligence did..
> 
> and who said anything about cutting funds for intelligence, I know I didn't...we have already perfected the art of killing the human with small arms and various munitions, I think we can tone it down for maybe a couple of years and direct those monies towards things that actually make life better vs taking it.



or maybe you just aren't willing to acknowledge the good job these guys are doing at protecting us. doesn't matter. I don't expect any more from you.


----------



## bmw (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> government spending wasn't "that" bad until Nixon took the US off the gold standard but yes that's a big part of the problem....unlimited credit with out the means to make payment got the US to were it is today..



We really should start by looking back at the Democrat President, the "beloved", Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Just a few days after he was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, he shut down all the banks (called it a bank holiday).  Of course this was helpful in ending the bank runs with the formation of what became known as the FDIC.  Then, 5 days into officeFDR forced throughCongress theEmergency Banking Act (bill H.R. 1491), with severely limited debate and no roll call taken before vote.  It was (forcibly) passed within a single day.  This "Emergency Banking Act" gave the POTUS authority to shut down banks (retroactively) and a new authority to "regulate" all banks during "time of war" or a "declared national emergency".  It also gave gov't authorization to make illegal the private ownership of gold, and to forcibly confiscate privately held gold.  Nice huh?  Talk about taking away freedoms and liberties!  

A little less than a month later, FDR enactedExecutive Order 6102 (The Gold Confiscation Act of 1933), "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates".  In this act he; declared a national emergency, made ownership of any gold worth more than $100 illegal,   forced U.S. citizens to hand over any gold owned by them to the Treasury, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce (Gold Reserve Act), and made it so anyone found in violation of the order could be punished by a fine up to $10,000 ($167,700 if adjusted for inflation as of 2010) or up to ten years in prison, or both.

Now that gold was confiscated from the people and made illegal to own, those gov't crooks raised the value of gold to $35 an ounce from $20.67, overnight.  This effectively lowered the value of the dollar and increased the international price of gold (that Americans could no longer legally own) by almost 70%, essentially stealing money from American citizens during a depression.  [Who said dems are all about helping the people?  lol!]

*Nixon inherited a costly Vietnam War from Eisenhower when he took office in 1969.  This and domestic spending were fueling inflation and foreign markets capitalizing on the value of the dollar against other markets, caused the gold coverage of the dollar to shrink and peopel to lose faith in the ability of the US gov't to pay it's fuckin bills.  

What to do?  Print more money of course!  This further devalued the dollar (duh).  So some other countries holding USD called on the US's promise to pay their notes, and demanded gold for their paper.  The US gold reserves were taking huge hits, so NIXON (and his advisors), overnight, ended the convertibility of USD to gold (following suit of Germany and Switzerland with their currencies), thereby rescuing America from other foreign fucks trying to gouge our gold.  It was the best thing to do at the time, or America would have been broke and fucked.*

Keep in mind the people still couldn't legally own gold...until 1974 when Gerald Ford (not a democrat) signed a bill repealing the limited ownership of gold and legalizing the private ownership of gold again.    

God, I feel like Will Ferrell on Old School after he answered that debate question against James Carville.  LOL!  Sorry this got so long.  I'm done.


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> or maybe you just aren't willing to acknowledge the good job these guys are doing at protecting us. doesn't matter. I don't expect any more from you.



and there were no terrorists attacks from foreign nationals, etc. from 1775 to 1993 that proves nothing...


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2010)

bmw said:


> We really should start by looking back at the Democrat President, the "beloved", Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Just a few days after he was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, he shut down all the banks (called it a bank holiday).  Of course this was helpful in ending the bank runs with the formation of what became known as the FDIC.  Then, 5 days into office* FDR*forced through* Congress*the* Emergency Banking Act (bill H.R. 1491), with severely limited debate and no roll call taken before vote.  It was (forcibly) passed within a single day.  This "Emergency Banking Act" gave the POTUS authority to shut down banks (retroactively) and a new authority to "regulate" all banks during "time of war" or a "declared national emergency".  It also gave gov't authorization to make illegal the private ownership of gold, and to forcibly confiscate privately held gold.  Nice huh?  Talk about taking away freedoms and liberties!
> 
> A little less than a month later, FDR enacted *Executive Order 6102 (The Gold Confiscation Act of 1933), "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates".  In this act he; declared a national emergency, made ownership of any gold worth more than $100 illegal,   forced U.S. citizens to hand over any gold owned by them to the Treasury, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce (Gold Reserve Act), and made it so anyone found in violation of the order could be punished by a fine up to $10,000 ($167,700 if adjusted for inflation as of 2010) or up to ten years in prison, or both.
> 
> ...



