President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[slucero]

According to a Rand Corp survey.

Enrollment: 7,041,000
Paid premium: 858,000

Only 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.

Actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.

The O'care website alone has cost $1Billion as of 12/2013 according to the GAO
http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-24/late-it-cash-surge-foreshadowed-health-law-woes/

... and has had $700Million spent on marketing it...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/24/obamacare-national-marketing-campaign-to-cost-nearly-700-million/


$1.7 Billion dollars spent for 858,298 previously uninsured persons... that = $1980.66 per person!

Remember Obama said that the goal was to insure the 46 Million ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ut-46-mil/ ) that they claimed needed health insurance... which, if one does the math:

46Million uninsured - 858,298 previous uninsured who have enrolled = 45,141,702 Million still uninsured

45,141,702 * $1980.66 = $89,410,363,483.32 Trillion

$89,410,363,483.32 Trillion Dollars.


Trillion.


Or put another way... 5.8 times the U.S. total annual GD.

[Boomchild]

According to a Rand Corp survey.

Enrollment: 7,041,000
Paid premium: 858,000

Only 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.

An article in Forbes also had this to say:

"What’s important to remember is that this is not how Obamacare was supposed to work. The Congressional Budget Office, in its original estimates, predicted that the vast majority of the people eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals.

Instead, the vast majority are previously insured people, many of whom are getting a better deal on the exchanges because they either qualify for subsidies, or because they’re older individuals who benefit from the law’s steep rate hikes on the young.

This is a problem that may get worse over time, as the cost of plans continues to go up. In the McKinsey survey, of those who had decided not to sign up for Obamacare, the most common reason was the “affordability” of the offered plans. Indications from insurers like Aetna and WellPoint is that the premiums on the exchange will go up substantially next year.

The bottom line is this: there are a lot of numbers flying around out there about how many people are benefiting from Obamacare. A big part of the reason is political; advocates of the law want to claim that so many millions of people are dependent on the law for coverage, that it will be difficult to repeal.

I agree with them that the law will be difficult to repeal, but that’s no excuse for whitewashing the real problems with affordability and access in the Obamacare exchanges."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... uninsured/

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans (Including The_Noble_Cause)

Ooh scary. And I bet the death panels are coming too. Don't worry about me or my health insurance plan, buddy. Your do-gooder intentions are not sincere.

And FYI, The Earned Income Tax Credit started as a small program in the 1970s and was expanded under President Reagan. But it was President Clinton who turned the program into what it is today — one that effectively gives low-wage working parents a big bonus. [b]

Ah, ok. So free money is OK when a Republican (Ford and Reagan) approves it. But if it's not Obama's fault, it must be that dastardly intern mouth raper, Clinton! Soo sad.

[Rick]

The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans (Including The_Noble_Cause)

Ooh scary. And I bet the death panels are coming too. Don't worry about me or my health insurance plan, buddy. Your do-gooder intentions are not sincere.

And FYI, The Earned Income Tax Credit started as a small program in the 1970s and was expanded under President Reagan. But it was President Clinton who turned the program into what it is today — one that effectively gives low-wage working parents a big bonus. [b]

Ah, ok. So free money is OK when a Republican (Ford and Reagan) approves it. But if it's not Obama's fault, it must be that dastardly intern mouth raper, Clinton! Soo sad.

I just don't understand how giving a low wage, working parent a big bonus is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting something here, FF?

[steveo777]

The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans (Including The_Noble_Cause)

Ooh scary. And I bet the death panels are coming too. Don't worry about me or my health insurance plan, buddy. Your do-gooder intentions are not sincere.

And FYI, The Earned Income Tax Credit started as a small program in the 1970s and was expanded under President Reagan. But it was President Clinton who turned the program into what it is today — one that effectively gives low-wage working parents a big bonus. [b]

Ah, ok. So free money is OK when a Republican (Ford and Reagan) approves it. But if it's not Obama's fault, it must be that dastardly intern mouth raper, Clinton! Soo sad.

I just don't understand how giving a low wage, working parent a big bonus is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting something here, FF?

