When the Bread Lines Form & You Happen to Be In Them ~~~~
John H. Fisher
REMEMBER - Republicans believe that it will have been your fault.
They'll continue with the belief that you are lazy, indolent, and
undeserving of a social program!!! Social progams are againsst the
policy of those who don't care about your survival or well being.
They couldn't give a hoot about helping you survive the conditions
under which you have to live because of their greed!!!
Get off your backside 'n' take responsibility for yourself!!! GET A
JOB (when there are no jobs to be found). Get off the dole, you oaf,
you IRRESPONSIBLE "BREADLINER"!!!
All this while the McCAIN/Bush, RIGHT WING, UNREPENTINENT TERRORISTS,
who gave us Iraq, continue to laugh all the way to the bank while
still condemning YOU as you stand in a breadline with the masses!!!
Based on experience, and the LIES OF REPUBLICANS, which we've
experienced over the past 8 (40) years, the ONLY BEST ALTERNATIVE IS
TO Vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRAT!!!!!
.
larr...@yahoo.com
Bullshit. As much as I dispise Republicans, the history of Democrats
is less than comforting. Consider that:
- under Johnson we were lied into a war we didn't need and which
traumatized a generation of Americans.
- with Jimmy Carter, we infected ourselves with the Tri-Lateral
Commision, which openned the door to Globalists and the conspiracy to
establish one world government. (This isn't to say that Nixon wasn't
a tool of that group, but he wasn't a Democrat pretending to be "for
the people".)
- Bill Clinton gave us Janet Reno and the Triumph of Tyranny at the
Seige of Waco. (How anyone can justify the burning of children in
order to "save" them, is seriously derranged.) And we got to sell
missile technology to China, and anyone with a few spare bucks to
sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. To make matters much, much worse, he
achieved a series of pyrrhic victories by coopting Republican agendas
and presenting them as he wrote them - including the dismantiling of
now-needed social welfare programs.
Democrats haven't done us any f*cking favors. So why should we rise
above apathy and despair to vote for them?
Cheers,
Larry G.
D.F. Manno
<6965b16a-de04-48c5...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"Lar...@Yahuu.com" <larr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. As much as I dispise Republicans, the history of Democrats
> is less than comforting. Consider that:
>
> - under Johnson we were lied into a war we didn't need and which
> traumatized a generation of Americans.
>
> - with Jimmy Carter, we infected ourselves with the Tri-Lateral
> Commision, which openned the door to Globalists and the conspiracy to
> establish one world government. (This isn't to say that Nixon wasn't
> a tool of that group, but he wasn't a Democrat pretending to be "for
> the people".)
I think you need to double the thickness on your tin-foil hat.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility. (Ambrose Bierce)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>when there are no jobs to be found
Propaganda posts like this only serve the Republicans.
A very quick check found a great many jobs for all levels of skills.
At entry level, Wawa, fast food, and pizza places need employees.
Very minimal requirements. My neighbor who just got out of jail and
didn't finish high school now works at Wawa.
At the medium and high skilled level there are jobs, too. SEPTA needs
a variety of people for bus drivers and maintenance craft positions.
The website for Albert Einstein Medical Center listed 200 openings
from cafeteria worker to child psychiatrist.
George Kerby
On 10/15/08 10:57 AM, in article
b9e43b1a-0596-4b14...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com, "John H.
Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote:
> When the Bread Lines Form & You Happen to Be In Them ~~~~
I'm hoping that you are not the one baking it. Anyone that interchanges
decimal points and commas could royally fuck up the recipe, for sure!
George Kerby
On 10/15/08 12:59 PM, in article
6965b16a-de04-48c5...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
"Lar...@Yahuu.com" <larr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Fisher is the "Tracey" of the DemoCraps.
John H. Fisher
> On 10/15/08 12:59 PM, in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is from "Tracey" - It's how I picture you!!!-:)
http://www.fartfarm.com/poem.html
John H. Fisher
Had you considered the unemployment rate is now at 6.1% and that it is
expected to rise to staggering rates???
YOU, may be one of the first one in the breadlines when they start to
form 'n' THEY WILL START TO FORM!!! Hopefully, when Obama takes
office, he will find the ways to support the masses as we work our way
through the mess created by degenerate Republican advocates of war,
personal gain of the few. 'n' others of their ilk!!! Obama has the
distinction of being able to pull people out of those lines leading
them to more productive lives while, at the same time, finding ways to
protect them from the RIGHT!!!
GOD FORBID, should McCain happen to win, and suddenly pass away!!!
It's frightening to think that we would be stuck with an actress,
(studied in the art of exposing her body & composition) who can better
learn to present lines than have the capablity of being a statesman.
Neither one of them can discuss the issues and, although McCaim may be
better versed, he is convincing only in that he is more interested in
war & Bushite policies than he is in the masses of this once greater
nation. (MNSVHO)
Art Clemons
> A very quick check found a great many jobs for all levels of skills.
>
> At entry level, Wawa, fast food, and pizza places need employees.
> Very minimal requirements. My neighbor who just got out of jail and
> didn't finish high school now works at Wawa.