1st great post!

and yes Nixon did we he had to so we wouldn't have to pay off those debts from Vietnam but we obviously didn't learn from that because we are still doing the same shit today...the problem is that when the government started to spend and borrow like the poor so did the rest of middle america. Sociological study shows us time and time again that people will do wrong even if they know they are doing wrong if everyone else is "doing it".


----------



## bmw (Nov 4, 2010)

LAM said:


> 1st great post!
> 
> and yes Nixon did we he had to so we wouldn't have to pay off those debts from Vietnam but we obviously didn't learn from that because we are still doing the same shit today...the problem is that when the government started to spend and borrow like the poor so did the rest of middle america. Sociological study shows us time and time again that people will do wrong even if they know they are doing wrong if everyone else is "doing it".



Thanks!  

And of course the people are stupid...look who we consistently elect and hope will do right by us in public offices.  It's always an attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.  Unfortunately it's very hard to tell which will be the lesser, and the lesser is still an evil mother fucker out to screw the people and line their own pockets.

Either way, we're fucked.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 4, 2010)

Prince said:


> anything could happen, need of a surgery, an accident, etc. and you could be stuck with a $100,000.00 bill.


My friend had no insurance when he got hit by a bus on a motorcycle.  His leg got snapped so hard the bone was sticking out of his calf....Luckily he won a lawsuit for $150,000, but had to pay $100,000+ for his medical bills....had he been struck by some broke ass motherfucker he would have been fucked....


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 4, 2010)

Prince said:


> awesome, does that mean everything will be back to the greatness we had when the Bush administration was in office?


 no reagan


----------



## Doublebase (Nov 4, 2010)

Prince said:


> awesome, does that mean everything will be back to the greatness we had when the Bush administration was in office?



Damnit.  Geared God beat me to it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 4, 2010)

Dark Geared God said:


> no reagan



I preferred Reagan to the alternatives.  He had his positives.

But the reminiscing about Reagan is not realistic.  The 80s were a vastly different era for at least a couple reasons.

1. demographics: the baby boomer were just hitting the age of 40, then.  They were active, working, and healthier.

2. the Cold War was ongoing. USSR, Eastern Europe, other parts of the globe.  Threat exaggerated or not, it was a different international world.

3. There were more blue collar jobs, even though they were leaving for overseas, and there were white collar and other jobs available for the mass public, to do the "buy a house" etc.

Reagan was very charismatic.  Avuncular.  Charming. 

But during his tenure is when the US started to:

Create economic growth and expansion based leveraging (borrowing).  Individuals and families borrowed more, and Reagan's administration ran the National Debt up to unprecedented levels, to $4Trillion.

The 80s, 90s, and 2000s, all presented the Illusion of Prosperity.  

That era is now over.


----------



## proxy10 (Nov 4, 2010)

good to see Ms. Pelosi go.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 5, 2010)

^ Where did she go?  The did not even run for re-election.  

Get outta here, troll. F*cking Retard.


----------



## LAM (Nov 5, 2010)

speaking about the topic of greed...I was talking to one of my buddies from PA who is married to a woman named Jennifer Horan, her sister is Monica Horan was on the show Everybody Loves Raymond.  he and his wife have a couple of special needs children, but 5 of then total in the house.  they are currently on food stamps, Medicare, etc. while her sister and husband are in Hollywood with a net worth of about 800million.   nice family hugh..


----------



## MDR (Nov 5, 2010)

proxy10 said:


> good to see Ms. Pelosi go.



Nancy Pelosi was re-elected to serve her district from San Francisco.  She still wants to be minority speaker.


----------



## MDR (Nov 5, 2010)

LAM said:


> speaking about the topic of greed...I was talking to one of my buddies from PA who is married to a woman named Jennifer Horan, her sister is Monica Horan was on the show Everybody Loves Raymond.  he and his wife have a couple of special needs children, but 5 of then total in the house.  they are currently on food stamps, Medicare, etc. while her sister and husband are in Hollywood with a net worth of about 800million.   nice family hugh..



Monica Horan and her husband must be Republican.  No handouts to the needy, everyone has to make it on their own!  Anybody who is not rich or religious who votes Republican should have their head examined.