No offense Rick, but some will never understand, no matter what the actual results show. Some people are just wired to think what they think. Where do these big bonuses come from? It's an honest question. There are people out there that think money just comes from somewhere and they really don't care where it comes from, whether it's real, or just printed money out of the sky, borrowed from China. They seriously don't give a fuck. Just go raise someone's taxes, but please pay me what I feel I'm entitled to. Debt on the backs of future generations? Not my problem. This is the dependent society that has been created and is growing exponentially, due to the mindset of some people of this generation and voting block. You can't argue about it. It just simply is.

[slucero]

Remember the Democratic reasoning was to insure the 46 Million ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-about-46-mil/ ) that they claimed needed health insurance... which, if one does the math:

46Million uninsured - 858,298 previous uninsured who have enrolled in O'care = 45,141,702 Million still uninsured
858,298 previously uninsured persons have signed up.

46,000,000/858,298 = a 2% success rate.

[Rick]

Rick, I just did a tax return where a single Dad who made $24,500 w/2 kids as dependents got a $3300 EITC refundable BONUS as you put it. Total refund was $6,400 with no tax due. The $2400 of his withholding was totally refundable. His income tax of $663 of dollars was offset by the child tax credit of $663 dollars. Thus not a dime went to the treasury. He made $31,000 tax free.

So tell me, where in this country can a single dad raise a child on $24,500? It's ok for trillions of our tax dollars to go to blowing the smithereens out of some third world country, so we can control the oil flow, but none of that money should be spent here, helping our own. Yes sir, you said it. We definitely don't think alike.

[Boomchild]

Rick, I just did a tax return where a single Dad who made $24,500 w/2 kids as dependents got a $3300 EITC refundable BONUS as you put it. Total refund was $6,400 with no tax due. The $2400 of his withholding was totally refundable. His income tax of $663 of dollars was offset by the child tax credit of $663 dollars. Thus not a dime went to the treasury. He made $31,000 tax free.

Actually, it doesn't seem to me that it would be very easy to provide for two children, a roof over your heads as well as all the other things needed to survive on just $31,000 a year. At least this person is working to earn a living instead of sitting on his ass collecting entitlement benefits. I don't think this is the type of person we should be concerned about. I'm more concerned with the people that have never held a job, are on entitlement benefits but are perfectly able to get a job. Then you have those that have lost their job and decide it's just easier to stay on unemployment benefits or come up with some lame ass disability to avoid having to get another job.

[Rick]

For the record: I never said anything about blowing up Countries, however in some cases I'm for it.

Same here!

[Rick]

Rick, I just did a tax return where a single Dad who made $24,500 w/2 kids as dependents got a $3300 EITC refundable BONUS as you put it. Total refund was $6,400 with no tax due. The $2400 of his withholding was totally refundable. His income tax of $663 of dollars was offset by the child tax credit of $663 dollars. Thus not a dime went to the treasury. He made $31,000 tax free.

So tell me, where in this country can a single dad raise a child on $24,500? It's ok for trillions of our tax dollars to go to blowing the smithereens out of some third world country, so we can control the oil flow, but none of that money should be spent here, helping our own. Yes sir, you said it. We definitely don't think alike.

Rick, the money that is given to these young families via the EITC is simply a transfer of wealth, just like Healthcare is. The push for a higher minimum wage is the same idea. The father I alluded to in my post was FUCKING thrilled when I told him about his good fortune (and wouldn't you be happy with a free $3300), at the expense of other higher income tax paying citizens. Sometimes you guys kill me.

I know what you're saying, but the minimum wage increase protects us from that very thing. A big percentage of Walmart employees qualify for government assistance. Were they paid a living wage, we wouldn't be subsidizing Walmart's payroll. It's not like they can't afford it.

[Monker]

Rick, I just did a tax return where a single Dad who made $24,500 w/2 kids as dependents got a $3300 EITC refundable BONUS as you put it. Total refund was $6,400 with no tax due. The $2400 of his withholding was totally refundable. His income tax of $663 of dollars was offset by the child tax credit of $663 dollars. Thus not a dime went to the treasury. He made $31,000 tax free.

So tell me, where in this country can a single dad raise a child on $24,500? It's ok for trillions of our tax dollars to go to blowing the smithereens out of some third world country, so we can control the oil flow, but none of that money should be spent here, helping our own. Yes sir, you said it. We definitely don't think alike.