>
The fact you can find a listing of some available jobs doesn't mean that the
supply of workers does not exceed the supply of available jobs. You're
giving the equivalent of stating that a law firm is advertising for three
new associate lawyers, while the law school closest to that firm graduated
160 lawyers and most haven't found work as lawyers. Yes three jobs were
advertised, but the supply of job seekers exceeds that of jobs.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The fact you can find a listing of some available jobs doesn't mean that the
> supply of workers does not exceed the supply of available jobs. You're
> giving the equivalent of stating that a law firm is advertising for three
> new associate lawyers, while the law school closest to that firm graduated
> 160 lawyers and most haven't found work as lawyers. Yes three jobs were
> advertised, but the supply of job seekers exceeds that of jobs.
Except a while ago the same whining about how "we're in a depression"
came up and those organizations were hiring back then as well.
I forgot to mention the Phila School District needs many teachers and
has so for years.
Art Clemons
> Except a while ago the same whining about how "we're in a depression"
> came up and those organizations were hiring back then as well.
The US is definitely in a recession and possibly headed for a "depression".
In case you've missed the recent news, there's also a real credit crisis,
homes and new automobiles aren't selling in part because buyers cannot get
credit. Lowered home and auto sales just make the economy worse. At the
same time those involved in building homes and autos are facing likely
layoffs.
> I forgot to mention the Phila School District needs many teachers and
> has so for years.
One more time, you're missing the point, being able to point to the
existence of some new jobs doesn't mean the supply of workers is less than
the supply of jobs. We have real unemployment and lots of underemployment
in the US. Even during the depression, there were some new jobs, just not
enough to produce full employment.
George Kerby
On 10/15/08 7:38 PM, in article
adf262bf-bbef-49ae...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, "John H.
Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote:
Likewise, I'm sure, afflicted bean-counter...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The US is definitely in a recession
Has there been two successive quarters of declining GNP/GDP? No,
there has not. The govt reports:
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services
produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.8
percent in the second quarter of 2008".
In order for their to be a recession, the GDP has to decline for two
successive quarters. The third quarter results aren't out yet and we
haven't entered the fourth quarter.
> and possibly headed for a "depression".
We are not headed for a "depression". The conditions have radically
changed since 1929.
However, we may be headed for very steep inflation given the tons of
money being printed to spur the economy.
> In case you've missed the recent news, there's also a real credit crisis,
> homes and new automobiles aren't selling in part because buyers cannot get
> credit.
Actually, the reality is that high risk borrowers, who never should've
gotten credit in the first place, are now out of the market. Those
with good credit, that is, good income and a good down payment, can
get a loan.
> Lowered home and auto sales just make the economy worse. At the
> same time those involved in building homes and autos are facing likely
> layoffs.
The economy was running on an artifical overdrive over the last few
years, a trend that was not sustainable.
What is actually happening is that people who were once making a very
great deal of money for their occupation (be they a homebuilder or
Wall Street trader) will now find themselves back to normal levels.
> One more time, you're missing the point, being able to point to the
> existence of some new jobs doesn't mean the supply of workers is less than
> the supply of jobs. We have real unemployment and lots of underemployment
> in the US.
You've been saying this for years.
Art Clemons
>> The US is definitely in a recession
>
> Has there been two successive quarters of declining GNP/GDP? No,
> there has not. The govt reports:
>
> "Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services
> produced by labor and property
> located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.8
> percent in the second quarter of 2008".
The problem with the definition you're relying on is that often a recession
isn't detected until after it's been in effect for some time.
http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=885287
> In order for their to be a recession, the GDP has to decline for two
> successive quarters. The third quarter results aren't out yet and we
> haven't entered the fourth quarter.
I note that folks with more economic credentials disagree with you. It's an
open secret, the US is already in recession, the corrected figures just
have not been released.
>> and possibly headed for a "depression".
>
> We are not headed for a "depression". The conditions have radically
> changed since 1929.
Are you sure, well figure out just what the US has to do to recover from a
deep recession, and then tell me which resources it really has to do so.
The US is a debtor nation, it doesn't have lots of raw materials to sell,
and it doesn't manufacture a lot the rest of the world will buy if just
because so much production has been outsourced.
We are heading into a world recession most likely so there's no rescuer in
sight.
Jean Smith
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
I thought they contracted it out.
--
Debate fun http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20081016/i/r1772410910.jpg
http://www.fightthesmears.com/ http://www.palinaspresident.us/
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ http://www.backyardnature.net/rabbits.htm
Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/193352/735/868/609334
Jean Smith
Art Clemons <artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
What have they done to our economic statistics that growth means recession and
six percent unemployment is like ten in the Carter era?
Art Clemons
>> One more time, you're missing the point, being able to point to the
>> existence of some new jobs doesn't mean the supply of workers is less
>> than the supply of jobs. We have real unemployment and lots of
>> underemployment in the US.
>
> You've been saying this for years.
Unfortunately for your argument all you offer is anecdotal incidents while
ignoring statistics which contradict your claims. For that matter, it's
illogical to insist that folks with part-time jobs who are still looking
for full time jobs are employed, which is the other problem with how the US
presently displays unemployment data, or for that matter determining what
the real unemployment rate is. Thus men who present themselves for day
work at one of the hiring centers aren't unemployed because they sometimes
get paid, and folks who stop checking state unemployment centers aren't
considered unemployed even if they've checked the same centers for over a
year and have not found a reasonable lead.