----------



## LAM (Nov 5, 2010)

MDR said:


> Monica Horan and her husband must be Republican.  No handouts to the needy, everyone has to make it on their own!  Anybody who is not rich or religious who votes Republican should have their head examined.



since you asked they are republicans and jewish.  they fly around the world in a G-5 and 2,000 miles across the country her sister and family are on welfare...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2010)

what do the last 5 posts have to do with the price of tea in china? totally ridiculous and off topic


----------



## LAM (Nov 5, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> what do the last 5 posts have to do with the price of tea in china? totally ridiculous and off topic



better call the Internet police, must be the 1st in the history this has happened


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 5, 2010)

MDR said:


> Monica Horan and her husband must be Republican.  No handouts to the needy, everyone has to make it on their own!  Anybody who is not rich or religious who votes Republican should have their head examined.



See, I agree with that last statement.  Not because I think they are wrong, I do, but because they are voting against their own financial interests.  It is as if they are playing a football game against someone and just handing the ball to the opponent after every offensive snap.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 5, 2010)

MDR said:


> Anybody who is not rich or religious who votes Republican should have their head examined.



The Dem masters would be proud of you.  You have been successfully brainwashed into thinking that they are looking out for the little guy and they are going to bring you jobs and prosperity.  Seriously, other than believing in the liberal ideology, what good reason could you possibly think of to vote the dems back into power?

Other than convincing poor people and minorities that they can't make in in this country without the dem party to take care of them, what exactly have the dems done for poor people and minorities over the last 40 years?  Do we have less people in poverty now than we did 40-50 years ago?  Of course not.  They actually benefit from a perpetually poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised class by capitalizing on their frustration as leverage every election cycle.  They figured out in the 1960s that, in addition to the playing up class warfare & wealth envy, they could also use the race card to guarantee the black vote everytime.

This is exactly why liberals become so hateful and venomous when they encounter prominent blacks or females who are conservative leaning.  It's a threat to their cause.  "How dare they run away from the plantation and betray us!"


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 5, 2010)

Swap liberal with conservative in that and it's true as well.


----------



## MDR (Nov 5, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> The Dem masters would be proud of you.  You have been successfully brainwashed into thinking that they are looking out for the little guy and they are going to bring you jobs and prosperity.  Seriously, other than believing in the liberal ideology, what good reason could you possibly think of to vote the dems back into power?
> 
> Other than convincing poor people and minorities that they can't make in in this country without the dem party to take care of them, what exactly have the dems done for poor people and minorities over the last 40 years?  Do we have less people in poverty now than we did 40-50 years ago?  Of course not.  They actually benefit from a perpetually poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised class by capitalizing on their frustration as leverage every election cycle.  They figured out in the 1960s that, in addition to the playing up class warfare & wealth envy, they could also use the race card to guarantee the black vote everytime.
> 
> This is exactly why liberals become so hateful and venomous when they encounter prominent blacks or females who are conservative leaning.  It's a threat to their cause.  "How dare they run away from the plantation and betray us!"



Do you honestly believe that the Republican party is the party backing social programs and progressive thinking towards minorities and the poor?  Talk about being brainwashed.  Or maybe just clueless.  Maybe you should run for office. You sound like a great running mate for Sarah Palin.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2010)

LAM said:


> better call the Internet police, must be the 1st in the history this has happened



I'm the internet police and this is your warning


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 5, 2010)

Doublebase said:


> Damnit. Geared God beat me to it.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 5, 2010)

MDR said:


> Monica Horan and her husband must be Republican. No handouts to the needy, everyone has to make it on their own! Anybody who is not rich or religious who votes Republican should have their head examined.


Not sure if MDR is kidding


----------



## MDR (Nov 5, 2010)

Dark Geared God said:


> Not sure if MDR is kidding



Usually it's the other way around.


----------



## LAM (Nov 5, 2010)

bmw said:


> Unfortunately it's very hard to tell which will be the lesser, and the lesser is still an evil mother fucker out to screw the people and line their own pockets.
> 
> Either way, we're fucked.



many don't realize that eventually the US is going to crash just as hard to the bottom as fast as it rose to the top.  people forget that the US is only 300+/- years old and eventually will go the way of much older countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. it is inevitable.  American Exceptionalism, etc. is all bullshit.  the super rich on both sides are basically acquiring massive amounts of wealth to pass onto future generations because they know the direction that the country is going in and it can not be stopped.  the economic policies of the democrats are trying to slow this process down so more people have the opportunity to acquire wealth while the economic policies of the GOP are going to expedite this.  so basically pick your poison slow or fast.


