Obama's Endgame~~~

Damn Yankee said:
The GOP has compromised on conservative principles since after 1920. Since that time we have seen our "limited government" consume 3% of the GNP to well over 30%. Every time that they vote for a program that is not enumerated in the Constitution- violating the 9th and 10th Amendments, they have compromised. Its why we are in trouble now. Its why we are in so much debt, and communist China is funding our government. Its why Social Security and Medicare will present us with a 110 trillion dollar liability as the Baby Boom generation retires.

On my use of the term "Democrat Party". Consistency of language: Republicans make up the Republican Party and Democrats make up the Democrat Party. Democrats do not make up a "Democratic" Party any more than Republicans make up a "Republicanatic" Party.

Truth in language: Democrats insist on calling themselves "Democratic" in order to invoke a positive image. After all, who can be against something that is democratic? However, there's nothing democratic about the Democrat Party; therefore to call themselves "Democratic" is a lie.

I am on record of using the correct term "Democrat Party" long before it became popular with popular pundits.
Click to expand...



In other words, you couldn't come up with a single instance in the past 30 years of the Republicans appeasing the Dems. i knew you couldn't, because it hasn't happened. Your attempt to paint the political landscape since 1920 as the conservatives compromising their principles misses the point, which is that when your "conservative principles" are demonstrated to be utter shit by the other party as they jam their progressive agenda down your unwilling throat, that isn't "appeasement," any more than the Japanese "appeased" us by surrendering unconditionally in 1945. Both they and you got your respective asses kicked, the Japanese by the US Army, Navy and Marines, you and your party by the Democratic Party. What you call appeasement, reality calls an ass-whuppin'. Oh, and show me where in the Constitution the bogus concept of "limited government" appears as currently defined by the liars in the GOP. Not being enumerated in the Constitution does not mean something is unconstitutional, you cretin. Which laws violate the 9th and 10th amendments, how do they violate them, and cite the SCOTUS decisions that ruled them unconstitional.

Your "facts" are also false: China is not communist, but fascist. Tjhe Chinese ceased being communist the second they signed their first manufacturing deal with a multinational corporation. There is no such thing as a communist capitalist, you halfwit. The 3% of GDP cost of government in 1925 reflected a failed GOP philosophy of limited government that allowed the private sector to run amuck and ruin not only our economy, but the world's economy and led to the Great Depression. Where did you get that 30% of GDP bullshit? The CBO has the current cost of the federal government at 17.2%, (most of which was run up by Reagan and the two Bushes, BTW). As regards Social Security, it contributes ZERO to the deficit and national debt, and your 110 trillion figure is nonsense. It assumes no increase in revenues, and a constant rate of inflation that has never existed since SS and Medicare were signed into law. Just more Repiglican lies and scare tactics.

As to the Dems, your incredibly lame attempt to rationalize your inability to spell the name of the Democratic Party misses the point entirely: The registered name of the party is the Democratic Party, and neither you nor the shitbag GOP have the right or authority to rename them the Democrat Party. Your claim that the use of the proper name Democratic Party is a lie, because "there is nothing democratic about them," is itself an utter crock of shit, a false allegation and non sequitur without a shred of logic or empirical evidence to back it up. In other words, you are only on record as talking out of your ass. BTW, I would have thought that having your head so far up your ass would make talking out of it extremely difficult, if not impossible, but you have apparently figured out a way.

If you are going to talk about truth in language, both the name Republican Party and nickname GOP would have to be scrapped in favor of the Repiglican Party and Greedy Oligarchs & Plutocrats. You clearly don't give a rat's ass about our republic.
 
zoombwaz said:
In other words, you couldn't come up with a single instance in the past 30 years of the Republicans appeasing the Dems....
Click to expand...
Actually, the example are too numerous to mention. Anytime that the GOP voted for a program that wasn't authorized in the Constitution they appeased the Democrat Party.
 
zoombwaz said:
Why not? You have your head so far up your ass, that you can actually see daylight. claiming that a few insufficient regulations means the industry was regulated is either disingenuous or retarded. Industries can be considered regulated when the rules go to the core of their business, like Glass-Steagall did. With its repeal passed by a corporatist congress and signed into law by a corporatist president, the most essential regulation of the banking industry was removed, making it for all intents and purposes deregulated, which is the proper and only meaningful term. No, the industry is not unregulated, but who gives a shit, except a nit-picking, straw-man arguing asshole like yourself. The point is that the crooks went after not every regulation, but the single most important one, and with its repeal the industry became deregulated, not unregulated, and as happens in every single case of deregulation, the cheaters and crooks take over, and the public gets hosed, and nobody gives a fuck how many minor, inconsequential regulations you have read. Those regs don't mean dick. The thieves went after the one they needed to be able to rip us off with impunity, and they succeeded. So your argument is meaningless drivel.
Click to expand...
Says the one with their head so far up the donkey's ass they use its nostrils for portholes. (WAAHHHH! You called the democratic party the wrong name! Boo hoo hoo.)

By your own admission, you acknowledge that the banks were "deregulated, not unregulated". Thanks for proving my point that the original claim of banks being unregulated is a lie. Did I say at any time the banking industry was not "deregulated"? No, since repealing a regulation, even if one of several hundred, can be technically referred to as "deregulation."

That does not change the fact that banks are required by regulation to report all sources of income. That makes the claim that the government did not know the banks were getting tons of cash from the derivative market a lie also.

And you completely ignore (or ignorant of) the fact that FTC regulations rule the derivatives market, so even without Glass Steagall that market is and was regulated. In fact it is the regulations themselves that caused (not allowed, CAUSED) mortgage loans to be repackaged to qualify as investments instead of transparently sold.

Not to mention CRA regulations which were the real cause of trouble. Had the banks not been forced to make all those high risk loans, neither the derivatives market, nor the mortgage market, the housing market, etc. would have found themselves in trouble. It was the high percentage of UNPAID loans that caused the problem and the degree of unpaid loans were a direct result of banking regulations. This fact is plainly apparent to anyone. If the loans had been paid back, then the banks would have gotten their money, the investment companies would have gotten theirs, etc. etc. etc. No one loses, everyone wins INCLUDING the people who got loans they never should have been qualified for, thus saving them the trouble and heartache of foreclosure.

Whine, complain, insult, etc. all you want. The facts are there for thinking people. (which excludes lack brained morons who use donkey's asses for head wear.)
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
What we have here is a piece of unsupported rhetoric based on the video of a person testifying before congress, making several assumptions and conclusions about it, and you acting like the whole thing is the Lord's own Gospel.
Click to expand...

There is nothing unsupported about it. She told Greenspan regulation was needed. She testified before Congress regulation was needed and, finally, we had the meltdown. What are you having difficulty with?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
It means the writer uses prose that you agree with so you don't give a ripe pig fart if it is true or not.

What we have here is a piece of unsupported rhetoric based on the video of a person testifying before congress, making several assumptions and conclusions about it, and you acting like the whole thing is the Lord's own Gospel.

Again: What have you done to VERIFY THEIR CLAIMS? First we have Born making claims before Congress. SO WHAT?!? I could go before Congress and testify I think televisions commercials need more regulations. Does that make my testimony factual? Or opinion?

Did either Born, or the writer referencing her testimony cite the legal code, showing where the holes are? Did you look up the code to see if the term "unregulated" applies, or if the better description is "under regulated" or even "badly regulated"?

The writer makes an unsupported statement, you like it, and that is your ONLY reference? Do you have anything else or not? Shall I pull up a piece of writing showing how FTL spaceships work and call it a factual reference?

The "miscommunication" is the way you accept someone's bullshit as God's truth without any farther research into whether they know shit from apple butter.

One more time: go look up the banking laws. It does not take a lawyer to see the areas which require banks to report their earnings FROM ALL SOURCES in fine detail. It is a federal law. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ Look it up. Learn that the claim the government did not know "where banks were getting their money" is an outright lie. IF they "didn't know" it's because they hid their eyes and covered their ears like the "no evil" monkeys.

