President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:31 pm

Rick wrote:Unions didn't ruin GM. GM refusing to build cars that people want did that. Unions and their membership can ask for stupid shit like that, it doesn't mean they will or should get it.

Dude, you're kidding me right? People I know and most people like big cars! Trucks, SUV's.. It's government regulations that are stamping these out! Ever hear of the fraud "global warming"? Ever hear of the "gas guzzler" tax? Ever hear of C.A.F.E. standards?
You didn't hear how after Obama took over Chrysler, he told them they had to quit making the Dodge trucks? Even though it was the only car in their fleet that was turning a profit? You can't be serious!!! :roll:
Last edited by RedWingFan on Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:31 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:


Sorry, lending to students so everyone can attain a good education doesn't bother me. As for health care, they already pay a larger percentage of health care than private industry through Medicare, VA and Tricare benefits and oh yeah, the nice Govt plan they voted themselves. I understand your distrust of Govt but don't you distrust a lot that goes on in the private sector as well with all the fraud. (Wall St, Bernie Madoff, Fraudulent mortage lending etc.)


What does government have in common with all three of those? They failed to stop them when they were charged to do so, and in some cases, encouraged it! For the win!
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:31 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.


Unions served a very important role at one time. They should not be making demands when the company is losing money. When the company is hogging huge profits they should fight for a share that allows the middle class to prosper. They are now just as corrupt as the Govt. Corruption is everywhere. :cry:

Finally we agree. Yeah, back during the "sitdown strike" in Flint, Michigan (my hometown) decades ago. They really did have a purpose to improve working conditions!!!


Gotta retire for the night. Alway fun debating you fellow americans even if we don't agree! :lol:
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:32 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:Unions didn't ruin GM. GM refusing to build cars that people want did that. Unions and their membership can ask for stupid shit like that, it doesn't mean they will or should get it.

Dude, you're kidding me right? People I know and most people like big cars! Trucks, SUV's.. It's government regulations that are stamping these out! Ever hear of the fraud "global warming"? Ever hear of the "gas guzzler" tax?
You didn't hear how after Obama took over Chrysler, he told them they had to quit making the Dodge trucks? Even though it was the only car in their fleet that was turning a profit? You can't be serious!!! :roll:


Unions and shitty cars both ruined GM. Arguably, they could have recovered from the shitty cars dilemma without the union problem making the whole damn thing insurmountable.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:32 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.


Unions served a very important role at one time. They should not be making demands when the company is losing money. When the company is hogging huge profits they should fight for a share that allows the middle class to prosper. They are now just as corrupt as the Govt. Corruption is everywhere. :cry:

Finally we agree. Yeah, back during the "sitdown strike" in Flint, Michigan (my hometown) decades ago. They really did have a purpose to improve working conditions!!!


Gotta retire for the night. Alway fun debating you fellow americans even if we don't agree! :lol:

Cool! See you tomorrow!!!
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Rick » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:Unions didn't ruin GM. GM refusing to build cars that people want did that. Unions and their membership can ask for stupid shit like that, it doesn't mean they will or should get it.

Dude, you're kidding me right? People I know and most people like big cars! Trucks, SUV's.. It's government regulations that are stamping these out! Ever hear of the fraud "global warming"? Ever hear of the "gas guzzler" tax? Ever hear of C.A.F.E. standards?
You didn't hear how after Obama took over Chrysler, he told them they had to quit making the Dodge trucks? Even though it was the only car in their fleet that was turning a profit? You can't be serious!!! :roll:


Those regulations apply to all car makers that sell cars in the U.S. I do agree that car makers are overburdened with bullshit regulations and that's a fair statement. Airlines are as well.

Last time I was on a Dodge lot, which was very recent, it was rife with big trucks. Not sure what you mean by that statement.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby conversationpc » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:14 pm

What do you guys think about the White House orchestrating that conference call back in August with the NEA to try to get GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED artists to go along with their agenda?
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Lula » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:23 pm

Ehwmatt wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:


Sorry, lending to students so everyone can attain a good education doesn't bother me. As for health care, they already pay a larger percentage of health care than private industry through Medicare, VA and Tricare benefits and oh yeah, the nice Govt plan they voted themselves. I understand your distrust of Govt but don't you distrust a lot that goes on in the private sector as well with all the fraud. (Wall St, Bernie Madoff, Fraudulent mortage lending etc.)