----------



## Nightowl (Nov 5, 2010)

Man,  were so broke, that I don't even think we own the house...





I think they traded it for stuff made in China, and I think China owns the house now.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

MDR said:


> Do you honestly believe that the Republican party is the party backing social programs and progressive thinking towards minorities and the poor?  Talk about being brainwashed.  Or maybe just clueless.  Maybe you should run for office. You sound like a great running mate for Sarah Palin.



Yes, there will always be programs to help poor people so that their kids are not starving or going without clothing and medical care.  This is true regardless of which party is at the helm.  We're not Mexico or India.  The best way to help is to provide assistance whilst promoting personal responsibility, rather than encouraging dependence on govt.  It sounds like "progressive thinking towards minorities" is a euphemism for capitalizing on racism and wealth envy for political gain. 

If I were Sarah Palin's running mate, I'd be banging her in the bus before and after every campaign stump.

Helping the poor while encouraging personal responsibility.  Now that's progressive!


----------



## MDR (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Yes, there will always be programs to help poor people so that their kids are not starving or going without clothing and medical care.  This is true regardless of which party is at the helm.  We're not Mexico or India.  The best way to help is to provide assistance whilst promoting personal responsibility, rather than encouraging dependence on govt.  It sounds like "progressive thinking towards minorities" is a euphemism for capitalizing on racism and wealth envy for political gain.
> 
> If I were Sarah Palin's running mate, I'd be banging her in the bus before and after every campaign stump.
> 
> Helping the poor while encouraging personal responsibility.  Now that's progressive!



Nothing wrong with encouraging personal responsibility.  I'm all for that.  People who come from disadvantaged backgrounds should be encouraged to be personally responsible.  So I agree with you completely about that.  I think where we differ is which party is most able to achieve these goals.  Conservative republicans are not known for helping the poor, but instead for blaming them for their plight and labeling them as lazy and irresponsible.  I don't buy it.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2010)

MDR said:


> Nothing wrong with encouraging personal responsibility.  I'm all for that.  People who come from disadvantaged backgrounds should be encouraged to be personally responsible.  So I agree with you completely about that.  I think where we differ is which party is most able to achieve these goals.  Conservative republicans are not known for helping the poor, but instead for blaming them for their plight and labeling them as lazy and irresponsible.  I don't buy it.



conservative republicans. (the people, not the politicians) are known for helping out the underprivileged with personal donations of time and money through private organizations. fuck the government. the government helps out the poor slowly and ineffectively regardless of which party is in power. thats why I want them out of that business all together. the democrats had control for a full 2 years. you think the poor are feeling better about themselves right now?


----------



## MDR (Nov 6, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> conservative republicans. (the people, not the politicians) are known for helping out the underprivileged with personal donations of time and money through private organizations. fuck the government. the government helps out the poor slowly and ineffectively regardless of which party is in power. thats why I want them out of that business all together. the democrats had control for a full 2 years. you think the poor are feeling better about themselves right now?



Conservative are known for helping themselves, and making donations to THEIR organizations, usually religious based.  If you want to count on Conservative Republicans to help the disadvantaged, then that is your right.  I do not think they are really interested in helping anyone but themselves.

Bu the way, two years in office is nothing.  Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight.  Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction.

Feel free to continue the debate folks-I'm off to watch football.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

All right!  You have convinced me.  I am now a liberal and I will vote for Obama in 2012. 

GYCH!


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> It sounds like "progressive thinking towards minorities" is a euphemism for capitalizing on racism and wealth envy for political gain.



race is the fundamental difference between our 2 political parties, people have forgotten history.  the US is the only new nation in the world which actively participated in slavery on the mainland of the "mother country" while the other European nations etc. only did this in the outlying territories and settlements off the mainland.  The Civil War polarized our country and that divide is still growing as we see in politics today.  The US has just elected it's first African American POTUS and the country is on the brink of a double-dip recession there is no way in hell the GOP is going to allow economic policies to be made which allow "this" president to make any progress. their voting record on all major legislation proposed by the House& Senate shows this, it is the sad and disgusting truth.

The link below shows the voting tally between the parities on all pieces of legislation proposed by the House & Senate...the GOP has voted NO across the board for everything.

Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

When it comes to race, let's don't forget who tried to stop the civil rights act from passing.  It was not the repubs.  The dems had to bribe members of their own party to pass the recent healthcare debacle.  Cap & tax will destroy what's left of the economy and will NOT save the planet.  It's horse shit and everyone with any sense can see it.  The admin also passed the most bloated budget in history with 3.8 trillion  in new spending, 40% of which is borrowed.  This is unprecedented and reckless.  We're going to borrow from tomorrow to make today look a little better, capitalize the interest, and saddle our grandkids with the bills.  Great economic policy isn't it?  I hope the repubs will continue to neuter "this" president, as long as he continues with the irresponsible policies that are detrimental to the future of the country.  That's why they were sent to DC.  It simply isn't sustainable, regardless of how much you like his liberal ideology.

Sometimes, voting no across the board is exactly the right thing to do.

*JUST SAY NO!*


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> The admin also passed the most bloated budget in history with 3.8 trillion  in new spending, 40% of which is borrowed.  This is unprecedented and reckless.  We're going to borrow from tomorrow to make today look a little better, capitalize the interest, and saddle our grandkids with the bills.  Great economic policy isn't it?



it is the same exact economic policy and pattern of spending and borrowing that EVERY SINGLE POTUS has done for the past 40 years so how exactly would this change because Obama is POTUS? we have been running a large deficit since WWII.  logic tells that of course the annual budget grows for the Federal Government, it's called inflation do the yearly expenses at your house not grow anually?  

the GOP preaches about less spending and growth of the government yet every single time they control the White House the deficit grows as does the size of government it happened under Reagan and both Bush's.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

3 wrongs don't make a right.  Just coz Bush et all did it doesn't mean it's okay to kick it up to unprecedented levels.  Hence:
RAND PAUL 2012!!!


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> 3 wrongs don't make a right.  Just coz Bush et all did it doesn't mean it's okay to kick it up to unprecedented levels.



please elaborate...so how exactly do we get the money for the upcoming budget if we are to change this system of borrowing today under Obama?


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 6, 2010)

LAM said:


> it is the same exact economic policy and pattern of spending and borrowing that EVERY SINGLE POTUS has done for the past 40 years so how exactly would this change because Obama is POTUS? we have been running a large deficit since WWII.  logic tells that of course the annual budget grows for the Federal Government, it's called inflation do the yearly expenses at your house not grow anually?
> 
> the GOP preaches about less spending and growth of the government yet every single time they control the White House the deficit grows as does the size of government it happened under Reagan and both Bush's.



I think what people are alluding is that Obama's deficit spending and portion added to the governments debt (in turn passed onto the us via taxes) is the worst ever its ever been...what most people don't realize is that Bush's was the worst ever seen when he was president...and believe it or not, before him it was Clinton (it is just overshadowed by the fact our economy expanded at an unprecedented level as well).

One point to mention though is that Obama portion of record government debt and deficit was done in 2 years instead of 4-8...a bit alarming.

The bigger point you make though LAM, which I agree with, is that there is one thing that never changes from party to party.  Monetary policy (I would place foreign policy in their as well).

And today, monetary policy has become a tool of foreign policy, via monetary expansion (or what the public relations people at the FED call Quantitative Easing or Stimulus).  We are reducing our the value or our national debt through inflation.  The intent is devalue our currency (through a "free and fair" floating currency market) thus reducing the value of our outstanding treasury securities.  Thus making the US more competitive in the export market, bring jobs back to the US, and shift the consumer economy (that drive the global market) from the US to Asia (China first, then India second).  Its not a bad strategy, but in the near term (less than 50yrs) it will decrease the purchasing power of the USD and if you're not holding a decent amount of wealth....you're in for a very very rough ride.  Only time will tell if the middle class in the US will survive this. 

There is a lot of "prepositioning" going on right now on the global chess board...China has resisted to float its currency (the first step they took was one in principle, but won't account to anything quantitatively meaningful).  The US has "resisted" officially calling China a currency manipulator (those Congressman screaming for us to officially say this are clearly not "in the know" of the grand strategy).  Trichet from the ECB just came out yesterday to announce the use Quantitative Easing is in the world's best interest and we are not manipulating the floating currency market.  Europe will support the shifting consumer market  (US-->Asia) b/c they will greatly benefit from the export advantage as well.

ECB's Nowotny: Euro is not Fed's easing victim | Reuters

Emerging markets on the other hand have a stacked deck against them in the longer term (50yrs+).  They are stuck holding US and Euro treasury securities that are going to plummet in value.  They are legally bound to let their currency float (per the WTO, WB/IMF memebership) and do not have enough economic power (and global currency demand of their indigenous currency) to print more Reals, Rupees, Renminbis, etc.