Matthew T. Russotto
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The website for Albert Einstein Medical Center listed 200 openings
>from cafeteria worker to child psychiatrist.
Yeah, but are they for real? It's not uncommon for a position in any
large organization to be nominally open and posted, but not really
available in that there is no active interviewing (and likely no
budget) for it.
And in some industries the postings are entirely fake, made to match
one person and one person only, namely the H1B visa holder who has the
position.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
D.F. Manno
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> >The website for Albert Einstein Medical Center listed 200 openings
> >from cafeteria worker to child psychiatrist.
>
> Yeah, but are they for real? It's not uncommon for a position in any
> large organization to be nominally open and posted, but not really
> available in that there is no active interviewing (and likely no
> budget) for it.
>
> And in some industries the postings are entirely fake, made to match
> one person and one person only, namely the H1B visa holder who has the
> position.
Or they intend to hire from within and list the opening for legal
purposes.
D.F. Manno
> I forgot to mention the Phila School District needs many teachers and
> has so for years.
That's really helpful for all those unemployed teachers out there. For
people without a teaching credential, not so much.
kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu
> nation. (MNSVHO)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You also thought Bush Jr/Cheney would be impeached. How'd that
work out?
But we already have breadlines in Phila, so to speak. The ones that
form to feed the homeless in front of the main library branch.
kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu
As an addition, I can't think of a single time in the 30+ years, I've
been employed
at Penn, that it didn't have jobs available. This was even true during
the
70s, when the Univ. was not on great financial footing, and it was
true
when the Penn Health System was deeply in the hole in the about 8
years
ago.
What's needed are people who have the *skills* to do the jobs
available.
But as long as we continue to not graduate enough people from even
high school, many jobs will go on unfilled.
kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu
> One more time, you're missing the point, being able to point to the
> existence of some new jobs doesn't mean the supply of workers is less than
> the supply of jobs. We have real unemployment and lots of underemployment
> in the US. Even during the depression, there were some new jobs, just not
> enough to produce full employment.
Art, it's a myth to think that we've ever had true full employment no
matter the condition
of the economy. "Full employment" still presents as a certain
percentage
of unemployed.
Art Clemons
> Art, it's a myth to think that we've ever had true full employment no
> matter the condition
> of the economy. "Full employment" still presents as a certain
> percentage
> of unemployed.
There is a point though where wages rise despite some unemployed because
otherwise employers cannot find employees capable of doing the work.
Periods like this with lots of underemployment and no employment mostly
lead to wage stagnation or wage drops. In your and my lifetime, full
employment hasn't often occurred.
John H. Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does that mean you are still going to endorse others than Obama/
Biden???
I've seen MANY breadlines (throughout the years) but not as many apple
Annies that there were in the '30's.
As for Bush/Cheney impeachments, we're still working at it!!! There
is no statute of limitations on many crimes and impeachment is not,
nor will it be, the only option in the struggle for justice!!!
Mike Smith
And yet, "full employment" did occur, until Democrats took over our US
Congress in 2006.
Mike Smith
kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu
>
>
>
> Does that mean you are still going to endorse others than Obama/
> Biden???
Still? What the fuck are you talking about? I was the one who told YOU
to stop wasting time on the Bush/Cheney impeachment business
because it was distracting you and others from getting Democrats
back in the White House.
WTF, gave you any idea I was going to support anyone else other than
the
Obama/Biden ticket? I supported Obama over a year ago while you were
probably supporting Hillary Clinton and screaming about a Bush(/
Cheney)
impeachment.
> As for Bush/Cheney impeachments, we're still working at it!!!
WHY? And who is "we"?
WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU EXPECT TO ACCOMPLISH IN 2 MONTHS?
No one, who can actually do anything about it(NOT YOU) cares about it
now.
Will you finally stop talking about Bush after 1/20/09?
> There
> is no statute of limitations on many crimes and impeachment is not,
> nor will it be, the only option in the struggle for justice!!!- Hide quoted text -
NOTHING is going to happen with it. NOTHING.
No one is going to try having some kind of Nuremberg trial about
George Bush. It's going to go about as far as right-wing
buttholes who think they can prove that Obama is actually
a Indonesian citizen who gave up his American citizenship.
George Kerby
On 10/22/08 7:01 AM, in article
f695a953-bbe2-4fc4...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu
I guess Warren Buffet is a flaming socialist. Along the same lines
having
an extensive portfolio means I'm not a socialist.
> LOL!!!! I just love it when flaming socialists start back-biting each other:
>
> On 10/22/08 7:01 AM, in article
> f695a953-bbe2-4fc4-8209-6415e7e42...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
> > a Indonesian citizen who gave up his American citizenship.- Hide quoted text -
John H. Fisher
> On Oct 21, 3:41�pm, "John H. Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Does that mean you are still going to endorse others than Obama/
> > Biden???
>
> Still? What the fuck are you talking about? I was the one who told YOU
> to stop wasting time on the Bush/Cheney impeachment business
> because it was distracting you and others from getting Democrats
> back in the White House.
No need for the explitives!!!-:) I've often been confused, perhaps
misiterpreted, what you've posted regarding your claims.
> WTF, gave you any idea I was going to support anyone else other than
> the
> Obama/Biden ticket? I supported Obama over a year ago while you were
> probably supporting Hillary Clinton and screaming about a Bush(/
> Cheney)
> impeachment.