What does government have in common with all three of those? They failed to stop them when they were charged to do so, and in some cases, encouraged it! For the win!


yes government failed big time by deregulating way too much. obama will hopefully put some much needed regulation back in place to prevent repeats.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:26 pm

Eric wrote:
Lula wrote:this reminds me of the gore and bush campaigns, bill mahr said he would rather have his president in the pockets of buddhist monks (gore) than in the pockets of big oil (bush).


I love ya Lula...I think you are a fair, reasonable and kind person based on your posts...BUT....PLEASE...don't watch or reference that worthless piece of shit Bill Maher.


:lol: love ya too. i don't get the premium channels so no more bill maher :cry:
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:27 pm

conversationpc wrote:What do you guys think about the White House orchestrating that conference call back in August with the NEA to try to get GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED artists to go along with their agenda?


not cool. i haven't kept up and don't know the whole story, but based on what you just said- totally messed up, wrong, bad, stupid, etc...
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:04 pm

Lula wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:


Sorry, lending to students so everyone can attain a good education doesn't bother me. As for health care, they already pay a larger percentage of health care than private industry through Medicare, VA and Tricare benefits and oh yeah, the nice Govt plan they voted themselves. I understand your distrust of Govt but don't you distrust a lot that goes on in the private sector as well with all the fraud. (Wall St, Bernie Madoff, Fraudulent mortage lending etc.)


What does government have in common with all three of those? They failed to stop them when they were charged to do so, and in some cases, encouraged it! For the win!


yes government failed big time by deregulating way too much. obama will hopefully put some much needed regulation back in place to prevent repeats.


Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Eric » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:56 pm

Rick wrote: That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.


Fuck yeah...Unions are hypocritical, inefficient and corrupt organizations. Not much different than Government actually.
Eric
Eric
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:51 am

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:38 pm

Fact Finder wrote:What to make of this?

So white people, good though they may be, must "step down so" "more people of color, gays" and "other people" "can have power." And thereby "change the problem" of whites running the show. __FCC's Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd


The same thing to make of it that I've been hammering home here the last few weeks - racism and classifications are alive and well. Pretty soon, whiteness is going to have to be interpreted as a "suspect classification" by the Supreme Court!
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:58 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.

The conversation about how we communicate with each other despite being aware of the clear impressions that I know that I make in rooms that I walk into, when people hear my voice, is a challenge. How much do I express the... I think really pretty obvious complaints of black Americans in rooms full of whites....

There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.





Wow!


Whom are you quoting here?
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Behshad » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:04 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.

The conversation about how we communicate with each other despite being aware of the clear impressions that I know that I make in rooms that I walk into, when people hear my voice, is a challenge. How much do I express the... I think really pretty obvious complaints of black Americans in rooms full of whites....

There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.





Wow!


Whom are you quoting here?


No one,,, its his copy & paste from elsewhere ,,,,
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Behshad » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:45 am

Fact Finder wrote:If I met this dude and he called me a teenager who didn't know how "to do the right thing" I would knock his ass into the next century. He would be the one getting taught a lesson and I wouldn't need the PTA to help me do it. :evil: :evil:


Um, but now you are acting like a teenager who doesnt act the way you should act :wink: :lol:
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Behshad » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:01 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:If I met this dude and he called me a teenager who didn't know how "to do the right thing" I would knock his ass into the next century. He would be the one getting taught a lesson and I wouldn't need the PTA to help me do it. :evil: :evil:


Um, but now you are acting like a teenager who doesnt act the way you should act :wink: :lol:


Hey, at least I didn't C&P my thoughts from somewhere else. Sometimes I actually say what I really feel.

:lol:
True , I give you credit for that ,....How much you ask?

Image
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Lula » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:58 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
yes government failed big time by deregulating way too much. obama will hopefully put some much needed regulation back in place to prevent repeats.


Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.[/quote]

there was a guy who came forward about madoff maybe a few years ago and he was basically ingnored. i don't think government is the end all answer. i first look at personal responsibility, ethics and morality, but we know there are some bad folks out there that don't give a damn about others and let greed rule there actions, government is responsible for the framework, for making and enforcing laws. there has to be a balance and right now the scales are not in balance, we need to bring back some regulation.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Ehwmatt » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:25 am

Lula wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
yes government failed big time by deregulating way too much. obama will hopefully put some much needed regulation back in place to prevent repeats.


Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.


there was a guy who came forward about madoff maybe a few years ago and he was basically ingnored. i don't think government is the end all answer. i first look at personal responsibility, ethics and morality, but we know there are some bad folks out there that don't give a damn about others and let greed rule there actions, government is responsible for the framework, for making and enforcing laws. there has to be a balance and right now the scales are not in balance, we need to bring back some regulation.[/quote]

I am not opposed to some types of regulations/checks. Definitely not. The problem is, it's a seesaw cluster fuck of extremes - we go from haphazard deregulation to paternalistic, incentive-draining regulation and there and back again. It never works because of the extremes of both sides' views - and that all goes back to my central theory of politics, that so long as the two-party system dominates, we are broken beyond repair.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby JrnyScarab » Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:34 am

Ehwmatt wrote:I am not opposed to some types of regulations/checks. Definitely not. The problem is, it's a seesaw cluster fuck of extremes - we go from haphazard deregulation to paternalistic, incentive-draining regulation and there and back again. It never works because of the extremes of both sides' views - and that all goes back to my central theory of politics, that so long as the two-party system dominates, we are broken beyond repair.


We finally agree! Why though, do we each think everything the other side does is wrong. Can't we find some things that each side proposes that might work without being so ideological about everything?
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:45 am

Lula wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.


there was a guy who came forward about madoff maybe a few years ago and he was basically ingnored. i don't think government is the end all answer. i first look at personal responsibility, ethics and morality, but we know there are some bad folks out there that don't give a damn about others and let greed rule there actions, government is responsible for the framework, for making and enforcing laws. there has to be a balance and right now the scales are not in balance, we need to bring back some regulation.


It's not lack of regulation...it's lack of enforcement. Much like our gun laws. As soon as something bad happens, people want the government to pass more laws to "prevent such tragedies from happening ever again!", when in reality of the government would just enforce the laws that are on the books now those tragedies wouldn't have happened in the first place.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby JrnyScarab » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:27 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Lula wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.


there was a guy who came forward about madoff maybe a few years ago and he was basically ingnored. i don't think government is the end all answer. i first look at personal responsibility, ethics and morality, but we know there are some bad folks out there that don't give a damn about others and let greed rule there actions, government is responsible for the framework, for making and enforcing laws. there has to be a balance and right now the scales are not in balance, we need to bring back some regulation.


It's not lack of regulation...it's lack of enforcement. Much like our gun laws. As soon as something bad happens, people want the government to pass more laws to "prevent such tragedies from happening ever again!", when in reality of the government would just enforce the laws that are on the books now those tragedies wouldn't have happened in the first place.


I have to agree with you. Many regulations were not enforced although, there were some regulations in place to prevent the financial crisis that were removed courtesy of both parties. So, enforce existing regulations and don't remove ones that were meant to prevent this shit.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:52 am

Fact Finder wrote:I think alot of the regulate v de-regulate gets fuzzie to some here. My banker friend swears to me that under de-regulation the banks were doing redlining, ie..declining loans to suspect borrowers and low income neighborhoods. Or in other words regulating themselves, and yes they were doing this for business purposes and thus making good business decisions by limiting losses. Some did not get loans because they didn't qualify under underwriting qualifications.

Under Clinton and Reno, in conjunction with the Community Reinvestment Act and GSE's (Gov Sponsored Enterprises) or as logical people called it (Grand Social Experiments), the banks were forced by threat of law and now we learn with the intimidation of ACORN and other social justice groupes to lend to all low income families with a beating heart. Might want to think about how you view regulation.


I believe local and regional banks did a much better job of not lending to those they shouldn't. Unfortunatly, the largest banks and mortgage institutions were cranking out loans to just about anyone left & right. They would be sliced & diced into Mortgage Backed Securities and sold off. Voila! They passed the risk onto someone else and took in more money to loan out from the sales of MBS's.