Emerging market policymakers slam Federal Reserve move | Reuters

The US is already a step on creating a new leader as the global consumer market (Asia).  Think of all the cultural pop culture we export (movies, clothes, music, software.  Are you aware of the new credit card problem in China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/global/14card.html

The US quality of life is expected to be the norm there soon...and Chinese citizens are spending to get their.

FT Alphaville » Chinese consumer credit binge begins

China must be very careful if they don't want to out manuevered the same way Japan was in the 70s and 80s.  Japan's growth alarmed everyone in the US (those of us old enough can probably remember hearing about Japan was going to take over the global economy at one time).  Then their growth hit a brick wall...then retracted. All b/c they were aggressively influenced to float their currency and their competitive monetary advantage disappeared.  China has understands this, which is why they aren't going to follow in Japans footsteps...but the US (Western world in general) is just creating a different tool as discussed above.


Lots of wild cards in the equation though...will petro dollars remain the norm?  Will China's regime stay in power?  Can the USD handle the amount of downward pressure and not scare off its global demand?  difficult to quantify and plan for sociological turns and bends.






sorry if there are some weird typos or miswritten phrases...I"m not proof reading that post


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

Trim that fucker down.  No question there's bound to be plenty of pork in it, just like the 737 bill spending package.  Cutting spending is the first step.  If we could just do that and cut out waste where it's found, the deficit could probably be closed w/out any increase in taxes.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> 3 wrongs don't make a right.  Just coz Bush et all did it doesn't mean it's okay to kick it up to unprecedented levels.  Hence:
> RAND PAUL 2012!!!



He comes off as a less polished copy of his old man...


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

Right.  I would've said Ron Paul 2012, but he's already old as fuck.


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Trim that fucker down.  No question there's bound to be plenty of pork in it, just like the 737 bill spending package.  Cutting spending is the first step.  If we could just do that and cut out waste where it's found, the deficit could probably be closed w/out any increase in taxes.



the biggest "waste" in spending is with the military, we spend more than all of our allies combined, we are the only nation that does this.

cutting "taxes" is a slippery slope as they increase the budget deficit.  so when that is done there has to be a big return on those monies.  poor people that champion for tax cuts for the reach are true economic idiots.  the rich spend less of their after tax incomes on living expenses and more on savings and investments the exact opposite spending of the middle class. so when they get tax breaks they simple get taxed less on the returns on their various investments, they do not spend or consume more.  a much better solution would be to let those tax breaks expire and use those monies to help states fund unemployment benefits and create greater tax incentives for job creation in small businesses.

but even still with economic changes in spending at the top (government) the other issues with our extremely "id" based society (decline of the family, etc.) and spending are just as big a problem.  Obama inherited the US with the poorest middle class since after the great depression.  there is no direct or indirect way to put money into the hands of these people.  no doubt more tax cuts for families and low income earners will have to come in the future but this will further increase the federal budget deficit.  tax incentives for small businesses eventually will put some back to work but those jobs don't pay much.  with an average per capita income in the US of close to 45k, it's just not enough with average home prices at 150-170K, new cars at 28-30K and ever increasing energy costs.  now factor in that the middle class of today can no longer afford to save and pay for their children's college education so the next couple of generations of middle class college bound students will have to incur debt for that education.  

FinAid | Student Loans

people have to remember it's not how much you make but how much you have left after the average housing, energy costs in your area.  so if an average person making the average wage in the area can not keep up with the average amount of expenses incurred, what does that tell us about the current "system" that is in place?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

Yes, we should GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home from around the world.  I'm on board with that.  The military should be responsible for protecting the home front, not patrolling the rest of the world and nation building.  The decline of the family is another problem in and of itself.  Single motherhood is glorified.  The traditional family is often poo-pooed.  The wrong people are hjaving too many kids whilst people who can afford to raise them aren't having any.  All sorts of problems.  Western civilization is def on the decline.


----------



## TooOld (Nov 6, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I didn't even vote. I don't think I will ever vote again or take part in American politics.



Pussy


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 6, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *KelJu*
> 
> 
> _I didn't even vote. I don't think I will ever vote again or take part in American politics._



Good!  You shouldn't.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 7, 2010)

I love how there is all of this worry about cutting the deficit/gov't debt, but extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the debt by $3.9 Trillion over the next decade.  People are worried about the economy, but maybe the economy needs to take a hit for a few years to get us back on track as a nation.  In most scenarios that a person will go through in everyday life, making stupid decisions typically leads to some sort of bad times, we are just currently going through those bad times.  Besides, tax cuts are just about the worst bang for the buck you can get to stimulate the economy.  Extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the GDP $.31 for every dollar spent, while unemployment, food stamps, spending on infrastructure increase it $1.60+ per dollar spent.  This data is readily available, yet completely ignored.