Rick, the money that is given to these young families via the EITC is simply a transfer of wealth, just like Healthcare is. The push for a higher minimum wage is the same idea. The father I alluded to in my post was FUCKING thrilled when I told him about his good fortune (and wouldn't you be happy with a free $3300), at the expense of other higher income tax paying citizens. Sometimes you guys kill me.

He should be just as thrilled as those who earn all their income off of investments and only pay capital gains tax. He should be as thrilled as those who put their savings in overseas investments and pay no tax at all.

As for minimum wage, maybe their should be a wage "cap" for executives so big business doesn't waste money paying hundreds of millions of dollars for crooks to run their businesses.

Greed doesn't end when a person or corporation becomes successful and wealthy. "Abusing" loopholes doesn't know a certain income limit. They just have more to be greedy over and more loopholes that nobody seems to care about. But, of course, politics DOES see through a biased lens and only magnifies those issues that advance their agenda or party....and it's become pretty pathetic.

[Monker]

BTW: Line 13 folks..pg. 2

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Line 13 will list Capital Gains as INCOME...thus subject to INCOME TAX of whatever bracket you are in.

Monker and TNC cannot fool me. Some of you might swallow their shit,.... sorry bout your luck.

I'm glad you don't do my taxes.

Short term Capital Gains (bought/sold within 1yr) is taxed at your normal income tax rate. LONG TERM capital gains has it's own tax structure.

Long term capital gains is NOT taxed as ordinary income...and I have been saying for YEARS that it should be.

If you are counting all your Capital Gains as normal income, you are ignorant and do not know what you are doing...but, that's OK, keep doing what you're doing and count it as regular income. Won't disappoint me at all...not even going to give you a link to prove my point.

[Monker]

The greed and envy is coming from you Monker. FACT

IMHO

LOL...you know nothing about me so you have no basis to say I'm greedy or envious.

And, make up your mind...either it's FACT or In You Humble Opinion, but not both.

[Monker]

The person making money off of Cap Gains has already paid their fair share of tax and more you moron. And they'll pay more taxes the more the Cap Gains they make, so you should be damn happy about that because it's more to spread around. And if you want to totally shut down this economy down, go ahead and put a wage cap on. Enjoy your Cheerio's, if you can find some.

God how can people be so stOopid?

The person who gets a $3000 tax return and puts in savings to get a years worth of interest has to pay income tax on that interest...so whatever.

If you want to totally shut the economy down, erase the minimum wage and end unemployment benefits. If nobody has any money to buy anything, there is also no economy.

Whether you like it or not, pure Capitalism doesn't work. People are not logical. People do not follow the rules. People are greedy, selfish, liars who want to get ahead in life at any cost or expense, including at the expense of others. Therefore, neither pure Capitalism nor pure Socialism work...because people are assholes who don't follow the rules of the economy.

I don't look at things like 'minimum wage' as "income redistribution". That's ridiculous. I look at it as redistributing fairness so everybody DOES get a fair shot at living a productive life. Yeah, some poor people abuse the system. What you fail to see and admit is that rich people also abuse the system. The difference is the rich person's abuses amount to millions of dollars and not a few thousand.

So, yeah, I'd rather the government waist a few thousand dollars to give a person a healthy life and spend the effort on prosecuting the wealthy who are cheating in the amounts of millions...and are living an extravagant life.

[Monker]

My point Monker is that you couch your argument as tho Cap Gains is a bad evil thing and people are scamming the system and not paying their fair share. Just not true as the laws are written now. I worded my post wrong as you pointed out, but the point stands, people with Gains do pay taxes and in many cases A LOT of Taxes. I see it all the time.

You keep changing your argument over and over again. You are too busy lacing your posts with insults to make any sense.

You previously stated that Capital Gains is taxed with regular income and insulted several members of the forum, including me, along with that ignorant statement...and instead of admitting your error you come back with a bunch of crap which essentially says that you were wrong with that original statement. You didn't know what you were talking about, and your post above admits it. You shouldn't be doing anybody 's taxes since you had to do a Google search to find the facts about Capital Gains.