>
******I NEVER gave any indication that I supported Hillary over
Obama!!! My support, had it been the will of others, would have had
me endorsing either one of them.
> > As for Bush/Cheney impeachments, we're still working at it!!!
>
> WHY? And who �is "we"?
******Wexler 'n' Kucinich are still on the case (ME TOO)!!!=:)
> WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU EXPECT TO ACCOMPLISH IN 2 MONTHS?
>
> No one, who can actually do anything about it(NOT YOU) cares about it
> now.
> Will you finally stop talking about Bush after 1/20/09?
******I'll NEVER stop reflecting upon, and talking about, criminals in
goverment, those who have violated human rights, and those who are/
have committed crimes against humanity!!!
*******Karen, there is no statute of limitations in this regard:
> >�There
> > is no statute of limitations on many crimes and impeachment is not,
> > nor will it be, the only option in the struggle for justice!!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> NOTHING is going to happen with it. NOTHING.
> No one is going to try having �some kind of Nuremberg trial about
> George Bush. It's going to go about as far as right-wing
> buttholes who think they can prove that Obama is actually
> a Indonesian citizen who gave up his American citizenship.
*****There's quite a difference but not in our ability to substantiate
the claims!!!
George Kerby
On 10/22/08 11:02 AM, in article
2ea56d97-e4d7-4068...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Art Clemons
> And yet, "full employment" did occur, until Democrats took over our US
> Congress in 2006.
>
So which bills did Democrats pass and dumbya sign that caused the collapse
in the economy? It's a simple question, but it's one you cannot answer.
Democrats have no control over the executive branch which failed to assert
sufficient regulation. Incidentally, you might note that 2006 was only the
best year since 2001, which makes your point kind of moot. I suggest you
try a new tactic, the one you're trying falls apart too easily if one just
thinks.
Yeah, cutting taxes for the wealthy sure leads to investment in the whole
economy according to some, but for some reason it never seems to work.
John H. Fisher
********http://www.impeachplay.com/part1.php
> But we already have breadlines in Phila, so to speak. The ones that
> form to feed the homeless in front of the main library branch.- Hide quoted text -
ChairMan
John H. Fisher <TaxSe...@aol.com>spewed forth:
> On Oct 22, 8:01?am, kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 3:41?pm, "John H. Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've often been confused,
Often? That's an understatement, but probably the most honest and truthful
thing you have ever posted
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> And yet, "full employment" did occur, until Democrats took over our US
>> Congress in 2006.
>>
>
>So which bills did Democrats pass and dumbya sign that caused the collapse
>in the economy? It's a simple question, but it's one you cannot answer.
It's a trick question. The actual bill signing happened in 1999. The
unintended consequences of that "mandate" screwed us, as it fermented.
The festering mess of Fanny and Freddie, along with the complete
inaction on a rational energy policy, incessantly blocked by democrats
through the 2000's, led to our current financial problem.
>Democrats have no control over the executive branch which failed to assert
>sufficient regulation.
22 times, Bush asked for regulations on the mortgage fiasco. 22 times
democrats in Congress blocked those regulations because they would
impede the poor from getting their sub-prime mortgages.
>Incidentally, you might note that 2006 was only the
>best year since 2001, which makes your point kind of moot.
And the democrat congress was seated in what year?
{free clue: 2007} {They won control of Congress in 2006}
>I suggest you
>try a new tactic, the one you're trying falls apart too easily if one just
>thinks.
And I would suggest you attempt to "think" instead of spewing the kos
crap.
>
>Yeah, cutting taxes for the wealthy sure leads to investment in the whole
>economy according to some, but for some reason it never seems to work.
When was the last time taxes were cut for the wealthy {as a percent of
the total taxes paid}?
I do not expect you to understand any of my statements or questions,
due to your lack of any known intelligence in these matters, as
exhibited by your numerous posts.
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> It's a trick question. The actual bill signing happened in 1999. The
> unintended consequences of that "mandate" screwed us, as it fermented.
Republican Congress in 1999 wasn't it? Even assuming that said enabling
passed in 1999, what happened to adequate regulation by the executive
branch?
> The festering mess of Fanny and Freddie, along with the complete
> inaction on a rational energy policy, incessantly blocked by democrats
> through the 2000's, led to our current financial problem.
Absolute nonsense. Mortgage companies began issuing loans simply based on
standards which got progressively looser, and then reselling the mortgages
as securities. Since the brokers got paid based on the loans generated,
there was great incentive to keep finding mortgages to sell. At no time
did any bill passed by Congress actually mandate for example no-interest
no-asset loans, nor did it mandate that rating agencies rate such
instruments as reliable.
>>Democrats have no control over the executive branch which failed to assert
>>sufficient regulation.
>
> 22 times, Bush asked for regulations on the mortgage fiasco. 22 times
> democrats in Congress blocked those regulations because they would
> impede the poor from getting their sub-prime mortgages.
The authority needed to regulate was already present. This is also an
administration that grabbed whatever authority it desired and then fought
like hell, consider trying to get the ability to declare a US citizen an
enemy combatant and holding said citizen indefinitely as an example.
>>Incidentally, you might note that 2006 was only the
>>best year since 2001, which makes your point kind of moot.
>
> And the democrat congress was seated in what year?
> {free clue: 2007} {They won control of Congress in 2006}
One more time, blaming the present Congress for actions taken by a previous
Congress with a different party in control strikes me as ludicrous. Which
bills did the present Congress pass which lead to a mess which was already
beginning to manifest in late 2006? You cannot do it, you just want to try
to shift blame.
>>I suggest you
>>try a new tactic, the one you're trying falls apart too easily if one just
>>thinks.
>
> And I would suggest you attempt to "think" instead of spewing the kos
> crap.
What kos are you referring to? Your tactic did indeed fall apart, you're
attempting to refute based on smoke and mirrors. For example your 22 times
claim for Democrats has to be referring to the Senate, but you don't even
bother to mention which bills you're referring to.
>>
>>Yeah, cutting taxes for the wealthy sure leads to investment in the whole
>>economy according to some, but for some reason it never seems to work.
>
> When was the last time taxes were cut for the wealthy {as a percent of
> the total taxes paid}?
The last Bushleague tax cuts sure did that! Guess you can't read or count.
> I do not expect you to understand any of my statements or questions,
> due to your lack of any known intelligence in these matters, as
> exhibited by your numerous posts.
>
I don't understand the complete and utter lack of attention to reality and
the truth you show, you're indeed correct!
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
<reinstated headers intentionally snipped by this fool>
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> It's a trick question. The actual bill signing happened in 1999. The
>> unintended consequences of that "mandate" screwed us, as it fermented.
>
>Republican Congress in 1999 wasn't it? Even assuming that said enabling
>passed in 1999, what happened to adequate regulation by the executive
>branch?
Poison pills in the bill. All you have to do is look for them, slipped
in by the piece of shit socialists infesting our US Congress.
>
>> The festering mess of Fanny and Freddie, along with the complete
>> inaction on a rational energy policy, incessantly blocked by democrats
>> through the 2000's, led to our current financial problem.
>
>Absolute nonsense.
<snipped the rest of his clueless rant>
You are clueless. The incentives to give loans to people that could
not afford the loans gave the banks "bonus points" for when they
wanted to expand or buy other banks. This is easily found information.
Why are you so ignorant about history?
No time for you now. It's time to fill the freezer with venison.
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> You are clueless. The incentives to give loans to people that could
> not afford the loans gave the banks "bonus points" for when they
> wanted to expand or buy other banks. This is easily found information.
> Why are you so ignorant about history?
>
If you knew what you were typing about, you'ld have noticed that
conventional mortgages could have been given to many, only problem is that
the sub-prime mortgages offered more in fees for the brokers among other
features. Further it doesn't explain how so many sub-prime mortgages got
rated as safe investments. You can rant all you want, but you cannot make
the facts go away. Incidentally, one other problem with your claim,
mortgage lenders became separate from most banks and thus not subject to
the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which you're trying to place the blame
on.
You don't have facts to back you. You can't even detail the 22 times
Democrats denied requested regulatory powers to the executive branch.
I suggest you're the one ignorant of recent history
Mike Smith
Your suggestion is read and ignored. I have posted a ton of proof that
you simply ignore.
I understand why you MUST ignore the facts that I have posted. It
upsets your stupid little myopic view of the world.
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> Your suggestion is read and ignored. I have posted a ton of proof that
> you simply ignore.
>
> I understand why you MUST ignore the facts that I have posted. It
> upsets your stupid little myopic view of the world.
The problem for you is that your claims aren't backed by the supposed
evidence you provide. For example, you continue to blame Democrats for the
present economic problems, yet the problematic loans didn't begin until
after republicans controlled the White House and Congress. You also claim
that somehow Bush's request for more authority was blocked 22 times without
providing any backing for that claim at all. When and what authority was
requested. You duck backing what you claim, relying on vague statements
and nonsense. You lose that way if the individual responding just thinks
for a moment.
You also ignore that it wasn't banks that got involved in the sub-prime
mess, it was mortgage lenders who were not regulated by the FDIC, nor
subject to the CRA. Until you can explain what steps dumbya et al
suggested which were rejected by actions of Democrats, you have a losing
argument, especially since Greenspan's role in this mess is also mostly
being ignored by your arguments. The unregulated free market paradigm did
not work, while Bush, Greenspan et al insisted it was working.
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> Your suggestion is read and ignored. I have posted a ton of proof that
>> you simply ignore.
>>
>> I understand why you MUST ignore the facts that I have posted. It
>> upsets your stupid little myopic view of the world.
>
>
>The problem for you is that your claims aren't backed by the supposed
>evidence you provide.
Still too stupid to do your own research, I see...
Here, let me hand-feed you the info you cannot find:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38135
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – a Carter-era policy that
requires federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage banks to
grant loans to people with low income and little credit – played a
major role in sparking the sub-prime mortgage crisis the nation now
faces, according to economist Russell Roberts, who spoke at a forum on
the issue Thursday at the Hudson Institute.
“I see the [current financial] mess as an example of the government’s
attempt to engineer housing outcomes,” said Roberts, an economics
professor at George Mason University. “People spend other people’s
money much less carefully than they spend their own.”