The data (From a conservative website)
Spending vs. Tax Cuts, Bang for the Buck | The Next Right

From what I have seen, if we do these tax cuts and fail to cut military, medicare or social security our debt is going to increase anyway, no matter what ancillary spending we try to cut.  The National Endowment for the Arts?????? That'd be like trying to blow up a tank with a firecracker, we need more firepower.

And don't give me the line that tax cuts aren't spending, they amount to the same thing, those tax cuts were set to expire by Bush because they weren't funded.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 7, 2010)

The govt wastes so much $, they could probably "pay for" the tax cuts simply by cutting out all of the waste and pork.  The should stick to pay as you go.


----------



## LAM (Nov 7, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> fuck the government. the government helps out the poor slowly and ineffectively regardless of which party is in power. thats why I want them out of that business all together. the democrats had control for a full 2 years. you think the poor are feeling better about themselves right now?



Check the Links for the "Key Votes" for the House and the Senate.  the GOP voted no across the board on every single key piece of legislation in both.  kind of hard to get anything done when the GOP wants the economy to continue to tank to use that against the Dems in 2012.

Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 7, 2010)

The dems have had enough votes to get anything done that they wanted.  Therefore, the republicans have not been able to stop a single piece of legislation, unfortunately.  The healthcare disaster is a perfect example.  Not one repub voted for it, thankfully, and only thru bribes and sweetheart job offers, were they able to get enough dems to vote for it.  Nancy Pelosi promised that once it was passed, we could find out what was in it, yet still no one seems to know exactly.  The giant $787 billion earmark package was supposed to stimulate the economy.  Yet, it was just a giant waste and unemployment is still pushing 10%, when Obama's peeps said it wouldn't get past 8%.  Just a few of many good reasons to clean house last tuesday.  Thank god we have enough votes now to actually kill some Obama legislation.  If they will just keep voting no thru 2012, we'll be A-okay!


----------



## LAM (Nov 7, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> The giant $787 billion earmark package was supposed to stimulate the economy.  Yet, it was just a giant waste and unemployment is still pushing 10%, when Obama's peeps said it wouldn't get past 8%.



funny every non-partisan economist says the exact opposite about the stimulus.  we need an excess of 100k jobs a month just to keep up with population growth so it should no be a surprise that the unemployment rate is higher than expected.  job creation is always slower than job loss as employers wait to the last possible minute to re-hire to insure the added payroll costs will be covered by productivity.  the stim also gave record monies to many states to help fund state unemployment funds but you are on Sharon Angles side w/ this and think that unemployment benefits = welfare.

don't you have some sort of business degree?  you should know this stuff it's basically business history and is the same cycle that follows all recessions


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 7, 2010)

What non-partisan economists, Krugman? lol  If the stimulus package was working, then jobs would be getting created and they are not.  Since it is not, it failed.  If it were going to make a difference, they would have needed to get the $ out the door quickly.  Yet, only about 40% of it has even been spent two years after it was passed.  What are they waiting for, 2012?  Perhaps it will do a better job of stimulating their chances for re-election if they spend the bulk of it closer to the next election season.  The majority of what was in the package was just garbage and pork anyway that had nothing to do with stimulating anything.  I'm not 100% against spending some $ to stimulate the economy, but this monstrosity was not going to do it.  The proof is in the puddn'.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 7, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> What non-partisan economists, Krugman? lol  If the stimulus package was working, then jobs would be getting created and they are not.  Since it is not, it failed.  *If it were going to make a difference, they would have needed to get the $ out the door quickly*.  Yet, only about 40% of it has even been spent two years after it was passed.  What are they waiting for, 2012?  Perhaps it will do a better job of stimulating their chances for re-election if they spend the bulk of it closer to the next election season.  The majority of what was in the package was just garbage and pork anyway that had nothing to do with stimulating anything.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 7, 2010)

Doesn't he have some kind of degree?  He should know some of this stuff.


----------



## Brandibeth (Nov 11, 2010)

"Conservative are known for helping themselves, and making donations to THEIR organizations, usually religious based. If you want to count on Conservative Republicans to help the disadvantaged, then that is your right. I do not think they are really interested in helping anyone but themselves.

Bu the way, two years in office is nothing. Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight. Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction".