When your personal savings account is taxed at %15, that is when I'll say the Capital Gains tax rate is fair. Until then, it is one more way for rich people to lower their EFFECTIVE tax rate to be below what the average person pays. Your argument will be that Capital Gains helps the economy. Well, guess what? So do savings accounts...financial institutions are also allowed to invest. That argument 'worked' back in the 70's and 80's, but it doesn't any longer.

[Memorex]

Some pay too many taxes and some don't pay enough. Flat tax the shit out of this country and these types of issues can be stopped.

I have no idea how much it costs this economy to run under this tax code, with it's thousands of pages and loopholes and yadda yadda, but I bet it's a lot. How about a one page tax code. You pay x percent on every dollar you earn. States will also get x percent for each dollar earned (every state can decide what that is). There will be no gas tax, no cigarette tax, no luxury tax, no tax on the tax on the tax. Then we can all shut the fuck up, pay our fair share, and lay off thousands of useless IRS mother fuckers. People could stop living in fear of "the tax bill", stop scamming the system, stop worrying about what their final bill will be, etc.

Want to buy a house? Buy it with your own damn money. Why do you need a tax break? If the sale of houses have slowed down, then lower the price of the house. Duh. Cash for clunkers? Buy your own frickin' car.

If the government needs more money, figure out how to be more efficient. If they have extra money, next year's percent goes down.

Again, what is people's obsession with taking everyone's money? Just take some, pave the roads, and then go enjoy life.

[Boomchild]

Those that believe in a redistribution type system never seem to feel there never can be too much taxation.

[slucero]

I'd rather have a consumption tax only. That rewards savers... and savings is where the majority of investment capital comes from.

much better for the economy long term IMHO.

[Boomchild]

I'd rather have a consumption tax only. That rewards savers... and savings is where the majority of investment capital comes from.

much better for the economy long term IMHO.

I believe Mark Levin purposed this kind of idea when speaking about reforming our federal tax system.

[tater1977]

http://news.yahoo.com/sebelius-resigns- ... itics.html

Sebelius resigns after health care rollout fiasco

Associated Press
By JULIE PACE


WASHINGTON (AP) — Embattled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is resigning as the White House seeks to move past the election-year political damage inflicted by the rocky rollout of President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

Sebelius' resignation comes just over a week after sign-ups closed for the first year of insurance coverage under the so-called Obamacare law. The opening weeks of the enrollment period were marred by widespread website woes, though the administration rebounded strongly by enrolling 7.1 million people by the March 31 deadline, exceeding initial expectations. Enrollment has since risen to 7.5 million as people were given extra time to complete applications.

Even with the late surge in sign-ups, the law remains unpopular with many Americans and Republicans have made it a centerpiece of their efforts to retake the Senate in the fall.

Sebelius' resignation could also set the stage for a contentious confirmation hearing to replace her. In a sign that the White House is seeking to avoid a nomination fight, the president was tapping Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to replace Sebelius. Burwell was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for her current post.

A White House official requested anonymity to confirm Sebelius' resignation and Burwell's nomination ahead of the formal announcement. Obama has not nominated anyone to replace Burwell as budget director.

Obama remained publicly supportive of Sebelius throughout the rough rollout, deflecting Republican calls for her resignation. But she was conspicuously not standing by his side last week when he heralded the sign-up surge during an event in the White House Rose Garden.

The official said the 65-year-old Sebelius approached Obama last month about stepping down, telling him that the sign-up deadline was a good opportunity for a transition and suggesting he would be better served by someone who was less of a political target.


A spokeswoman for Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Sebelius' home state of Kansas, called the resignation "a prudent decision" given what she called the total failure of Obamacare implementation.

Sebelius dropped no hints about her resignation Thursday when she testified at a budget hearing. Instead, she received congratulations from Democratic senators on the sign-up surge.

A popular former governor of Kansas, Sebelius has been one of Obama's longest-serving Cabinet officials and his only HHS secretary. She was instrumental in shepherding the health care law through Congress in 2010 and implementing its initial components, including a popular provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.

But Sebelius' relationship with the White House frayed during the fall rollout of the insurance exchanges that are at the center of the sweeping overhaul. The president and his top advisers appeared caught off guard by the extent of the website woes, with warnings from those working on the technology never making it to the West Wing.

After technical problems crippled online sign-ups after the Oct. 1 launch, the White House sent management expert and longtime Obama adviser Jeffrey Zients to oversee a rescue operation that turned things around by the end of November. After taking helm of the project, Zients said management issues were partly to blame but did not point the finger at any individuals.

Sebelius took personal responsibility for the chaotic launch of the website and asked the HHS inspector general to conduct an investigation. That report is not expected for months.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a staunch supporter of the health care law, praised Sebelius as a "forceful, effective and essential" secretary.

"Secretary Sebelius was a leader in the long effort to make history for our country with passage of the Affordable Care Act," the California Democrat said in a statement.

In nominating the 48-year-old Burwell, Obama is tapping a Washington veteran with a low-profile and the respect of some Republicans on Capitol Hill. Though she only joined the Obama administration last year, Burwell held several White House and Treasury posts during President Bill Clinton's administration.

Between her stints in the executive branch, Burwell served as president of Wal-Mart's charitable arm and head of the global development program at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

If confirmed, Burwell will have to contend with huge challenges related to the continued implementation of the health overhaul, as well as the divisive politics surrounding the law that show no sign of abating.

On the practical side, the administration has to improve customer service for millions of Americans trying to navigate the new system. There's also a concern that premiums may rise for 2015, since many younger, healthier people appear to have sat out open enrollment season.

On the political front, congressional Republicans remain implacably opposed to Obamacare, even as several GOP governors have accepted the law's expansion of safety-net coverage under Medicaid. GOP opposition means Republicans can be expected to continue to deny additional funds for implementation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell., R-Ky., welcomed Sebelius' resignation but appeared to indicate an openness to a dialogue with Burwell, the new HHS nominee — even as he declared that "Obamacare has to go."

"I hope this is the start of a candid conversation about Obamacare's shortcomings and the need to protect Medicare," McConnell said.

[Monker]

"Monker wrote:

When your personal savings account is taxed at %15, that is when I'll say the Capital Gains tax rate is fair. Until then, it is one more way for rich people to lower their EFFECTIVE tax rate to be below what the average person pays

Obamas pay $98,169 in taxes on income of $481,098

Ahem: 20.4%

All that does is prove my point.

Mitt Romney's tax rate was < %15, when he released his taxes during his campaign.

Warren Buffett has said his effective rate is %11.

Basically, the richer you get, the more money you have invested in stocks and overseas and the less you pay in taxes...and your effective rate is lowered.

So, somebody making $500,000/yr and paying an effective rate of %20 is probably about right. Somebody making tens of millions a year from the stock market and over seas investments pays a MUCH lower effective rate. If they are not, they are pretty ignorant and/or hire some pretty ignorant people to invest their money...or possibly you are doing their taxes.

[verslibre]

Jews ordered to register in Ukraine



oh shit!

Wot? Link?

[verslibre]

Stalinism is alive and ticking.

[slucero]

sure is funny how hindsight explains things happening now.....

Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal
Previously restricted papers reveal attempts to rush president to support act, later blamed for deepening banking crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... sers-obama

Wall Street deregulation, blamed for deepening the banking crisis, was aggressively pushed by advisers to Bill Clinton who have also been at the heart of current White House policy-making, according to newly disclosed documents from his presidential library.

The previously restricted papers reveal two separate attempts, in 1995 and 1997, to hurry Clinton into supporting a repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and allow investment banks, insurers and retail banks to merge.

A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

The White House papers show only limited discussion of the risks of such deregulation, but include a private note which reveals that details of a deal with Citigroup to clear its merger in advance of the legislation were deleted from official documents, for fear of it leaking out.

“Please eat this paper after you have read this,” jokes the hand-written 1998 note addressed to Gene Sperling, then director of Clinton's National Economic Council.



Earlier, in February 1995, newly-appointed Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Bo Cutter and senior advisers including John Podesta gave the president three days to decide whether to back a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

In what Cutter described as “an action forcing event”, he wrote to Clinton on 21 February, telling him Rubin wanted to announce the policy before it was raised by the House banking committee on 1 March.

“In order to position Secretary Rubin – rather than any of the regulators – as the Administration's chief spokesman on this issue, the Secretary intends to discuss the Administration's position at a speech which will be covered by the press in New York on 27 February,” wrote Cutter on 21 February.

“It is therefore necessary to have an agreed-upon Administration position by the end of the day on Friday, 24 February.”



Podesta, who was then staff secretary but went on to become Clinton's chief of staff, wrote a covering note telling the president that all his senior advisers backed the plan, although he noted the danger that “allowing banks to engage in riskier activities like securities or insurance could subject the deposit insurance fund to added risk”.

But Clinton's advisers repeatedly reassured him that the decision to let Wall Street dismantle regulatory barriers designed to protect the public after the Great Depression simply represented inevitable modernisation.

“The argument for reform is that the separation between banking and other financial services mandated by Glass-Steagall is out of date in a world where banks, securities firms and insurance companies offer similar products and where firms outside the US do not face such restrictions,” wrote Podesta.

Podesta currently works at the White House as special adviser to President Barack Obama. Sperling stood down as director of Obama's National Economic Council last month.

Along with Cutter, who worked on Obama's transition committee, all three men were close allies of Rubin, who spearheaded the deregulation of Wall Street before joining the board of Citigroup in 1999. In 2007, he briefly became its chairman.

The closeness of Obama's team to the deregulation policies of the late 1990s is well known and has been criticised by campaigners as a reason for the current administration's reluctance to institute more aggressive Wall Street reforms after the banking crash.

But the new documents cast fresh light on the way the White House was first ushered toward deregulation by the tight group of Rubin allies.

A similar apparent attempt to rush president Clinton's decision-making occurred later in the process, in 1997.

In a letter received by the president on 19 May, Clinton is again given just three days to decide whether to proceed with the deregulation agenda.

“The attached memorandum asks you to authorize Treasury to proceed to announce and submit their financial services modernization proposal,” writes Sperling.

“Secretary Rubin intends to introduce the proposal in a 21 May speech, and to testify before the House Banking Committee the first week of June.”



In his letter, Rubin reassures Clinton that the issue need not take up much of his attention.

“Should you approve our recommendation to move forward, the proposal would be a Treasury initiative, and would not require a significant time commitment from the White House,” writes the Treasury secretary.

“I and my staff will manage the process of advancing the proposal,” he adds.



The sense that the president need not concern himself with the detail is amplified by his own staff, who appear happy for him to be pushed along by the Treasury timetable.

In a covering note from staff secretary Todd Stern, Clinton is warned: “The attached memo is long, detailed and technical, but you can get the essentials by looking at the first four pages.”

Stern adds: “If you agree. Treasury will, tomorrow, put out some advance word on the Rubin speech.”



Throughout the documents, which are among 7,000 pages released by the Clinton library on Friday, there is little discussion of internal opposition to repealing Glass-Steagall, although some memos inadvertently touch on the risks that ultimately proved so expensive to the US taxpayer.

“Notwithstanding the pounding Treasury took today, there's still much to their position on the regulatory structure (which really depends on the proposition that we're not good at regulating complex financial (let alone non-financial) companies, but we're pretty good at walling off the bank to protect the taxpayers),” concludes Clinton adviser Ellen Seidman in one 1997 memo.

[Boomchild]

sure is funny how hindsight explains things happening now.....

Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal
Previously restricted papers reveal attempts to rush president to support act, later blamed for deepening banking crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... sers-obama

Those damn Republicans!

[The_Noble_Cause]

sure is funny how hindsight explains things happening now.....

Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal
Previously restricted papers reveal attempts to rush president to support act, later blamed for deepening banking crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... sers-obama

Those damn Republicans!

Um, Glass-Steagall was the culmination of decades of repealing FDR's New Deal regulatory policies. What was it that Alan Greenspan said? Clinton was "the best Republican president we ever had." You low information rubes don't even understand the destructive conservative ideology you are on here defending. Twenty years from now, you'll blame Teddy Roosevelt for lax meat packing standards and Dennis Kucinich for starting the Iraq War. Up is down, right is left, the sky is green, and the only constant is that Republicans are stupid, dangerous, and ugly.

EDIT: The other part of this that I really love, is typically, conservatives have blamed the housing crash on over regulation. According to GOP revisionist mythology, banks were pressured by Democratic legislation such as redlining to extend loans 2 financially unfit minority families. Now you want to blame it on deregulation, one of the guiding principles of your own party?! Just how completely immune to reality are u? Meanwhile conservative contenders for 2016 are currently gearing up 2 outdo themselves in the race to deregulate Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the consumer protection agency etc. Ultimately both parties are vulnerable to the influence of the banking sector. The question is do Americans stand a better chance of seeing reform within the party of FDR, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Or the party of Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist? Wakey wakey, dumb asses. Going to a Hannity Freedom Concert won't help you pay the bills or put a child thru college.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Jews in one Ukrainian city were sent notes “indicating that they have to identify themselves as Jews,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday.

“In the year 2014, after all of the miles traveled and all of the journey of history, this is not just intolerable, it’s grotesque,” Kerry said. “It is beyond unacceptable. And any of the people who engage in these kinds of activities — from whatever party or whatever ideology or whatever place they crawl out of — there is no place for that.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... e/7816951/

http://fox4kc.com/2014/04/17/jews-order ... t-ukraine/

This was debunked. Wake up and smell the CIA propaganda. There is zero appetite in the USA to gin up a war with Russia. Go jerk off while you play Call of Duty and leave the rest of us sane and peace loving Americans the fuck alone!!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

And this mysterious anti semetic literature suddenly appeared from where exactly? Haven't we seen tactics like this before in the lead up to military intervention? If your answer is no, I advise you immediately get out of this thread and go to your local library. That is your taxpayer funded socialist building where books are located. Historically ignorant and gullible American yokels like you will be the death of this country.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yup. Because only American government officials lie. The Ukranian PM? Why, he is as truthful and honest as Betsy Ross, Andy Griffith and Uncle Sam rolled together in a red, white, and blue jelly roll. In fact, he is probably more American than Obama.
You are just spoiling for another trillion dollar war, aren't you? I got news for you, if you think the Russian bear is as much of a push-over as the Iraquis, you got another thing comin. And the Iraq War was no picnic. While we boasted about sending our women to man the assembly lines during WW2 (Rosie the Riveter, ever hear of her?), the Soviets were sending their women to kill in sniper towers. But, hey, a GOP Neocon's blood lust knows no boundaries. Just be careful what you wish for, pig.

[slucero]

Um, Glass-Steagall was the culmination of decades of repealing FDR's New Deal regulatory policies. What was it that Alan Greenspan said? Clinton was "the best Republican president we ever had." You low information rubes don't even understand the destructive conservative ideology you are on here defending. Twenty years from now, you'll blame Teddy Roosevelt for lax meat packing standards and Dennis Kucinich for starting the Iraq War. Up is down, right is left, the sky is green, and the only constant is that Republicans are stupid, dangerous, and ugly.

EDIT: The other part of this that I really love, is typically, conservatives have blamed the housing crash on over regulation. According to GOP revisionist mythology, banks were pressured by Democratic legislation such as redlining to extend loans 2 financially unfit minority families. Now you want to blame it on deregulation, one of the guiding principles of your own party?! Just how completely immune to reality are u? Meanwhile conservative contenders for 2016 are currently gearing up 2 outdo themselves in the race to deregulate Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the consumer protection agency etc. Ultimately both parties are vulnerable to the influence of the banking sector. The question is do Americans stand a better chance of seeing reform within the party of FDR, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Or the party of Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist? Wakey wakey, dumb asses. Going to a Hannity Freedom Concert won't help you pay the bills or put a child thru college.

Trying to paint Clinton as some "other kind of Democrat"... is revisionist.. and well.. just plain sorry.

If you are gonna blather on forcing conservatives to own the actions of the members of their party then you have to own the members of your own. A Republican Congress passed Glass-Steagal... and Clinton signed it when he could have vetoed it...

He's still a Democrat. He's your man. That's on you.


Own it bitch.


... and Senator Obama never voted for the Patriot Act.. oh wait.... he did vote on extending it in 2005, and then campaigned that he'd repeal it as POTUS... won the election and instead of repealing it.. he extended it again...

Got some more revision there Fathead?