Also, look at the requirements of CRA, and how they apply to what banks need to include in their financial statements. Note that loan to asset ratios are included in the required data, again proving the government was fully informed what was going on:
http://www.ffiec.gov/CRA/guide.htm

Go look at FTC regulations governing the sale of financial assets (ie: outstanding loans). While the code is in legalese and therefore confusing (deliberately, I am certain) you can still make out where it actually REQUIRES loans to be packaged. Ie: a bank cannot select a few financial assets and sell them one at a time based on their merits. They are REQUIRED to do what they did. That is the LAW. The banks were not "secretive" about it - they were doing what the law demanded.
http://accountinginfo.com/financial-accounting-standards/asc-800/860-20-166.htm

In short, look at the FACTS, instead of a bunch of unsupported rhetoric. All you have now is an article based on someone's unsupported testimony. I have the actual laws and how they apply to the financial industry.
Click to expand...
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, the example are too numerous to mention. Anytime that the GOP voted for a program that wasn't authorized in the Constitution they appeased the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT. NAME ONE. You're not dealing with someone who's going to allow you to run that kind of unsubstantiated crap by him without a challenge. If the examples are to numerous to mention, you should have no problem coming up with 6. Time to put up or shut up. And WTF do you mean "not authorized by the constitution"? Like what? Laws passed that are "not authorized by the Constitution" are referred to as being unconstitutional, and are inevitably challenged in federal court, and then work their way up to the SCOTUS. Prop 8 in CA is currently in the second stage of the process, having been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. You can't name three federal programs that have been passed by the Dems in the last 30 years where the GOP "appeased" them by voting with them, and that have subsequently been struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

So lose the vague, unsupported allegations and outright lies. I will never let you get away with either. Not only do I have the truth on my side, but am well-schooled in logic, having learned it from a professor who studied under Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Alfred North whitehead, and Ludwig Wittgenstein at Cambridge University.

You're bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

And it's a rubber knife, to boot
 
zoombwaz said:
BULLSHIT. NAME ONE. You're not dealing with someone who's going to allow you to run that kind of unsubstantiated crap by him without a challenge. If the examples are to numerous to mention, you should have no problem coming up with 6. Time to put up or shut up. And WTF do you mean "not authorized by the constitution"? Like what? Laws passed that are "not authorized by the Constitution" are referred to as being unconstitutional, and are inevitably challenged in federal court, and then work their way up to the SCOTUS. Prop 8 in CA is currently in the second stage of the process, having been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. You can't name three federal programs that have been passed by the Dems in the last 30 years where the GOP "appeased" them by voting with them, and that have subsequently been struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

So lose the vague, unsupported allegations and outright lies. I will never let you get away with either. Not only do I have the truth on my side, but am well-schooled in logic, having learned it from a professor who studied under Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Alfred North whitehead, and Ludwig Wittgenstein at Cambridge University.

You're bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

And it's a rubber knife, to boot
Click to expand...

LOL

OK Mr. Intellectual Highbrow, tell me how the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act" (2003) is authorized by the Constitution.
 
apple0154 said:
There is nothing unsupported about it. She told Greenspan regulation was needed. She testified before Congress regulation was needed and, finally, we had the meltdown. What are you having difficulty with?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
What I have trouble with is believing people can be this stupid and still function.

The fact that she called for more regulation of the derivatives market does not support the author's conclusions.

Somebody calling the derivatives market "secretive" and "unregulated" does not make it so, even if they can show someone calling for more regulation. I could claim the martians have landed, and use someone testifying for the need of more research in the UFO phenomenon - it doesn't mean the martians have actually landed.

Those statements are not only unsupported by the facts, they are fully refuted by the facts. Bank reporting regulations require statement of all income and sources - so the claim of "secretive" is a lie. FTC regulates the derivatives market. I even gave you a direct link to the regulations. That makes a lie of the "unregulated" claim. And he is way off target (or still lying) when he lays the cause of the banking crisis at the feet of the derivatives market. Any effect the derivatives market had on the crisis was secondary. The primary cause was the over inflated housing market which can be directly attributed to high risk mortgages required by CRA regulations.