But by allowing individuals to take loans for which they were not
qualified, the CRA was forcing banks to fail, which was at the root of
the crisis, said Roberts.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), ranking Republican on the Senate Banking
Committee
“We created an unsustainable system where banks are expected to be
charitable,” said Roberts, noting the fact that the federal government
encouraged banks and lending agencies to make loans that they
otherwise likely would not have made.
“Banks are designed to be businesses and make money, and charities are
designed to be charities,” he said.
http://look2thewest.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/democrats-1-trillion-mistake/
Poor baby... It must really suck to be you...
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> Still too stupid to do your own research, I see...
>
> Here, let me hand-feed you the info you cannot find:
>
First of all, CNS isn't exactly a reliable news source. 2nd, the
description is inaccurate, ONCE AGAIN, it only applied to BANKS, and most
of the subprime mortgages were not issued by banks, but rather by entities
not subject to said act. Your source has a problem with accuracy and
attention to detail. Check again, look up Countrywide for example, which
was purchased by a bank (Wachovia) but was not a bank!
Your other cited economic expert ignores for example:
http://www.ncrc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=353&Itemid=80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-cra25-2008oct25,0,6436443.story
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/cra_fannie_and.html
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10788883?source=most_emailed
Guess you need to do more research and find better sources for your claims!
Ron
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> Still too stupid to do your own research, I see...
>>
>> Here, let me hand-feed you the info you cannot find:
>>
>
>First of all, CNS isn't exactly a reliable news source. 2nd, the
>description is inaccurate, ONCE AGAIN, it only applied to BANKS, and most
>of the subprime mortgages were not issued by banks, but rather by entities
>not subject to said act. Your source has a problem with accuracy and
>attention to detail. Check again, look up Countrywide for example, which
>was purchased by a bank (Wachovia) but was not a bank!
Countrywide was purchased by Bank of America, and as a result,
B of A has cut its dividend in half, and is now asking for 10's of
billions from the Treasure bailout. And it was McSame's deregulation
that caused all the grief.
Here is McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMwh2LZA_zo
Mike Smith
Based on your links, you know nothing about why the mortgage industry
collapsed. Re-read my link.
And let me attempt to educate you. {yea, never gonna happen, but who
knows...}
Here's a pretty good explanation:
http://look2thewest.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/democrats-1-trillion-mistake/
1. In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act forced
banks to “provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to
under-served populations”.
2. In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to
come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
3. In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of
these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and
Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1
trillion during Clinton’s term in office - a five fold increase.
4. In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/48000/The-Democrat-Butterfly-Efffect--48318.jpg
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/48500/Obama-Head-in-the-Sand--48666.jpg
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/48500/Obama-on-taking-over-a-country--48636.jpg
Art Clemons
> Based on your links, you know nothing about why the mortgage industry
> collapsed. Re-read my link.
An asinine links with obvious falsehoods, falsehoods that are rebutted by
the data in the links I provided. Once again, you didn't bother to READ
what the FACTS were, but rather insisted on an economist who ignored
reality, Alan Greenspan and what the CRA regulated. I guess the mortgage
lenders who were not regulated and made most of the sub-prime loans
voluntarily complied with it under your scheme.
I haven't even mentioned how mortgage brokers played a part in this fiasco,
mostly because sub-prime loans paid more than conventional mortgages would.
You haven't rebutted anything and insist that an incorrect article from CNS
be taken as gospel. Face it, there's not even any evidence you read the
links I provided.
Art Clemons
>
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/48500/Obama-on-taking-over-a-country--48636.jpg
I think your cartoon approach gives away much, not only that the supposedly
punny title of the simulated magazine also reveals just why you don't know
anything, you rely on cartoons and simulations making your sense of truth,
justice and the American Way, News Weak and stupidity strong!
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Or they intend to hire from within and list the opening for legal
> purposes.
Well, I've referred friends to such public postings and they were
hired as a result.
It is a fact that SEPTA needs people in its railroad division, and is
expanding bus service so it needs 200 more drivers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> What's needed are people who have the *skills* to do the jobs
> available.
> But as long as we continue to not graduate enough people from even
> high school, many jobs will go on unfilled.
There are jobs at Wawa for unskilled people. Even people with lousy
backgrounds such as ex-cons and unfinished high school.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> ******I'll NEVER stop reflecting upon, and talking about, criminals in
> goverment, those who have violated human rights, and those who are/
> have committed crimes against humanity!!!
> *******Karen, there is no statute of limitations in this regard:
What about FDR, who lied, provoked, disregarded Congress, and covered
up to get the US into WW II? Who tried to do an end run around the
Supreme Court when it found his programs unconstitutional?
How's that campaign going? Seems to me that if you're truly serious,
you would at least get him removed from the dime.
Mike Smith
Nope, I just love feeding you libtard's fantasies...
And you are especially easy...
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> Nope, I just love feeding you libtard's fantasies...
>
> And you are especially easy...
>
Remember that was supposedly in response to a claim that you didn't have
good sources. If your idea of offering a response is to offer outdated an
incorrect cartoons with juvenile concepts rather a source that backs you
factually, so be it. Of course if you think that offering fantasy is a
substitute for backing your claims with facts, you'll find everyone "easy".
Mike Smith
You have yet to recognize a single fact, despite my posting of
numerous facts.
Perhaps you should get someone that is competent in English and
liberal-speak to explain what a fact is, in terms you might
understand.
Or not...
Mike Smith
pitchforks&torches
"Art Clemons" <artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ge89am$qpg$1...@news.albasani.net...
Art:
"You are attempting to communicate with a clueless blithering idiot.
There is no way he could understand you. He simply does not have the
intelligence required to add 2+2, much less any type of coherent
thought processes. "
MWS
Heeheehee....
Art Clemons
> You have yet to recognize a single fact, despite my posting of
> numerous facts.
You claim that this problem was caused by the CRA, yet when contradictory
evidence, even that from real newspapers and sources which should know what
is what, you continue to offer the same ridiculous sources.
Further, you don't even bother to explain how the CRA affected non bank
institutions or made things worse, because you cannot. The CRA has been in
effect since 1977, yet the alleged problems did not begin until dumbya was
the one regulating. You also do not bother to explain just why paying
mortgage brokers more in fees for a sub-prime mortgage than for a
conventional mortgage was a wise move (it wasn't, brokers got a bonus for
talking a buyer into a riskier more likely to result in foreclosure
mortgage). Finally you don't deal with things like credit default swaps at
all. Instead you offer a simplistic solution based on the CRA causing all
of this problem, while ignoring lack of regulation and Greenspan keeping
the economy too hot for way too long.
Yeah, you're so analytic, and offer oh so many facts to back what you claim
that frankly a first grader would likely be flunked for making such a poor
analysis.
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> You have yet to recognize a single fact, despite my posting of
>> numerous facts.
>
>You claim that this problem was caused by the CRA, yet when contradictory
>evidence, even that from real newspapers and sources which should know what
>is what, you continue to offer the same ridiculous sources.
Thanks for posting proof that you do not have the first clue about
this problem.
>
>Further, you don't even bother to explain how the CRA affected non bank
>institutions or made things worse, because you cannot. The CRA has been in
>effect since 1977, yet the alleged problems did not begin until dumbya was
>the one regulating. You also do not bother to explain just why paying
>mortgage brokers more in fees for a sub-prime mortgage than for a
>conventional mortgage was a wise move (it wasn't, brokers got a bonus for
>talking a buyer into a riskier more likely to result in foreclosure
>mortgage). Finally you don't deal with things like credit default swaps at
>all. Instead you offer a simplistic solution based on the CRA causing all
>of this problem, while ignoring lack of regulation and Greenspan keeping
>the economy too hot for way too long.
OK, one last time... I'll make it as simple as I can, just for you.
The CRA demanded that banks and mortgage institutes loan money to poor
people if they wanted to grow or expand. They had a CRA score they had
to meet before they could grow or expand. As the democrats wormed
their way through the years, the score became harder to reach, unless
the banks loaned money to the really poor. This snowballed into the
Freddy and Fanny institutes, causing a major collapse of the system.
Democrats caused it, democrats threw $700 billion at the problem, and
then blamed Bush.
I really do not expect you to understand this.
You have proven yourself to be a rather stupid individual.
Mike Smith
pitchforks&torches
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:7upgg4hn0ibc6e4i7...@4ax.com...
WHACK!!!!
Smithole sez: "Hurry, hurry, my children. Hurry. All I think (unintelligible) from the
hands of the enemy. Hurry, my children. Hurry. There are seniors out here that I'm
concerned about. Hurry. I don't want to leave my seniors to this mess. Only quickly,
quickly, quickly, quickly, quickly. Good knowing you. No more pain now. No more pain,
I said. No more pain."
Art Clemons
> OK, one last time... I'll make it as simple as I can, just for you.
>
> The CRA demanded that banks and mortgage institutes loan money to poor
> people if they wanted to grow or expand. They had a CRA score they had
> to meet before they could grow or expand. As the democrats wormed
> their way through the years, the score became harder to reach, unless
> the banks loaned money to the really poor. This snowballed into the
> Freddy and Fanny institutes, causing a major collapse of the system.
> Democrats caused it, democrats threw $700 billion at the problem, and
> then blamed Bush.
>
Brain damamaged, I have repeatedly stated and posted URLs which specifically
stated that the CRA only applied to BANKS. It did not and does not apply
to most of the mortgage lenders who made sub-prime loans. Even if the CRA
did apply to non bank lenders, it still would not explain the stupidity of
rewarding mortgage brokers with higher fees for involving borrowers in the
riskier sub-prime loans even if they qualified for conventional mortgages.
Incidentally many banks escaped lending in some areas by shutting down
branches especially when acquiring other banks. Some poor areas could go
from two branches to zero without the CRA affecting the effective shutting
down of banking for a neighborhood.
You also have yet to explain how credit rating entities managed to rate
mortgages based on no income and no asset verification as grade A
investments, or just what part the CRA played in securitizing sub-prime
mortgages. In fact if mortgage lenders had not been able to sell bonds
which were insured and highly rated, the practice of sub-prime lending
would have ended rapidly..
Alan Greenspan and the federal reserve also get ignored by you. The fiscal
policy was to increase the money supply.
One other point, at least half of the defaulted mortgages didn't involve
neighborhoods affected by the CRA, so you might want to research that issue
too.
There are too many holes in the CRA argument and it ignores that greed on
the part of lenders lead to the problems rather than any attempt to comply
with the law. It was precisely the lack of regulation of the entire
mortgage industry that indirectly lead to present crisis.