I think it was ghandi who said the most selfish act of all was giving. Regardless of what organization you're giving to, you are still giving. I grew up poor, and was on welfare. But because I knew I didnt want to be there anymore, I went to school, made good grades, went to college...without anybody paying for it but me, worked 2 full time jobs and changed my future. Anybody who says they cant do that is doing something wrong. Even if you aren't buying the best things or the name brand stuff, you can still get throught it. If it takes putting your gym membership on hold, walking to a few places instead of driving or what not. Its not an easy road, but you have to realize you are in charge of your life.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 11, 2010)

Brandibeth said:


> Bu the way, two years in office is nothing. Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight. Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction".


 
True.  Only problem is now we're going on 10 years of destruction instead of two years of trying to fix anything.


----------



## LAM (Nov 11, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> True.  Only problem is now we're going on 10 years of destruction instead of two years of trying to fix anything.



more like 40 years of economic destruction, the last several years are pretty much the equivalent of attempting to stop a financial avalanche.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 11, 2010)

If we continue to grow the welfare state and sink further into debt, we're gonna go the way of Greece for sho.  We're fostering the same entitlement culture that EU has created over the past 40 years.  Problem is, the Obama admin is doing the exact opposite of what is now being done in EU countries to try and rectify 40 years of destruction.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2010)

Being the insulated nation that we are in we only hear what "they" want us to hear which is primarily the entire economic downfall of the modern world is "entitlements".  Entitlements are the next great bogeyman that is going to tear down this world we live in, right down to the foundations.  In the '20s it was alcohol.  In the '50s it was communism.  The '60s it was hippies and free love.  The '70s was Vietnam and OPEC.  The '80s was nothing but a slew of distractions until the end of the Cold War so we never really knew what was going on.  The '90s it was the Gulf War.  Beginning in 2001 terrorism became the demon.  A couple years ago it turned into entitlements with a light sprinkling of terrorism when too many of us start to put the pieces together.  

Everything is the fault of entitlements.  Paying people a fair wage means someone feels entitled to making too much money in the eyes of the great all-knowing "them" who are calling the shots.  People working in the public sector getting healthcare and retirement packages and all of a sudden these heathens are bleeding us dry because they feel entitled to those things.  Someone getting welfare because they need it and all of a sudden each and every person on welfare is milking the system because they feel entitled to something for nothing.  We could go on like this forever.

What is everybody missing?  Legislators voting themselves pay raises for screwing us all in the ass.  Democrats forced poor legislation through.  Republicans, knowing full well what would happen let it happen.  They could have worked hand in hand with democrats to improve the end result but stubbornly sat on the sideline because the boss told them to.  The democrats stuck it to us and the republicans let it happen.  They are the same, in my opinion.  

Senior executives at companies putting the screws to their employees every chance they get.  Raiding pensions, reducing benefits, cutting pay, laying people off, etc.  Then taking obscene bonuses that far outstrip the savings those moves made.  

People in government, top to bottom at all levels, taking corruption to new levels every day.  Six digit figures to redo their offices.  Kickbacks, bribes, threats, obstruction of justice.  We see this every day across the country, making national headlines even!  

But what are we worried about?  We're worried about how much our unemployed neighbor is getting in unemployment benefits.  If you've been on unemployment you know you won't be making your car payment much less rent or mortgage.  Not if you want to eat.  We're worried about the single mom getting welfare.  Talking about how she has to be on drugs because she looks like shit 24/7.  You'd look like shit 24/7 if you had a child, your family turned their back on you and you are trying to do the best you can to make sure your baby is fed and clothed.  

We are worried about this stuff because we've been told that these things are what is destroying the world today.  We're getting angry at the wrong people.  We're getting a daily prison gangbanging and we're mad at the old inmate mopping the floors.  It doesn't make any sense does it?  Maybe I'm missing something.  We're being manipulated like so much play-doh and we're joyous about it because we've been told who to be mad at.  We didn't have to do any thinking because we've been told by someone who can beam it at us every moment of every day that the reason for this travesty is a bunch of lazy bums are on the public dole sucking the life out of everybody else!  Told that by the same people who are screwing us like we're a cheap hooker on coupon day.  

The truth of the matter is that if all these "entitlement" programs suddenly ended the cost to society would be much greater.  When that happens there will be another bogeyman that the finger will get pointed at.  Pointed at by the people doing the screwing.  And as a whole we'll believe every word of it.  We'll believe it because we didn't have to think about it.


----------