In short, the author is a fucking liar about what went on and its cause, in favor of the modern liberal anti-capitalism agenda.
 
Damn Yankee said:
LOL

OK Mr. Intellectual Highbrow, tell me how the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act" (2003) is authorized by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You know, I call this guy, "Mr. Smart Guy."

He takes the time to write a lot of nothing.

SM,,,,, His avatar is perfect for him. Don't be nice. He's unlearnable if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
2-1/2 days, still waiting for Highbrow's response. :)
Click to expand...

Zoom's MO. Scream loud, long, and ad nauseum used to net him the results he breathes for. He called it "respect", everyone else called it "giving the unhinged lunatic wide berth".

Anger issues to the umpteenth degree. :palm:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Zoom's MO. Scream loud, long, and ad nauseum used to net him the results he breathes for. He called it "respect", everyone else called it "giving the unhinged lunatic wide berth".

Anger issues to the umpteenth degree. :palm:
Click to expand...
It must suck to be that old and still not grown out of youthful stupidity.
 
Good Luck said:
FTC regulates the derivatives market. I even gave you a direct link to the regulations. That makes a lie of the "unregulated" claim.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? If so, you must have missed the part where Born wanted to investigate fraud and Greenspan believed the market would look after it. Greenspan even testified before Congress that he was wrong, wrong in his beliefs about the market for the majority of his professional life.

In short, the author is a fucking liar about what went on and its cause, in favor of the modern liberal anti-capitalism agenda.
Click to expand...

Is Greenspan a liar and a liberal anti-capitalist, as well?

Try doing some research instead of talking about things you know nothing about.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
What I have trouble with is believing people can be this stupid and still function.

The fact that she called for more regulation of the derivatives market does not support the author's conclusions.

Somebody calling the derivatives market "secretive" and "unregulated" does not make it so, even if they can show someone calling for more regulation. I could claim the martians have landed, and use someone testifying for the need of more research in the UFO phenomenon - it doesn't mean the martians have actually landed.

Those statements are not only unsupported by the facts, they are fully refuted by the facts. Bank reporting regulations require statement of all income and sources - so the claim of "secretive" is a lie. FTC regulates the derivatives market. I even gave you a direct link to the regulations. That makes a lie of the "unregulated" claim. And he is way off target (or still lying) when he lays the cause of the banking crisis at the feet of the derivatives market. Any effect the derivatives market had on the crisis was secondary. The primary cause was the over inflated housing market which can be directly attributed to high risk mortgages required by CRA regulations.

In short, the author is a fucking liar about what went on and its cause, in favor of the modern liberal anti-capitalism agenda.
Click to expand...
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Zoom's MO. Scream loud, long, and ad nauseum used to net him the results he breathes for. He called it "respect", everyone else called it "giving the unhinged lunatic wide berth".

Anger issues to the umpteenth degree. :palm:
Click to expand...
Yeah but he was educated by a guy who was educated by some other guys. :)
 
apple0154 said:
Did you watch the video? If so, you must have missed the part where Born wanted to investigate fraud and Greenspan believed the market would look after it. Greenspan even testified before Congress that he was wrong, wrong in his beliefs about the market for the majority of his professional life.



Is Greenspan a liar and a liberal anti-capitalist, as well?

Try doing some research instead of talking about things you know nothing about.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
LOL Yea, you take an opinion piece based on someone's testimony, call it truth, and then say I am the one who did not do any research?

Did you read the laws I referenced for you? Did you even so much as click on the links? Who is it that is not doing research?

When I hear people making claims about laws, I go look up the laws. THAT is how one determines truth, not from people testifying before Congress. The laws are there for you to research. Look it up. See what FTC regulations have to say about selling loan assets as investments. Look at what federal regulations say about what banks are required to report in their quarterly fiscal statements. Look at what CRA regulations require for reporting, as well as what types of loans are required in what kinds of ratios for a bank to meet CRA standards.

In short, try actually educating yourself of the real facts - especially before accusing someone who HAS done those things of not doing their research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top