Mike Smith
<artcl...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> OK, one last time... I'll make it as simple as I can, just for you.
>>
>> The CRA demanded that banks and mortgage institutes loan money to poor
>> people if they wanted to grow or expand. They had a CRA score they had
>> to meet before they could grow or expand. As the democrats wormed
>> their way through the years, the score became harder to reach, unless
>> the banks loaned money to the really poor. This snowballed into the
>> Freddy and Fanny institutes, causing a major collapse of the system.
>> Democrats caused it, democrats threw $700 billion at the problem, and
>> then blamed Bush.
>>
>
>
>Brain damamaged, I have repeatedly stated and posted URLs which specifically
>stated that the CRA only applied to BANKS. It did not and does not apply
>to most of the mortgage lenders who made sub-prime loans.
I tried to make it as simple as possible for you and you still don't
get it. I gave you links you ignored, I gave you facts you ignored,
and I spent time trying to educate you. None of it worked.
Your ignorance and your constant attempt to redirect this thread is
not my problem.
Live with your stupidity... It's all you got.
Mike Smith
Art Clemons
> I tried to make it as simple as possible for you and you still don't
> get it. I gave you links you ignored, I gave you facts you ignored,
> and I spent time trying to educate you. None of it worked.
>
Ok, let's assume I don't understand anything, want to argue with Alan
Greenspan giving testimony before Congress:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/23/greenspan-testimony-on-sources-of-financial-crisis/
Now, you'll note that the transcript is from the WSJ.
He discounts your explanation. Now am I to assume that you and your sources
are better situated to understand what went wrong than Greenspan? I
suggest you have an ideological problem with what happened on dumbya's
watch and want to blame a convenient source, Greenspan seems to agree with
me, or from your perspective I'm more likely to agree with Greenspan than
with you. Find a comparable source to back your claims or admit you were
wrong!
John H Fisher
<kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:2ea56d97-e4d7-4068...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 11:03 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess Warren Buffet is a flaming socialist. Along the same lines
having
an extensive portfolio means I'm not a socialist.
> LOL!!!! I just love it when flaming socialists start back-biting each
> other:
>
> On 10/22/08 7:01 AM, in article
> f695a953-bbe2-4fc4-8209-6415e7e42...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
> "kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu" <kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 3:41 pm, "John H. Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Does that mean you are still going to endorse others than Obama/
> >> Biden???
>
> > Still? What the fuck are you talking about? I was the one who told YOU
> > to stop wasting time on the Bush/Cheney impeachment business
> > because it was distracting you and others from getting Democrats
> > back in the White House.
>
> > WTF, gave you any idea I was going to support anyone else other than
> > the
> > Obama/Biden ticket? I supported Obama over a year ago while you were
> > probably supporting Hillary Clinton and screaming about a Bush(/
> > Cheney)
> > impeachment.
>
> >> As for Bush/Cheney impeachments, we're still working at it!!!
>
> > WHY? And who is "we"?
>
> > WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU EXPECT TO ACCOMPLISH IN 2 MONTHS?
>
> > No one, who can actually do anything about it(NOT YOU) cares about it
> > now.
> > Will you finally stop talking about Bush after 1/20/09?
>
> >> There
> >> is no statute of limitations on many crimes and impeachment is not,
> >> nor will it be, the only option in the struggle for justice!!!- Hide
> >> quoted
> >> text -
>
> > NOTHING is going to happen with it. NOTHING.
> > No one is going to try having some kind of Nuremberg trial about
> > George Bush. It's going to go about as far as right-wing
> > buttholes who think they can prove that Obama is actually
> > a Indonesian citizen who gave up his American citizenship.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
***St Teresa said "Patience Gains ALL Things"!!! I say "Where There Is
Life, There Is HOPE!!!!!-:)
"Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing frighten you.
All things are passing;
God only is changeless.
Patience gains all things."
George Kerby
On 11/19/08 12:32 PM, in article gg1m4c$bpt$2...@news.motzarella.org, "John H
Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:2ea56d97-e4d7-4068...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 11:03 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess Warren Buffet is a flaming socialist. Along the same lines
> having
> an extensive portfolio means I'm not a socialist.
>
Thank your Messiah for it's terminal condition. Ever since the election, it
has been losing value faster than a sieve losing water. But I guess that
shouldn't bother one who confuses decimal points with commas. Oh well...
John H Fisher
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C54AD928.189D2%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 11/19/08 12:32 PM, in article gg1m4c$bpt$2...@news.motzarella.org, "John H
> Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> <kyb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>> news:2ea56d97-e4d7-4068...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 22, 11:03 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess Warren Buffet is a flaming socialist. Along the same lines
>> having
>> an extensive portfolio means I'm not a socialist.
>>
> Thank your Messiah for it's terminal condition. Ever since the election,
> it
> has been losing value faster than a sieve losing water. But I guess that
> shouldn't bother one who confuses decimal points with commas. Oh well...
****You're quite confused. Georgie,!!!-:) I'm quite secure/ THANK YOU.
without any stock which "has been losing value faster than a sieve losing
water",
'n' THANK YOU for your editing!!! Don't know what I'd do without the help
of your blessed being!!! But. I'm sure I'd find a way,