As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind

You and other trumpster Boomers will be in the grave soon and the country can move on

You don't have the ability to move on. Your kind relies on people like me to even be able to eat. What the fuck are you going to do when people like me are gone, suddenly start doing for yourselves?
 
Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people, (the dying demographic). As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August.

Now outright fear and panic have gripped them as they are coming to realize it's coming to an end for them

like the commercial says


Democrat have always enjoyed massive support from the low IQ, below average mentality black people. Who is going to support those social welfare freeloaders when the whites with money are gone?
 
Lol, you think our housing crisis is because of section 8 vouchers? You have as little understand of housing as TTQ64. Don't talk so much trash when you don't even understand the basics

Yes, it is because of Section 8 cuts. Part of your problem is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're a Conservative and Conservatives are fucking idiots who voted for a fascist.
 
Yes, it is because of Section 8 cuts. Part of your problem is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're a Conservative and Conservatives are fucking idiots who voted for a fascist.

I see someone came to this board to troll. Have a good day.
 
Bush controlled the Fed and made Greenspan leaves rates too low for too long? How was he able to do that?


The Fed isn't controlled by the White House.

Secondly, it wasn't interest rates that caused the turmoil, it was, in Bush's Working Group's own words, a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards beginning in 2004. Can you re-read that bolded part to yourself again? What does it say? It doesn't say interest rates caused the turmoil, it says a "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards". So from where are you getting interest rates? From nowhere. You're trying to socialize blame when you have Bush's own people saying they were to blame themselves because of their dramatic weakening of standards.
 
There you go again being the dishonest dumbfuck. I love how you want to stop at 2004. But that is moronic just like your weak, stupid and pathetic arguments.

Your'e dishonest, pal. You said something that wasn't true. You said revenue "always increases" after a tax cut, even though revenue was below 2000 levels for four years, and only surpassed 2000 levels because of a mortgage bubble that Bush tied to his tax cut, therefore tax cuts were also to blame for the economic collapse.
 
The Fed isn't controlled by the White House.

Secondly, it wasn't interest rates that caused the turmoil, it was, in Bush's Working Group's own words, a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards beginning in 2004. Can you re-read that bolded part to yourself again? What does it say? It doesn't say interest rates caused the turmoil, it says a "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards". So from where are you getting interest rates? From nowhere. You're trying to socialize blame when you have Bush's own people saying they were to blame themselves because of their dramatic weakening of standards.

:lolup: Moron thinks the Bush Administration weakened the standards. :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
You are talking about budget projections. Those projections were made before the bubble burst. We weren't paying off any debt in a recession.

Do you get off on being wrong and making shit up as you go?

The projections from Clinton were made in December 28th, 2000, after the dotcom bubble had burst.

We had a budget surplus -a record surplus- of $236B for 2000, and then a $128B surplus in 2001.

So you are wrong, you don't understand what you're saying, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

So why are you continuing to post? It's just trolling, isn't it? Be honest.
 
Your'e dishonest, pal.

:lolup: A lying leftist troll claiming others are dishonest. :rofl2:

You said something that wasn't true. You said revenue "always increases" after a tax cut, even though revenue was below 2000 levels for four years, and only surpassed 2000 levels because of a mortgage bubble that Bush tied to his tax cut, therefore tax cuts were also to blame for the economic collapse.

:rofl2: Lying leftist moron troll can't read a chart showing revenues increased after ever tax cut ever passed in history. :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
Do you get off on being wrong and making shit up as you go?

The projections from Clinton were made in December 28th, 2000, after the dotcom bubble had burst.

We had a budget surplus -a record surplus- of $236B for 2000, and then a $128B surplus in 2001.

So you are wrong, you don't understand what you're saying, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

So why are you continuing to post? It's just trolling, isn't it? Be honest.

:lolup: Lying leftist moron can't read either. We weren't paying off any debt in a recession.:rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
That pension debt exceeds $1.3 trillion.


Over what period of time? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? You don't even know. You just shit out a random number, not knowing anything about it. So that $1.3T liability, that's for how many years? Can you even answer that question? No, because all you're doing is repeating propaganda and bullshit, because your original argument about CA fell completely flat. Admit it, that's what happened. You tried to play make-believe that CA is in dire straits, even though its growth is better than the rest of the country, even though its job and business growth leads the nation, even though it has a budget surplus. So one of your shitty claims after another got swatted down by reality, so you changed the subject to pension liabilities, without even knowing the basic facts of your own shitty argument.

You're just a phony and intellectual fraud.
 
Do you have a source for the among the lowest cost per credit basis claim?

California community colleges have the lowest tuition costs in the country.


If you are living below the poverty line and you make it to college chances are you're taking out loans.

And in states where Conservatives cut taxes, the amount borrowed is higher than in states that didn't cut taxes. Which is the point. In CA, if you live below the poverty line, you get financial aid so you can go to college virtually tuition-free.

I don't understand why you're still arguing and debating with me. At this point, you should probably abandon the thread.
 
Here's some more from a right-wing fringe paper:


California Today: Is the Long-Looming Pension Crisis Already Here?


David Crane, a lecturer at Stanford and a former adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the bringer of bad news. For more than a decade, Mr. Crane, a San Francisco Democrat and former investment banker, has been forecasting a disaster in California’s pension system. He was removed from the board of directors that oversees benefits paid to California’s teachers after repeatedly warning that the fund’s investment assumptions were too rosy, and since then has continued to scream about a coming financial reckoning.

Today, in addition to teaching at Stanford, Mr. Crane is the president of Govern for California, a network of political donors whose members include the former mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, and the Oakland A’s owner John Fisher, and supports candidates from both parties – so long as they are willing to tackle important but politically unpopular issues like pension and education reform.

Below is a condensed interview with Mr. Crane:

Who/what is Govern for California?
It’s a network of about 300 donors and growing, and they are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The legislature is a coequal branch of government and governors can’t do anything without them. Generally speaking, the only people who know the names of California state legislators are people who feed at the trough or benefit from new legislation. The people who get screwed are everyone else in California.

The headlines make it seem as if the pension problem is always coming and never here. You say it’s already here. Explain.

State revenues have gone up about 30 percent over the last decade, but state spending on virtually everything other than retirement costs and medical spending – like universities, courts, parks and welfare – is flat to down. That kind of stuff happens because the money is going out the door to something else, and you ain’t seen nothing yet. The way the math works, the problem doubles every seven years.

Oakland schools recently cut their budget $15 million in the ninth year of a bull market and after a 30 percent state tax increase. People are teaching kids but can’t afford to live in their city. That to me is a crisis. School systems can’t afford to hire specialists. That to me is a crisis.

What’s your suggestion for fixing it?
The easy way was to fix it 13 years ago. Now the state is going to have to cut benefits for people who did nothing wrong, and don’t even have pensions that are that high. Most people will tell you that the cuts are draconian, but it’s not more draconian than what has already happened to taxpayers, college students and young teachers who aren’t getting jobs – or aren’t getting salary increases if they can get jobs.


Tell me something optimistic.
This problem will be incredibly painful, but I really believe that the California legislature is going to solve it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/california-today-pension-system-david-crane.html


Just as with the claims of hyperinflation, Conservative predictions are never correct.
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

That was Democrats, by the way.

Bush was the one who killed GSE reform back ion 2003. But it wouldn't have mattered anyway. GSE's were not responsible for the collapse; Bush and the Conservatives were because of their laissez-faire attitudes toward regulating Wall Street.
 
Back
Top