CRA & GSE's (Fannie & Freddie) were also at it. In fact, the FED has been purchasing almost 1 trillion dollars in MBS's from the GSE's so they can continue to prop up the housing market. Unfortunately, the FED is buying their junk and is liable to take a huge loss that us taxpayers will get stuck with as usual.
Last edited by JrnyScarab on Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:05 am

Fact Finder wrote:
They would be sliced & diced into Mortgage Backed Securities and sold off. Voila! They passed the risk onto someone else and took in more money to loan out from the sales of MBS's.



Correct, and most of sliced and diced loans were bought up by Fannie/Freddie, or in laymans terms, by US, the taxpayer. So we not nly bail out Fannie and Fred, then we turn aroung and buy the bad assets again. We are getting so screwed and it is all in the name of being fair/nice/equal..et al..name your poison.


I know what you're saying about too much spending but the fact is, the government has been the only entity that has been able to keep funneling money into the financial system to keep it from total collapse. I'm not so sure I would want to see what a total collapse would have been like. :cry:
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Ehwmatt » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:36 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Lula wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Regulation was there with Madoff, the SEC was just too inept to do anything about it! Don't kid yourself, government's not the end-all answer.


there was a guy who came forward about madoff maybe a few years ago and he was basically ingnored. i don't think government is the end all answer. i first look at personal responsibility, ethics and morality, but we know there are some bad folks out there that don't give a damn about others and let greed rule there actions, government is responsible for the framework, for making and enforcing laws. there has to be a balance and right now the scales are not in balance, we need to bring back some regulation.


It's not lack of regulation...it's lack of enforcement. Much like our gun laws. As soon as something bad happens, people want the government to pass more laws to "prevent such tragedies from happening ever again!", when in reality of the government would just enforce the laws that are on the books now those tragedies wouldn't have happened in the first place.


Excellent, excellent point.

There's a larger lesson to be learned here, too: Americans are the BEST scam artists in the world. There will always be people who find a way to take advantage of the system, whatever it may be... from defrauding Medicare/Medicaid/private insurance to insider trading to subprime mortgages, from an individual level to a corporate level, there will always be people who can find ways to take advantage of the system, provided we have the freedom and liberty in our economic system that most of us so cherish.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Lula » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:18 am

ugh, i don't have the energy. i started to clarify my opinion on regulation and i just don't have it in me right now. the water is off in our building and i haven't had my after work shower yet :x
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Barb » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:43 am

Fact Finder wrote:SHOCK VIDEO: School kids taught to praise Obama...


B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. June 2009


School kids taught to praise Obama


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5U ... edded#t=21



Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

segue to

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
___________________________________________


Creepiest freaking thing I have seen in a long time. Reminds me of kids in North Korea singing songs of worship to their Dear Leader.


The song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Barb » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:54 am

Democrats Kill Amendment Requiring Bill To Be Fully Written Before a Vote
By Philip Klein on 9.23.09 @ 12:18PM


Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Bunning that would have required the committee to have the legislative language of its health care bill evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office before voting on it.

Currently, the only version of Chairman Max Baucus's proposal we have is a 223-page draft (PDF) that is written in plain English and explains the bill in conceptual terms. Republicans argued that until the bill is written in legislative language it will be impossible for the CBO to provide an accurate cost estimate.

The Bunning ammendment would have required the committee to have the legislative language of the bill, along with the CBO cost estimate, posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote.

Democrats argued that waiting for the legislative languange to be written, and for the CBO to evaluate it, would needlessly delay the process by weeks.

"Let's be honest about it, most people don't read the legislative language," Sen. John Kerry said. :roll:


The Bunning amendment was defeated by a 12 to 11 vote, with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln the only Democrat voting in favor.

Instead, the committee adopted an amendment by Baucus that doesn't require the legislative language to be written, but that does require a CBO estimate based on the plain English version.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:35 am

Fact Finder wrote:Øbama's Policies Would Redistribute Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth Every Year

By 2012, nearly $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of American families will be redistributed among the bottom 70 percent if Obama’s proposals on taxes, health care, and climate change become law, according to the Tax Foundation.

“Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, said. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”

Under the Obama plan, 70 percent of American families as a group -- those earning less than $109,460 -- will receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, Hodge said.

“The majority of people below the 70 percent mark will get more back than they pay in taxes,” Hodge told CNSNews.com.

This would leave the top 30 percent -- those making more than $109,460 -- paying more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, Hodge said.

According to the report, the lowest-income families will gain $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.

“Middle-income families (those earning $65,000 to $85,000 annually), who are the targeted beneficiaries of many Obama policies, will receive $1.15 in government spending benefits for every dollar they pay in taxes,” the report states.

“Under Obama’s policies, families making over $280,000 (the top 5 percent) will get back 56 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes while the highest earning families, those in the top 1 percent earning over about $700,000, will get back 33 cents in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes,” Hodge said.

Currently, families making $280,000 receive 61 cents on the dollar, while those earning over $700,000 receive about 40 cents for every tax dollar spent, Hodge said.

The report notes that “Obama’s policies (will) lead to tax increases for a curious mix of rich and poor families.”

Regressive cap-and-trade policies and increased tobacco taxes disproportionately impact families earning less than $23,700, and higher income tax rates will increase tax payments for families earning more than $280,000.

“On net, however, when spending is included, the lowest-income households gain more than $2,200 while the highest-income families lose more than $127,000,” the report states.

Hodge explained: “(These claims) are based on our redistribution model which looks at how much every family pays in taxes compared to what it gets in government benefits. We look at that for families at every income level. That adds up to a national accounting of how much is paid by each income group in taxes versus how much it gets in spending, and then you look at the overall amount of redistribution. You compare the amount of people that get more back than they pay to the groups of people who pay more than they get. And that difference is the amount of redistribution.”

The report is based on IRS data, Census Bureau data and information taken from the federal budget, Hodge added.


<liberal whiny voice>But...but...it's only FAIR?! Sure they worked hard and invested money in a business or they recieved a good education, but they have too much...even though they earned it themselves...so to be fair they should give it to the less educated, less driven (perhaps) people who didn't earn it, have no ambition to earn it. It is ONLY FAIR! Isn't it? </liberal whiny voice>
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Rockindeano » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:46 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Øbama's Policies Would Redistribute Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth Every Year

By 2012, nearly $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of American families will be redistributed among the bottom 70 percent if Obama’s proposals on taxes, health care, and climate change become law, according to the Tax Foundation.

“Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, said. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”

Under the Obama plan, 70 percent of American families as a group -- those earning less than $109,460 -- will receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, Hodge said.

“The majority of people below the 70 percent mark will get more back than they pay in taxes,” Hodge told CNSNews.com.

This would leave the top 30 percent -- those making more than $109,460 -- paying more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, Hodge said.

According to the report, the lowest-income families will gain $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.

“Middle-income families (those earning $65,000 to $85,000 annually), who are the targeted beneficiaries of many Obama policies, will receive $1.15 in government spending benefits for every dollar they pay in taxes,” the report states.

“Under Obama’s policies, families making over $280,000 (the top 5 percent) will get back 56 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes while the highest earning families, those in the top 1 percent earning over about $700,000, will get back 33 cents in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes,” Hodge said.

Currently, families making $280,000 receive 61 cents on the dollar, while those earning over $700,000 receive about 40 cents for every tax dollar spent, Hodge said.

The report notes that “Obama’s policies (will) lead to tax increases for a curious mix of rich and poor families.”

Regressive cap-and-trade policies and increased tobacco taxes disproportionately impact families earning less than $23,700, and higher income tax rates will increase tax payments for families earning more than $280,000.

“On net, however, when spending is included, the lowest-income households gain more than $2,200 while the highest-income families lose more than $127,000,” the report states.

Hodge explained: “(These claims) are based on our redistribution model which looks at how much every family pays in taxes compared to what it gets in government benefits. We look at that for families at every income level. That adds up to a national accounting of how much is paid by each income group in taxes versus how much it gets in spending, and then you look at the overall amount of redistribution. You compare the amount of people that get more back than they pay to the groups of people who pay more than they get. And that difference is the amount of redistribution.”

The report is based on IRS data, Census Bureau data and information taken from the federal budget, Hodge added.


<liberal whiny voice>But...but...it's only FAIR?! Sure they worked hard and invested money in a business or they recieved a good education, but they have too much...even though they earned it themselves...so to be fair they should give it to the less educated, less driven (perhaps) people who didn't earn it, have no ambition to earn it. It is ONLY FAIR! Isn't it? </liberal whiny voice>


Whatever.

1- Learn to spell.

2- Get back to people when they ask you to go to a concert with them. :o
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests