Re: Social Justice = Communism
Lifsabsurd
dog.com> wrote:
> That's a code word of the left.
>
> Know any more?
Here are a few more such words or phrases:
Hope and Change
Transformation
Black Liberation
Feminism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Spreading the Wealh Around
Playing Robin Hood
I'm sure the list is much longer.
Dick Fitswell
b51d-595...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 8, 1:17�pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> That's a code word of the left.
>>
>> Know any more?
>
> Here are a few more such words or phrases:
>
> Hope and Change
> Transformation
> Black Liberation
> Feminism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
this last is used as a smear by conservatives so it hardly belongs in
this thread.
Kevin Cunningham
And what do they mean?
Well, meaning isn't a big thing to repugs. They don't worry about
what a thing means, it means what they want it to mean. Yeah, "Alice
in Wonderland" writ large.
Lifsabsurd
> On Sep 8, 2:47 pm, Lifsabsurd <lifsabs...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 1:17 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@talk-n-
>
> > dog.com> wrote:
> > > That's a code word of the left.
>
> > > Know any more?
>
> > Here are a few more such words or phrases:
>
> > Hope and Change
> > Transformation
> > Black Liberation
> > Feminism
> > Progressivism
> > Liberalism
> > Spreading the Wealh Around
> > Playing Robin Hood
>
> > I'm sure the list is much longer.
>
> And what do they mean?
They all mean the same thing:
"Run away as fast as you can when you hear this."
ROTFL
Seriously, they all refer to aspects of socialist/communist ideology.
Lifsabsurd
> Lifsabsurd <lifsabs...@charter.net> wrote in news:87d342ac-12eb-4297-
> b51d-595233fde...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 8, 1:17 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> That's a code word of the left.
>
> >> Know any more?
>
> > Here are a few more such words or phrases:
>
> > Hope and Change
> > Transformation
> > Black Liberation
> > Feminism
> > Progressivism
> > Liberalism
>
> this last is used as a smear by conservatives so it hardly belongs in
> this thread.
Those leftists in this country who call themselves liberals, have
subverted the classical meaning of the word, and it has become to them
a code word for extreme socialism/communism. Not all Demoncraps
consider themselves liberals. Only the most leftist. I think it
belongs.
Kevin Cunningham
What is sooooo much fun is watching any thing we dems say redefined by
repugs as socialist of communist. You don't know what either word
means but that doesn't stop you!
For instance, every other country in the world has "socialized"
medicine. And what happens in these benighted countries? People live
longer, better, lives and it costs less. How's that?
Are these countries socialist paradises or is it a fact that there is
little capitalism in medicine?
The fact is that there is darn little capitalism in medicine.
Medicines change is based on research done at government and
charitable funded institutions, you don't have a chance to shop around
and government creates doctors.
Lifsabsurd
You assholes keep making that bullshit assertion, but you never offer
to teach us what it is we don't understand. Why don't you do that
now?
You are also someone with a learning disability, who still can't
determine when to write "you're" versus "your." You have no insight
whatsoever into your own stupidity.
> For instance, every other country in the world has "socialized"
> medicine.
Cite? ROTFL
And what happens in these benighted countries? People live
> longer, better, lives and it costs less. How's that?
It costs less? Because of rationing of health care and lack of
choice? You get what you pay for.
And tell us about cancer survival rates in this country versus
countries with similar demographics.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=3004
> Are these countries socialist paradises or is it a fact that there is
> little capitalism in medicine?
If there is little capitalism in medicine now, as you appear to be
asserting, then why would one want to eliminate even more capitalistic
influences? The proper remedy would be more capitalism.
> The fact is that there is darn little capitalism in medicine.
> Medicines change is based on research done at government and
> charitable funded institutions, you don't have a chance to shop around
> and government creates doctors.- Hide quoted text -
What nonsense. There are no private medical schools in the country?
And there are no private pharmaceutical companies researching and
developing new meds? I guess I didn't work then for several years for
a private company, no government subsidies, to try to produce
erythropoietin? You really have no idea what nonsense you are
spewing.
And the biggest irony of all, is that, if your argument that there is
little or no capitalism in medicine today had any merit at all, it
would be an argument that more capitalism should be introduced. In
other words, you are arguing the conservative side. LOL
Dick Fitswell
news:04cb55ec-d68c-4a49...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 8, 2:30�pm, Dick Fitswell <bigus.dic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lifsabsurd <lifsabs...@charter.net> wrote in news:87d342ac-12eb-4297-
>> b51d-595233fde...@38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sep 8, 1:17�pm, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> > <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@talk-n- dog.com> wrote:
>> >> That's a code word of the left.
>>
>> >> Know any more?
>>
>> > Here are a few more such words or phrases:
>>
>> > Hope and Change
>> > Transformation
>> > Black Liberation
>> > Feminism
>> > Progressivism
>> > Liberalism
>>
>> this last is used as a smear by conservatives so it hardly belongs in
>> this thread.
>
> Those leftists in this country who call themselves liberals, have
> subverted the classical meaning of the word,
bullshit.
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, brilliant repartee. Your arguments are so cogent and insightful.
LOL
Kevin Cunningham
Gee, moron, yes, there are "private" medical schools. The school pays
about 30% and the government pays the rest. The difference between a
private medical school and a public one is in a private school some
one other than the state pays the first 30%.
This is another example of the stupidity of repugs. They don't know
enough to make rational statements but that doesn't stop them. This
drooler hasn't gotten the point yet that every single core medical
discovery made in the last 150 years was paid for by a government.
Every single doctor gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in
government funding.
The fact is that the capitalist medical system is capitalist in name
only, thank goodness.
Every class one emergency room is funded by the government. Most
health care costs are now paid for by the government, medicare and
medicaid. Education of doctors and nurses is mostly government
funded.
So how many government bucks do you get?
Lifsabsurd
Your figures are way off:
http://www.amsa.org/student/tuition_FAQ.cfm
>
> This is another example of the stupidity of repugs. They don't know
> enough to make rational statements but that doesn't stop them. This
> drooler hasn't gotten the point yet that every single core medical
> discovery made in the last 150 years was paid for by a government.
> Every single doctor gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> government funding.
Complete nonsense. Not all grants are government grants. Many
research grants are made by private foundations. You want to tell me
that researchers working at a private company never make discoveries?
Discoveries are made by researchers in completely private companies
every day. I have worked for one that had no government subsidization
for the research program I was in. Amgen cloned the gene for Ep and
made a ton of money. How did the government subsidize that? Because
government was involved in their sewer system? LOL
> The fact is that the capitalist medical system is capitalist in name
> only, thank goodness.
Pharmaceutical research is entirely government subsidized? Complete
nonsense.
> Every class one emergency room is funded by the government. Most
> health care costs are now paid for by the government, medicare and
> medicaid. Education of doctors and nurses is mostly government
> funded.
That does not prove your assertion above that there is very little
capitalism in medicine. There is no private health insurance in your
world? Or you just wish there were none? You love government control
don't you?
> So how many government bucks do you get?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More than I wish. The related question is: How many bucks of MINE
did I have to surrender to the government, and am only now getting
back?
So, we have a terrible medical system, which, according to you, is
already largely controlled by government, but you want to expand
government's role rather than make it more private. And that makes
sense to you. LOL
Kevin Cunningham
So how is a foundation grant different from a government grant? You
don't have to pay back any grant. Got that? Both are charitable.
And you claim to have worked for a private company and you don't know
a thing about grants. Yeah, sure.......
The fact is that you don't know a thing about grants, grant request,
their frequency, who submits what to whom or any thing else about the
process. You don't know what granting agencies there are or were they
are. Face it, bunkie, you said enough to let us all know that you are
the typical right winger, a timid, scared little creature hobbling
through life at the lowest rung you can find.
Now you admit that you suck off the government teat, you just don't
want any competition.
wy
Oh, you mean all the positive stuff equals communism? So capitalism
then is all about:
Despair and stagnancy
Inertia
Black enslavement
Oppressed women
Regressivism
Conservatism
Making sure that all wealth is only in one guy's hands
and being Prince John?
That's what you're defending?
Nice.
Down The Rabbit Hole
wy
Freedom to do what? To be depressed, broke, make no advancements in
life, have people feel trapped and controlled, just so an elite few
can benefit ?
Nice.
Lifsabsurd
DUH. Private foundations are NOT taxpayer funded. I, as a taxpayer
am paying for a government grant. I am not paying for a grant from a
private foundation.
> And you claim to have worked for a private company and you don't know
> a thing about grants. Yeah, sure.......
You leap to hopelessly illogical conclusions.
> The fact is that you don't know a thing about grants, grant request,
> their frequency, who submits what to whom or any thing else about the
> process. You don't know what granting agencies there are or were they
> are. Face it, bunkie, you said enough to let us all know that you are
> the typical right winger, a timid, scared little creature hobbling
> through life at the lowest rung you can find.
How in the hell do you manage to come up with such totally illogical
conclusions?
> Now you admit that you suck off the government teat, you just don't
> want any competition
You are completely irrational.
Lifsabsurd
Everyone who read your list must be wondering the same thing I am.
Are these things on your list mainly a reflection of your own
impression of yourself? Do you feel enslaved? Stagnant? Do you feel
despair? Are you inert? Are you oppressed? Are you poor? Or are
they your delusions about the state of the country?
I don't consider myself to be any of those things. Neither, I think,
do the overwhelming majority of people in this country. Maybe you
have a problem.
A word or two about Robin Hood vs. King John. In the Robin Hood myth,
the character who was portrayed as most evil, King John, was
overtaxing the hard working people, people who earned their money,
stealing from them in effect to spread wealth to an undeserving class
of lazy, useless, corrupt people that supported him. Who would you
say in this country today is the most like King John? Who (and what
party) will overtax hard working people, people who earn their money,
stealing from them in effect to spread the wealth around to an
undeserving class of lazy, useless, corrupt people who support him
(the party)? Can you say, OBAMA? And DEMONCRAPS?
Demoncraps are Orwellian creatures. They routinely rationalize evil
into virtue.
Lifsabsurd
You sound pitiful. Do you have any friends? Are you considering
suicide? If so, get professional help. Yes. You can get such help.
Go to an emergency room.
Down The Rabbit Hole
Thorazine, may be the magic bullet.
wy
No, it's a reflection of what you appear to support and defend - the
exact opposite of positivism.
>
> I don't consider myself to be any of those things. Neither, I think,
> do the overwhelming majority of people in this country. Maybe you
> have a problem.
The problem lies in the one who scorns optimism.
>
> A word or two about Robin Hood vs. King John. In the Robin Hood myth,
> the character who was portrayed as most evil, King John, was
> overtaxing the hard working people, people who earned their money,
> stealing from them in effect to spread wealth to an undeserving class
> of lazy, useless, corrupt people that supported him. Who would you
> say in this country today is the most like King John? Who (and what
> party) will overtax hard working people, people who earn their money,
> stealing from them in effect to spread the wealth around to an
> undeserving class of lazy, useless, corrupt people who support him
> (the party)? Can you say, OBAMA? And DEMONCRAPS?
Here are some interesting stats that would be interesting to
corroborate. It's not the first time I encountered this sort of
information, CNN having mentioned something similar to it some time
ago, so the stats would tend to be more or less true:
http://thewaterispoison.blogspot.com/2009/02/great-republican-challenge.html
So you tell me from that who the robber barons really are.
>
> Demoncraps are Orwellian creatures. They routinely rationalize evil
> into virtue.
Or more like they point out the Orwellian creatures to you as being
the collective Republican 666 Beast and you simply refuse to see, read
or hear any of it. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when the Day
of Reckoning comes.
Kevin Cunningham
Wow, so you lied and came up with a straw man and rode it around for a
while.
The fact is that you don't know what a grant or a grant request is.
You lied and acted hypocritically but that's not unusual.
You admit that you suck on the government teat but you want others to
stay away. That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Kevin Cunningham
And you supported Bush and just loved the fact that he cut taxes and
ran up the biggest deficit in history. You used to insist that
deficits don't matter. How's that workin' out for ya'?
And you run up the deficit by taking government money. I thought you
had some morals.......
Lifsabsurd
Completely irrational blather.
> The fact is that you don't know what a grant or a grant request is.
> You lied and acted hypocritically but that's not unusual.
Your conclusions are illogical. You are a very confused guy.
> You admit that you suck on the government teat but you want others to
> stay away. That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.- Hide quoted text -
You might as well allege that I said I was an alien. You have no
evidence of any of these irrational assertions. I knew you were a
little crazy from past discussions but I had no idea how completely
irrational you were.
Lifsabsurd
The biggest deficit in history is what Obama is giving us. There is
no way in hell that I ever insisted that deficits don't matter.
> And you run up the deficit by taking government money. I thought you
> had some morals.......
Totally irrational. Baseless assertions based on no information or
facts whatsoever. How much longer to you intend to spout this kind of
insanity? Becasue it is for me to just ignore you.
wy
> On Sep 12, 7:08 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 1:52 pm, Lifsabsurd <lifsabs...@charter.net> wrote:
>
What Obama has given you in terms of a deficit so far isn't even a
tenth yet, if that much, of what Bush has so graciously left you
with. Remember, you're still living largely on Bush's deficit,
regardless of what Obama is doing, whose actual deficit, if it
surpasses Bush's, won't materialize for another few years, if at all.
But if track record holds, expect the Democrats to keep that deficit
down, as they have always done when in power. It's the Republicans
who always spike it up. You're so on the wrong side and can't even
see it.
Lifsabsurd
First of all, as I have written several times in this newsgroup, it is
very simple-minded to try to hold a particular president completely
responsible for the deficits incurred during his term(s). So many
other factors beyond his control must be taken into account. Like who
controlled congress for example, and what unpredictable events
happened on his watch, and, most of all, what programs were put into
place by his predecessors that caused large deficits to materialize
during his term. Under Bush we spent a lot of money that was not
Bush's fault (and some that was). For example, Clinton, more than any
other president, has the blame for the cost of the bailout of the
subprime mortgage crisis, because he set the ball rolling in the late
90s.
Nevertheless, if you mean that the national debt which Bush added in 8
years is greater than what Obama has *technically* added so far you
are barely correct. But you are comparing roughly 8 years of Bush to
less than one of Obama. And you are even incorrect in saying that it
is only a tenth of the cumulated deficits in the Bush years. Take a
look at this:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges/budget-deficit/
The cumulated deficits that could in any way, even your stupid way, be
ascribed to Bush (just because they occurred during his terms of
office) total less than perhaps 2.5 trillion dollars (very rough but
reasonable estimate, based on the chart in the reference just above).
Obama himself has already added well over 1 trillion dollars for
fiscal year ending 9/30, and he will add more in the rest of his first
year in office. So the ratio is about 1 to 2.5 at the most. That is
not a tenth. It is 1 part out of 3.5 or between a fourth and a third
AND THAT IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF OBAMA TO 8 OF BUSH!!
Now let's look at your prediction that Obama and the Demoncraps will
keep future accumulated deficits down. First of all, using your
asinine way of attributing deficits, the answer to that would depend
on how long he is president. That point alone should make any reader
understand how silly it is to ascribe a deficit entirely to a
particular president. Because what Obama has already set in motion
and what he plans to do will affect accumulated deficits for the next
30 years. If Obama is not president after 2012, nevertheless he will
still be affecting the deficits for many years to come. Actually, it
is probably more accurate to say that he WOULD affect deficits for
longer than his presidency, except that the economy is unsustainable
and so it will never happen.
But what about Obama's effect on future deficits:
Obama's own administration admits that he will be responsible for
adding 9 trillion dollars to the national debt over roughly the next
10 years, even if he is not the president for all ten of those years.
Techncally, if we still have a constitution, he can't be.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/25/news/economy/us_deficit_projection/index.htm?postversion=2009082517
The CBO doesn't really differ much in its projections except in what
to count:
And neither of these estimates count the cost of heathcare nor the
cost to the economy of passing a cap-and-tax bill, or any other
insane, socialist policy that Obama wants to dump on the country.
If Obama dumps the asinine healthcare bill on us, it won't start until
2013. If Obama is not reelected, the FY2013 deficit will be ascribed
BY YOU to whoever is president then. If that is a Republican then you
will later claim that, since the large deficit happened while a
Republican was president it was his fault. Total nonsense.
The total amount added to the national debt during the Bush years, the
total accumulated deficit, was, again, perhaps 2.5 trillion dollars.
Some of that was Bush's fault, much was not. But Obama is projected
to add 9 trillion to the national debt, and that is an underestimate,
and that will only increase if the healthcar bill is passed, and all
such deficits will be honestly ascribable to Obama and the Demoncraps,
since Demoncraps are completely in control. You do the math.
Finally, let me sum this up with a simpler point. You don't know what
the fuck you are talking about.
leonox1
>
> The CBO doesn't really differ much in its projections except in what
> to count:
>
>
> And neither of these estimates count the cost of heathcare nor the
> cost to the economy of passing a cap-and-tax bill, or any other
> insane, socialist policy that Obama wants to dump on the country.
>
> If Obama dumps the asinine healthcare bill on us, it won't start until
> 2013. If Obama is not reelected, the FY2013 deficit will be ascribed
> BY YOU to whoever is president then. If that is a Republican then you
> will later claim that, since the large deficit happened while a
> Republican was president it was his fault. Total nonsense.
>
> The total amount added to the national debt during the Bush years, the
> total accumulated deficit, was, again, perhaps 2.5 trillion dollars.
> Some of that was Bush's fault, much was not. But Obama is projected
> to add 9 trillion to the national debt, and that is an underestimate,
> and that will only increase if the healthcar bill is passed, and all
> such deficits will be honestly ascribable to Obama and the Demoncraps,
> since Demoncraps are completely in control. You do the math.
>
> Finally, let me sum this up with a simpler point. You don't know what
> the fuck you are talking about.
Look if you're going to try to explain things to "wy" in terms he can
comprehend, you can't use a lot of math.
wy
>
> The CBO doesn't really differ much in its projections except in what
> to count:
>
>
> And neither of these estimates count the cost of heathcare nor the
> cost to the economy of passing a cap-and-tax bill, or any other
> insane, socialist policy that Obama wants to dump on the country.
>
> If Obama dumps the asinine healthcare bill on us, it won't start until
> 2013. If Obama is not reelected, the FY2013 deficit will be ascribed
> BY YOU to whoever is president then. If that is a Republican then you
> will later claim that, since the large deficit happened while a
> Republican was president it was his fault. Total nonsense.
>
> The total amount added to the national debt during the Bush years, the
> total accumulated deficit, was, again, perhaps 2.5 trillion dollars.
> Some of that was Bush's fault, much was not. But Obama is projected
> to add 9 trillion to the national debt, and that is an underestimate,
> and that will only increase if the healthcar bill is passed, and all
> such deficits will be honestly ascribable to Obama and the Demoncraps,
> since Demoncraps are completely in control. You do the math.
Yeah, well, that's all fine and dandy, but you're forgetting one huge
point. It was Bush's deficit that necessitated Obama's deficit. It
was Bush's $2.5 trillion mess, plus the $1.3 trillion, or his half of
the Bush-Obama shared deficit for 2009 as your cited chart shows and
is explained, that he left behind that Obama now has to clean up after
him with an additional $9 trillion because that's what it'll take, if
not more. To fail to understand that is to fail to understand the
macro-economic scope of the problem. If Bush had left office with
what he came in with, do you actually think Obama would still run up a
$9 trillion deficit? Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
$1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
You're making it sound like the whole $9 trillion is Obama's personal
reckless stamp on the deficit when, in fact, that's what he inherited
as something that he has to spend to fix an ailing economy. For
example, because the economy took a dive, so did the Big 3
automakers. There was a lot of flack about handing them bailout money
too. Personally, I didn't think it was a wise decision on the surface
of it, but that was an assessment only on the "surface" of it. Once
you begin to see how the problem would've become even more exacerbated
and pervasive if the Big 3 weren't saved, then you can only begin to
think twice. And so what happened by handing them the bailout money?
The Big 3 are still around and they're ever-so-slowly trying to find
back their footing. It may still be too early to tell if they'll
still be around a year from now, but it doesn't appear like they'll
stumble again soon in the way they did last spring, so the funds
injected into them have had a desirable result for now that has not
only helped the automakers but the economy as a whole in ways that you
can't see because you don't see the macroeconomics of it. And that
bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
do. Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
the way things were going? Of course not. And how do you know that
paybacks won't be coming through at an increased rate next year to
throw off deficit projections again? You don't. Because projections
themselves don't either, they're just projections, not irrefutable
fact of what's to be. Did the CBO even correctly project two years
ago last year's deficit total from the unexpected economic crash? Of
course not. And yet, you embrace all these "projections" like they
were some kind of sacred Bible holding all truths. Silly person.
Lifsabsurd
Yes. And more. He still wants the asinine socialist healthcare
"reform" package. He lies through his teeth about what that will
cost. If that is passed the real deficits that will begin in a few
years will absolutely bankrupt the country. The country will
literally be insolvent. He also wants the insane cap-and-TAX
legislation. How completely stupid/crazy to tax energy production to
keep CO2 emissions down, when the latest climatological models show
that CO2 has no greenhouse effect on the planet whatsoever?
Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
> been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
> up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
> $1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
If you actually believe that Obamacare as outlined in HR3200 would
cost only 1T over the next 10 years, you need a brain transplant.
> You're making it sound like the whole $9 trillion is Obama's personal
> reckless stamp on the deficit when, in fact, that's what he inherited
> as something that he has to spend to fix an ailing economy.
How ironic. First you wanted me to accept the fiction that a
president is responsible for all of the deficits occurring on his
watch. Now you have flipped your flop, stood yourself on your head,
and argued the exact opposite. LOL Thanks for implicitly conceding
that your earlier allegations about Bush's deficits were completely
bogus.
For
> example, because the economy took a dive, so did the Big 3
> automakers. There was a lot of flack about handing them bailout money
> too. Personally, I didn't think it was a wise decision on the surface
> of it, but that was an assessment only on the "surface" of it. Once
> you begin to see how the problem would've become even more exacerbated
> and pervasive if the Big 3 weren't saved, then you can only begin to
> think twice. And so what happened by handing them the bailout money?
> The Big 3 are still around and they're ever-so-slowly trying to find
> back their footing. It may still be too early to tell if they'll
> still be around a year from now, but it doesn't appear like they'll
> stumble again soon in the way they did last spring, so the funds
> injected into them have had a desirable result for now that has not
> only helped the automakers but the economy as a whole in ways that you
> can't see because you don't see the macroeconomics of it.
Saved the Big 3? Are you fucking serious? Two of the Big 3 are all
but dead. The government owns most of GM. Obama gave much of it to
his friends in the UAW. Chrysler too is no longer a free market
player. Only Ford managed to not be controlled by der Feurher. I
doubt that GM will last another 5 years. Who wants to buy a piece of
shit car dictated by and made under government control? If we wanted
that we could have bought cars from the Soviet Union.
And that
> bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> do.
You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
the money back and get the government off their backs.
Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
> it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> the way things were going? Of course not.
Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
let the economy sink? Did they take into account the lowering of
income tax revenues that we see today? Obama promised that
unemployment would not exceed 8% under his watch. Have you noticed
that he was wrong? All projections are wrong, yes. They are usually
way too optimistic about what the economy is likely to do in the next
few years.
And how do you know that
> paybacks won't be coming through at an increased rate next year to
> throw off deficit projections again? You don't. Because projections
> themselves don't either, they're just projections, not irrefutable
> fact of what's to be.
So, that is an argument for adding even more debt? When you are not
sure about your future income and you are worried about your massive
debt, do you go out and spend and borrow even more? You must believe
that the tooth fairy is going to give the country a few trillion.
Have you paid attention to what China thinks? Or other countries that
hold our IOUs? Have you noticed that the yield on T bills is going
up, i.e., we are paying out more interest to borrow money? Have you
noticed that the dollar is under attack as the world's most trusted
currency?
Did the CBO even correctly project two years
> ago last year's deficit total from the unexpected economic crash? Of
> course not. And yet, you embrace all these "projections" like they
> were some kind of sacred Bible holding all truths. Silly person.
The projections come from Obama's own administration. And they are
surely an *underestimate*. You persist in trying to blame Bush for
the deficits incurred during his terms. It just isn't logical. The
president who shares the most blame for the economic mess we are in is
Bill Clinton, for trying to give houses to people who could not afford
them. He set up the dominoes that causally led to the subprime
mortgage crisis. Bush did have his own failure in the form of Rx
drugs for seniors. It was just another socialist program. But Bush
cannot come close to the closet communist in ramming socialism down
the nation's throat. Obama's programs, if passed, will bankrupt the
country and completely destroy it. There will be bloody civil war as
a result. Demonraps are insane.
Kevin Cunningham
So tell us some more about your work for a company(s) in the private
health sector. That idea dropped away as I showed that you didn't
know enough. You favored us with one name, unfortunately it appears
that you lied, through your teeth.
Oh, well, lying and being a repug is typical.
And then there is the whole, giant area of hypocrisy. You have
admitted that you have government funds coming in. As a good
conservative you should refuse to take them but you do. You just want
to stop others from doing what you are doing. Hypocrisy, they name is
repug.
Kevin Cunningham
The biggest 8 year deficit in history belongs too.......wait for
it.......Bush and the repugs.
So what did you do about that? Oh, that's right, nothing. Not a
thing. You were one of the repugs telling every one that deficits
don't matter.
See the hypocrisy here? When it's your boy in power deficits don't
matter. When it's a dem, why deficits? We can't have those evil
things.
So your position is simple when repugs are in power there are no
deficits, facts don't matter.
The biggest deficit in history. You got that? Eight years of it.
And you did nothing.
But that's the end result of your racism. You want to accuse our
African-American president of doing an evil that you let a white moron
get away with.
Aaaahhhhhh, the smell of racism and hypocrisy in the morning.
Kevin Cunningham
>
> The CBO doesn't really differ much in its projections except in what
> to count:
>
>
> And neither of these estimates count the cost of heathcare nor the
> cost to the economy of passing a cap-and-tax bill, or any other
> insane, socialist policy that Obama wants to dump on the country.
>
> If Obama dumps the asinine healthcare bill on us, it won't start until
> 2013. If Obama is not reelected, the FY2013 deficit will be ascribed
> BY YOU to whoever is president then. If that is a Republican then you
> will later claim that, since the large deficit happened while a
> Republican was president it was his fault. Total nonsense.
>
> The total amount added to the national debt during the Bush years, the
> total accumulated deficit, was, again, perhaps 2.5 trillion dollars.
> Some of that was Bush's fault, much was not. But Obama is projected
> to add 9 trillion to the national debt, and that is an underestimate,
> and that will only increase if the healthcar bill is passed, and all
> such deficits will be honestly ascribable to Obama and the Demoncraps,
> since Demoncraps are completely in control. You do the math.
>
> Finally, let me sum this up with a simpler point. You don't know what
> the fuck you are talking about.
Poor racist!
Bush didn't even threaten a veto for 6 years. He did nothing. He was
the president (wow, that sent a cold chill down my spine!). Cheney
and he ran up the biggest deficit in history. You got that? The
biggest deficit in history.
On the other side for a racist, they are white guys. They can do as
they like. They could randomly invade countries and kill thousands of
our troops. They did that on money borrowed from communist China.
They didn't ask the American people for help since the only thing that
mattered was getting elected.
And you suck up to these scum. Well, they are white scum.......
You hypocrisy is over whelming. You support the creators of the
biggest deficit in history all the while waving your "Deficit Hawk"
banner. Yeah, right........racist.
wy
I got news for you: the country is already bankrupt. Your own
personal share of what the U.S. owes to banks and other countries is
now $30,000. Do you have $30,000 right now to help pay off that
debt? Does each and every American, including newborns and the aged
at death's door, have $30,000 to spare right now to clear that debt
off the books right now? Of course not. So what does it matter if
another trillion or ten gets added, the U.S. can't even pay off what
it owes now. Everybody will just have to keep covering whatever costs
are incurred, and that's what true capitalism is all about - debt. If
the U.S. excels at anything, it's that.
> He also wants the insane cap-and-TAX
> legislation. How completely stupid/crazy to tax energy production to
> keep CO2 emissions down, when the latest climatological models show
> that CO2 has no greenhouse effect on the planet whatsoever?
The thing you don't seem to realize is that right now everybody wants
something in the bill. It doesn't mean that everybody will end up
getting what they want in the final draft. If the final draft shows
that the pros outweigh whatever cons, then regardless of what's in it,
Obama had better sign it, otherwise nothing will change and that'll
only end up costing you even more, which practically every House
member agrees on.
>
> Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
>
> > been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
> > up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
> > $1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
>
> If you actually believe that Obamacare as outlined in HR3200 would
> cost only 1T over the next 10 years, you need a brain transplant.
Just this morning Jay Rockefeller cited two independent studies, one
claiming that it would only add up to $238 billion over the first ten
years, the other that it would add a trillion over the next ten years
after that. Who do you believe? It's all stupid projections that
look at the plan and its execution from different perspectives and
arrive at different conclusions. You can't believe any of it because
they don't arrive at any consistent figures. So there's no point in
throwing around projection figures as fact - they never end up that
way.
>
> > You're making it sound like the whole $9 trillion is Obama's personal
> > reckless stamp on the deficit when, in fact, that's what he inherited
> > as something that he has to spend to fix an ailing economy.
>
> How ironic. First you wanted me to accept the fiction that a
> president is responsible for all of the deficits occurring on his
> watch. Now you have flipped your flop, stood yourself on your head,
> and argued the exact opposite. LOL Thanks for implicitly conceding
> that your earlier allegations about Bush's deficits were completely
> bogus.
Once again something goes completely over your head. Do you really
need that bird that flew over you to actually crap on your brain to
get it?
>
> For
>
> > example, because the economy took a dive, so did the Big 3
> > automakers. There was a lot of flack about handing them bailout money
> > too. Personally, I didn't think it was a wise decision on the surface
> > of it, but that was an assessment only on the "surface" of it. Once
> > you begin to see how the problem would've become even more exacerbated
> > and pervasive if the Big 3 weren't saved, then you can only begin to
> > think twice. And so what happened by handing them the bailout money?
> > The Big 3 are still around and they're ever-so-slowly trying to find
> > back their footing. It may still be too early to tell if they'll
> > still be around a year from now, but it doesn't appear like they'll
> > stumble again soon in the way they did last spring, so the funds
> > injected into them have had a desirable result for now that has not
> > only helped the automakers but the economy as a whole in ways that you
> > can't see because you don't see the macroeconomics of it.
>
> Saved the Big 3? Are you fucking serious? Two of the Big 3 are all
> but dead. The government owns most of GM. Obama gave much of it to
> his friends in the UAW. Chrysler too is no longer a free market
> player. Only Ford managed to not be controlled by der Feurher. I
> doubt that GM will last another 5 years. Who wants to buy a piece of
> shit car dictated by and made under government control? If we wanted
> that we could have bought cars from the Soviet Union.
You sound like the type of guy who would pull the plug on your kid in
a coma rather than wait it out for as long as possible to see if
revival might happen.
>
> And that
>
> > bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> > something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> > do.
>
> You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
> the money back and get the government off their backs.
Hey, if it's such a dictatorship, why don't you move elsewhere? Or is
the U.S. still the least "dictatorship" country in the world to you?
If so, then you're kind of stuck having to live in the best
"dictatorship" country in the world, aren't you? So just deal with it
then, if that's what you really think it is.
>
> Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
>
> > it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> > the way things were going? Of course not.
>
> Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
> let the economy sink?
You can't blame him for something the banks are still not doing, like
lending money. But then, that's the capitalist thing to do, right?
You're all for a free market place, right? Denying credit is part of
that free market place. It's also a large part of what's preventing
the problem from getting fixed quicker. I think what you really want
to see IS a dictator, someone who can step in and completely call all
the shots and nobody can argue. Because that's the only way anything
can get done fast, screw the democratic process, it just takes too
forever long to get through anything. You're the real fascist-minded
if you expect instant debt-proof results without hassles.
> Did they take into account the lowering of
> income tax revenues that we see today? Obama promised that
> unemployment would not exceed 8% under his watch. Have you noticed
> that he was wrong? All projections are wrong, yes. They are usually
> way too optimistic about what the economy is likely to do in the next
> few years.
>
> And how do you know that
>
> > paybacks won't be coming through at an increased rate next year to
> > throw off deficit projections again? You don't. Because projections
> > themselves don't either, they're just projections, not irrefutable
> > fact of what's to be.
>
> So, that is an argument for adding even more debt? When you are not
> sure about your future income and you are worried about your massive
> debt, do you go out and spend and borrow even more? You must believe
> that the tooth fairy is going to give the country a few trillion.
Well, it certainly worked for tens of millions of Americans who didn't
earn enough on their paychecks. What did they have to do? Go into
debt. That's the way capitalism operates. Don't you get it?
>
> Have you paid attention to what China thinks? Or other countries that
> hold our IOUs? Have you noticed that the yield on T bills is going
> up, i.e., we are paying out more interest to borrow money? Have you
> noticed that the dollar is under attack as the world's most trusted
> currency?
Yeah, but so what? You'll never ever be able to pay any of that back
to everyone anyway, not in your lifetime, nor anyone else's. The only
way it could happen is if the U.S. got a lock on something the whole
world needs, whatever that "lock" would be, then it could bargain away
its debt to zero. In the meantime, the country has to function and it
won't function without money. The more people in the country, and the
more that are added to it each and every day through immigration,
legal or illegal, as well as births, the more money the government
needs. If you really want to wipe out the debt and deficit quick, get
rid of half the population now, maybe even two-thirds, and then you'll
see expenses plummet and revenues skyrocket, especially if all you
keep are the wealthier people. It's all those damned poor people,
which could very well include you if you don't make more than $100
grand a year, which I strongly suspect you don't, that are draining
the country's financial resources. Do something patriotic for your
country if you love it - move out of it!
>
> Did the CBO even correctly project two years
>
> > ago last year's deficit total from the unexpected economic crash? Of
> > course not. And yet, you embrace all these "projections" like they
> > were some kind of sacred Bible holding all truths. Silly person.
>
> The projections come from Obama's own administration. And they are
> surely an *underestimate*. You persist in trying to blame Bush for
> the deficits incurred during his terms. It just isn't logical.
Yeah, well, the Bush administration's own projections were gross
"underestimates" too, you know. Projections are meaningless, I don't
even know why the government or anybody else even bothers throwing
them around and why people like you swallow them hook, line and sinker
as indisputable truth to back up anything you say.
The
> president who shares the most blame for the economic mess we are in is
> Bill Clinton, for trying to give houses to people who could not afford
> them. He set up the dominoes that causally led to the subprime
> mortgage crisis.
Yeah, but it's funny how everything went fine with that until the Bush
years, specifically when U.S. house prices began to fall in 2006-07,
making refinancing more difficult. This meant that adjustable-rate
mortgages had to be reset at higher rates and that's when the problem
really began. So you have to ask yourself: what happened during
Bush's term to cause that? Certainly not anything Clinton did,
because he was off minding his own business making speeches, but
certainly what the Bush administration allowed to happen, which was:
"The demand for those great, safe mortgage backed securities was
really high. In fact, so high, that there was a point somewhere in
2003 when everyone who qualified for a mortgage got one, and still the
global pool of money wanted more.
Thus, things needed to change. And they did. The mortgage
qualification guidelines did.
At first, the stated income, verified assets (SIVA) loans came out.
People didn't have to prove their income any more. They just needed to
"state" it and show that they had money in the bank.
Then, the no income, verified assets (NIVA) loans came out. The lender
was no longer interested in what you do for a living. People just
needed to show some money in their bank accounts.
This wasn't enough to satisfy the huge appetite of global investors.
The qualification guidelines kept going looser in order to produce
more mortgages, more securities.
This leads us to NINA. Have you heard of NINA?
NINA is an abbreviation of No Income No Assets. Basically, NINA loans
are official loan products and let you borrow money without having to
prove or even state anything. All you needed to have in order to get a
mortgage was a credit score.
Why would a bank loosen its criteria for lending money so much? Well,
banks didn't keep these mortgages. They didn't care whether they are
risky and the borrower will ever pay them back simply because they
sold the mortgages to Wall Street. The Wall Street then sold them to
global investors ... as low risk investments."
http://www.stock-market-investors.com/
stock-investment-risk/the-subprime-mortgage
-crisis-explained.html
So there you have it. SIVA, NIVA and NINA, all concocted under Bush's
watch with no stopping the speeding bullet to disaster now. You gotta
read up on stuff like this if you want to know anything worth knowing.
> Bush did have his own failure in the form of Rx
> drugs for seniors. It was just another socialist program. But Bush
> cannot come close to the closet communist in ramming socialism down
> the nation's throat. Obama's programs, if passed, will bankrupt the
> country and completely destroy it. There will be bloody civil war as
> a result. Demonraps are insane.
Psst. I already told you. The country is already bankrupt, you just
don't want to accept the obvious. You might as well stop posting
idiocies and plan for your revolution now if you're going to start
one.
Lifsabsurd
Yes. But I don't intend to offer it up.
Does each and every American, including newborns and the aged
> at death's door, have $30,000 to spare right now to clear that debt
> off the books right now? Of course not. So what does it matter if
> another trillion or ten gets added, the U.S. can't even pay off what
> it owes now.
Do you really mean readers to take that kind of nonsense seriously.
When a boat is sinking, one stops making the hole bigger and bails
like hell.
Everybody will just have to keep covering whatever costs
> are incurred, and that's what true capitalism is all about - debt. If
> the U.S. excels at anything, it's that.
Socialism caused the debt. Not capitalism.
> > He also wants the insane cap-and-TAX
> > legislation. How completely stupid/crazy to tax energy production to
> > keep CO2 emissions down, when the latest climatological models show
> > that CO2 has no greenhouse effect on the planet whatsoever?
>
> The thing you don't seem to realize is that right now everybody wants
> something in the bill. It doesn't mean that everybody will end up
> getting what they want in the final draft. If the final draft shows
> that the pros outweigh whatever cons, then regardless of what's in it,
> Obama had better sign it, otherwise nothing will change and that'll
> only end up costing you even more, which practically every House
> member agrees on.
Here's an idea. Let's make some changes that are sane. Let's start
to slowly and sensibly cut back all the ridiculous socialist programs
and phase them out. DUH. We might even save a part of the country,
the good part.
>
>
> > Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
>
> > > been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
> > > up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
> > > $1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
>
> > If you actually believe that Obamacare as outlined in HR3200 would
> > cost only 1T over the next 10 years, you need a brain transplant.
>
> Just this morning Jay Rockefeller cited two independent studies, one
> claiming that it would only add up to $238 billion over the first ten
> years, the other that it would add a trillion over the next ten years
> after that. Who do you believe? It's all stupid projections that
> look at the plan and its execution from different perspectives and
> arrive at different conclusions. You can't believe any of it because
> they don't arrive at any consistent figures. So there's no point in
> throwing around projection figures as fact - they never end up that
> way.
History has shown that virtually all such budget projections for such
socialist programs in the past were low. One should look to that to
determine what to believe about the current projections. Name a large
social welfare program that ever came in at or below the levels
projected. The projections aren't merely inaccuracies. They are a
combination of wishing thinking and willful lies.
> > > You're making it sound like the whole $9 trillion is Obama's personal
> > > reckless stamp on the deficit when, in fact, that's what he inherited
> > > as something that he has to spend to fix an ailing economy.
>
> > How ironic. First you wanted me to accept the fiction that a
> > president is responsible for all of the deficits occurring on his
> > watch. Now you have flipped your flop, stood yourself on your head,
> > and argued the exact opposite. LOL Thanks for implicitly conceding
> > that your earlier allegations about Bush's deficits were completely
> > bogus.
>
> Once again something goes completely over your head. Do you really
> need that bird that flew over you to actually crap on your brain to
> get it?
Obviously, you didn't get it. You don't realize the inconsistencies
you spout.
You sure do jump to a lot of hasty, wrong conclusions. You may be
nearing a record. But, you have a strong contender in Cunningham.
> > And that
>
> > > bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> > > something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> > > do.
>
> > You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
> > the money back and get the government off their backs.
>
> Hey, if it's such a dictatorship, why don't you move elsewhere? Or is
> the U.S. still the least "dictatorship" country in the world to you?
> If so, then you're kind of stuck having to live in the best
> "dictatorship" country in the world, aren't you? So just deal with it
> then, if that's what you really think it is.
That's a thought. Or, I could stay and fight the dictator in every
way I can.
> > Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
>
> > > it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> > > the way things were going? Of course not.
>
> > Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
> > let the economy sink?
>
> You can't blame him for something the banks are still not doing, like
> lending money. But then, that's the capitalist thing to do, right?
> You're all for a free market place, right? Denying credit is part of
> that free market place. It's also a large part of what's preventing
> the problem from getting fixed quicker. I think what you really want
> to see IS a dictator, someone who can step in and completely call all
> the shots and nobody can argue. Because that's the only way anything
> can get done fast, screw the democratic process, it just takes too
> forever long to get through anything. You're the real fascist-minded
> if you expect instant debt-proof results without hassles.
I expect capitalist solutions. Socialism isn't a solution. It's the
problem. As I have pointed out twice now, socialism caused the mess
we are in. Trying to give houses to people who could not afford them
was the first mistake that led to this recession/depression.
> > Did they take into account the lowering of
> > income tax revenues that we see today? Obama promised that
> > unemployment would not exceed 8% under his watch. Have you noticed
> > that he was wrong? All projections are wrong, yes. They are usually
> > way too optimistic about what the economy is likely to do in the next
> > few years.
>
> > And how do you know that
>
> > > paybacks won't be coming through at an increased rate next year to
> > > throw off deficit projections again? You don't. Because projections
> > > themselves don't either, they're just projections, not irrefutable
> > > fact of what's to be.
>
> > So, that is an argument for adding even more debt? When you are not
> > sure about your future income and you are worried about your massive
> > debt, do you go out and spend and borrow even more? You must believe
> > that the tooth fairy is going to give the country a few trillion.
>
> Well, it certainly worked for tens of millions of Americans who didn't
> earn enough on their paychecks. What did they have to do? Go into
> debt. That's the way capitalism operates. Don't you get it?
I get that responsible people only borrow what they have a reasonable
chance to pay back. And that a capitalist system works if citizens
are responsible. On the other hand, socialism is so fundamentally
flawed that it can't even work with good people. Of course, no sytem
works when you have mostly garbage for citizenry. And that is the
problem with the country today. Garbage in. Garbage out. Socialist
trash becomes the majority. Socialist shit is elected. Socialism
destroys the country. Those good people who are responsible for
themselves, the minority, suffer also.
> > Have you paid attention to what China thinks? Or other countries that
> > hold our IOUs? Have you noticed that the yield on T bills is going
> > up, i.e., we are paying out more interest to borrow money? Have you
> > noticed that the dollar is under attack as the world's most trusted
> > currency?
>
> Yeah, but so what? You'll never ever be able to pay any of that back
> to everyone anyway, not in your lifetime, nor anyone else's. The only
> way it could happen is if the U.S. got a lock on something the whole
> world needs, whatever that "lock" would be, then it could bargain away
> its debt to zero.
Amazing "logic" you espose. Your philosophy seems to be a sort of
"eat, drink, and be merry," because we haven't got a chance anyway.
You should speak for yourself boy. Most onservatives will suffer too,
but they are far more likely to survive and prosper, even when the
country fails, because they have planned ahead AS INDIVIDUALS. Of
course, those who are completely dependent on others (government) are
headed for the toilet.
In the meantime, the country has to function and it
> won't function without money. The more people in the country, and the
> more that are added to it each and every day through immigration,
> legal or illegal, as well as births, the more money the government
> needs.
I'm all for stopping illegal immigration and even working to deport as
many illegals as we can. You seem to favor giving them healthcare.
If you really want to wipe out the debt and deficit quick, get
> rid of half the population now, maybe even two-thirds, and then you'll
> see expenses plummet and revenues skyrocket, especially if all you
> keep are the wealthier people. It's all those damned poor people,
> which could very well include you if you don't make more than $100
> grand a year, which I strongly suspect you don't, that are draining
> the country's financial resources. Do something patriotic for your
> country if you love it - move out of it!
Unfortunately it would not be moral to "get rid of half" the
citizenry. But, Darwin is going to take care of that in the long run,
sooner perhaps than one might think. Since you "know" that the
country is headed for complete economic collapse under any
circumstances, you should know what that implies.
>
>
> > Did the CBO even correctly project two years
>
> > > ago last year's deficit total from the unexpected economic crash? Of
> > > course not. And yet, you embrace all these "projections" like they
> > > were some kind of sacred Bible holding all truths. Silly person.
>
> > The projections come from Obama's own administration. And they are
> > surely an *underestimate*. You persist in trying to blame Bush for
> > the deficits incurred during his terms. It just isn't logical.
>
> Yeah, well, the Bush administration's own projections were gross
> "underestimates" too, you know. Projections are meaningless, I don't
> even know why the government or anybody else even bothers throwing
> them around and why people like you swallow them hook, line and sinker
> as indisputable truth to back up anything you say.
You will note that I don't swallow them. But they are useful as
indicating the lowest possible costs of a program that one could
imagine in their wildest fantaies.
Yes, I have heard of NINA loans, and much more. Perhaps you weren't a
part of this long discussion about the subprime mortgage crisis. I
made it my business to learn a fair amount about it, esp. the role of
socialist thinking and the role of minorities in the whole problem:
> Why would a bank loosen its criteria for lending money so much? Well,
> banks didn't keep these mortgages. They didn't care whether they are
> risky and the borrower will ever pay them back simply because they
> sold the mortgages to Wall Street. The Wall Street then sold them to
> global investors ... as low risk investments."
>
> http://www.stock-market-investors.com/
> stock-investment-risk/the-subprime-mortgage
> -crisis-explained.html
>
> So there you have it. SIVA, NIVA and NINA, all concocted under Bush's
> watch with no stopping the speeding bullet to disaster now. You gotta
> read up on stuff like this if you want to know anything worth knowing.
Actually, your synopsis isn't far from wrong in some respects. But
being "concocted under Bush's watch" doesn't make him any more to
blame for these things than the deficits that occurred during his
terms. You don't learn well, do you? And you fail to include the
critical role of the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie in particular, and the
fact that all these factors you mention were secondary causal
factors. None of those things you mention would ever have come to
pass if it were not for Clinton and his boys (HUD) setting de facto
quotas to the GSEs for affirmative action loans, including suprimes,
to minorities in the late 90s. The GSEs (taxpayers) ultimately began
then assuming the risk for lenders. Knowledgable people predicted
from the beginning of this nonsense exactly what would happen. What
would one expect when lenders have such very low or no risk anymore in
order to satisfy socialist goals? Clinton was the primary cause of
the escalation in housing prices. And the bubble inevitably *had* to
burst. It could have burst another year later if other events, like
oil price increases, had been different. But Clinton was the primary
cause of the problem in any case. You persist in this asinine idea
that a president must assume all the blame for absolutely everything
that happens during his term(s).
> > Bush did have his own failure in the form of Rx
> > drugs for seniors. It was just another socialist program. But Bush
> > cannot come close to the closet communist in ramming socialism down
> > the nation's throat. Obama's programs, if passed, will bankrupt the
> > country and completely destroy it. There will be bloody civil war as
> > a result. Demonraps are insane.
>
> Psst. I already told you. The country is already bankrupt, you just
> don't want to accept the obvious. You might as well stop posting
> idiocies and plan for your revolution now if you're going to start
> one.
Hell. What makes you think that I would or could start one? More
importantly, what makes you think that I or anyone else can stop one
at this point?
This post is too long. And it has devolved into bullshit.
wy
You already are. It's called taxes. And even if you don't pay any
income tax, there's always federal tax on things you buy. A portion
of those taxes always goes towards paying what the U.S. owes. It's
astounding that you haven't figured that out somehow.
>
> Does each and every American, including newborns and the aged
>
> > at death's door, have $30,000 to spare right now to clear that debt
> > off the books right now? Of course not. So what does it matter if
> > another trillion or ten gets added, the U.S. can't even pay off what
> > it owes now.
>
> Do you really mean readers to take that kind of nonsense seriously.
> When a boat is sinking, one stops making the hole bigger and bails
> like hell.
The U.S. is a boat with already one big gaping hole for a floor that's
only staying afloat by being patched up by flimsy paper, there is no
bigger hole to create - the hole in its entirety is already there.
There is NO fix for the U.S. economy now, only patch-up work.
Period. What is it about trillions of dollars to repay as being
impossible, especially with interest applied on it, that you don't
understand?
> Everybody will just have to keep covering whatever costs
>
> > are incurred, and that's what true capitalism is all about - debt. If
> > the U.S. excels at anything, it's that.
>
> Socialism caused the debt. Not capitalism.
Capitalism thrives on debt, it's designed to make the wealthy
wealthier at everyone else's expense. And if socialism caused the
debt, then explain why socialist countries like Sweden and Finland
have a much lower debt than the U.S. Check out the pretty chart:
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/3/13/
saupload_hh_debt_oecd.png
>
> > > He also wants the insane cap-and-TAX
> > > legislation. How completely stupid/crazy to tax energy production to
> > > keep CO2 emissions down, when the latest climatological models show
> > > that CO2 has no greenhouse effect on the planet whatsoever?
>
> > The thing you don't seem to realize is that right now everybody wants
> > something in the bill. It doesn't mean that everybody will end up
> > getting what they want in the final draft. If the final draft shows
> > that the pros outweigh whatever cons, then regardless of what's in it,
> > Obama had better sign it, otherwise nothing will change and that'll
> > only end up costing you even more, which practically every House
> > member agrees on.
>
> Here's an idea. Let's make some changes that are sane. Let's start
> to slowly and sensibly cut back all the ridiculous socialist programs
> and phase them out. DUH. We might even save a part of the country,
> the good part.
It wasn't "socialist" programs that got the country in the mess it's
in over the last year. It was the subprime mortgage fiasco, among
other Bush fiascos, which was facilitated by Bush's administration
that caused the spike in the debt and deficit. How come you keep
forgetting that? There's a clear and umistakeable correlation between
Bush's term in office, and any Republican's term in office for that
matter, and the fiscal mess the country gets in. Here, need I remind
you with another pretty chart?
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/
Natl_Debt_Chart_2006.gif
> > > Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
>
> > > > been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
> > > > up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
> > > > $1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
>
> > > If you actually believe that Obamacare as outlined in HR3200 would
> > > cost only 1T over the next 10 years, you need a brain transplant.
>
> > Just this morning Jay Rockefeller cited two independent studies, one
> > claiming that it would only add up to $238 billion over the first ten
> > years, the other that it would add a trillion over the next ten years
> > after that. Who do you believe? It's all stupid projections that
> > look at the plan and its execution from different perspectives and
> > arrive at different conclusions. You can't believe any of it because
> > they don't arrive at any consistent figures. So there's no point in
> > throwing around projection figures as fact - they never end up that
> > way.
>
> History has shown that virtually all such budget projections for such
> socialist programs in the past were low.
Show me all those charts where "history has shown".
> One should look to that to
> determine what to believe about the current projections. Name a large
> social welfare program that ever came in at or below the levels
> projected. The projections aren't merely inaccuracies. They are a
> combination of wishing thinking and willful lies.
So stop referring to them as a basis for anything in backing up
whatever you want to say.
>
> > > > You're making it sound like the whole $9 trillion is Obama's personal
> > > > reckless stamp on the deficit when, in fact, that's what he inherited
> > > > as something that he has to spend to fix an ailing economy.
>
> > > How ironic. First you wanted me to accept the fiction that a
> > > president is responsible for all of the deficits occurring on his
> > > watch. Now you have flipped your flop, stood yourself on your head,
> > > and argued the exact opposite. LOL Thanks for implicitly conceding
> > > that your earlier allegations about Bush's deficits were completely
> > > bogus.
>
> > Once again something goes completely over your head. Do you really
> > need that bird that flew over you to actually crap on your brain to
> > get it?
>
> Obviously, you didn't get it. You don't realize the inconsistencies
> you spout.
A Republican trying to tell me something about "iinconsistencies"?
That was a good chuckle.
Where's the hastiness and wrongness of the conclusions? You're more
than ready to pull the plug on a comatose Big 3, so then you're more
than ready to pull the plug on your comatose kid. You're a plug-
puller without regard to what real consequences would result from
pulling the plug.
> > > And that
>
> > > > bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> > > > something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> > > > do.
>
> > > You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
> > > the money back and get the government off their backs.
>
> > Hey, if it's such a dictatorship, why don't you move elsewhere? Or is
> > the U.S. still the least "dictatorship" country in the world to you?
> > If so, then you're kind of stuck having to live in the best
> > "dictatorship" country in the world, aren't you? So just deal with it
> > then, if that's what you really think it is.
>
> That's a thought. Or, I could stay and fight the dictator in every
> way I can.
By posting inanities on a newsgroup? Yeah, that's showing your
rmight.
>
> > > Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
>
> > > > it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> > > > the way things were going? Of course not.
>
> > > Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
> > > let the economy sink?
>
> > You can't blame him for something the banks are still not doing, like
> > lending money. But then, that's the capitalist thing to do, right?
> > You're all for a free market place, right? Denying credit is part of
> > that free market place. It's also a large part of what's preventing
> > the problem from getting fixed quicker. I think what you really want
> > to see IS a dictator, someone who can step in and completely call all
> > the shots and nobody can argue. Because that's the only way anything
> > can get done fast, screw the democratic process, it just takes too
> > forever long to get through anything. You're the real fascist-minded
> > if you expect instant debt-proof results without hassles.
>
> I expect capitalist solutions.
A capitalist solution requires debt, it's the nature of the beast.
And debt, via capitalism, can be so easily incurred simply from
interest payments alone. It's in the nature of the beast. There's no
getting around it. Capitalism is a debt-based monetary philosophy.
> Socialism isn't a solution. It's the
> problem.
So Buish was a socialist when everything went to pieces under his
watch?
> As I have pointed out twice now, socialism caused the mess
> we are in. Trying to give houses to people who could not afford them
> was the first mistake that led to this recession/depression.
That's not socialism, proving how clueless you are in your
unuderstanding of it. That was all capitalist-driven to create debt
from which capitalists could make even more money on that debt.
Socialism would be where the houses would be partially or wholly
funded by public funds. The subprime mortgage fiasco was all private
dealings and all about how much money moneymen could make off you.
You didn't check out that link which explained it all, did you? I
didn't think you would, which only means I'm talking to a brick wall
for a brain who's absolutely content to wallow in his own insular
fantasy of what he believes happened but has it confused with
something that took place in an alternate reality, not this one.
>
> > > Did they take into account the lowering of
> > > income tax revenues that we see today? Obama promised that
> > > unemployment would not exceed 8% under his watch. Have you noticed
> > > that he was wrong? All projections are wrong, yes. They are usually
> > > way too optimistic about what the economy is likely to do in the next
> > > few years.
>
> > > And how do you know that
>
> > > > paybacks won't be coming through at an increased rate next year to
> > > > throw off deficit projections again? You don't. Because projections
> > > > themselves don't either, they're just projections, not irrefutable
> > > > fact of what's to be.
>
> > > So, that is an argument for adding even more debt? When you are not
> > > sure about your future income and you are worried about your massive
> > > debt, do you go out and spend and borrow even more? You must believe
> > > that the tooth fairy is going to give the country a few trillion.
>
> > Well, it certainly worked for tens of millions of Americans who didn't
> > earn enough on their paychecks. What did they have to do? Go into
> > debt. That's the way capitalism operates. Don't you get it?
>
> I get that responsible people only borrow what they have a reasonable
> chance to pay back. And that a capitalist system works if citizens
> are responsible.
Well, it's certainly working for capitalists when the "Average credit
card debt per household -- regardless of whether they have a credit
card or not -- was $8,329 at the end of 2008. (Source: Nilson Report,
April 2009)". That's average for each and every household, whether
there was a credit card in that household or not. Meaning, the
average is actually a lot more for those who do have at least one
credit card. Not only that, but "76 percent of undergraduates have
credit cards, and the average undergrad has $2,200 in credit card.
Additionally, they will amass almost $20,000 in student debt. (Source:
Nellie Mae, "Undergraduate Students and Credit Cards in 2004: An
Analysis of Usage Rates and Trends")." Here's the link where you can
get a full rundown of debt reality as it is, because it's quite
apparent that you're very uneducated in this area.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/
credit-card-industry-facts-personal-debt-
statistics-1276.php#debt
> On the other hand, socialism is so fundamentally
> flawed that it can't even work with good people. Of course, no sytem
> works when you have mostly garbage for citizenry. And that is the
> problem with the country today. Garbage in. Garbage out. Socialist
> trash becomes the majority. Socialist shit is elected. Socialism
> destroys the country. Those good people who are responsible for
> themselves, the minority, suffer also.
Again, if you think you're really suffering and you're under the thumb
of a socialist state, then move. But you won't because you know
you're just spouting off nothing but baloney.
>
> > > Have you paid attention to what China thinks? Or other countries that
> > > hold our IOUs? Have you noticed that the yield on T bills is going
> > > up, i.e., we are paying out more interest to borrow money? Have you
> > > noticed that the dollar is under attack as the world's most trusted
> > > currency?
>
> > Yeah, but so what? You'll never ever be able to pay any of that back
> > to everyone anyway, not in your lifetime, nor anyone else's. The only
> > way it could happen is if the U.S. got a lock on something the whole
> > world needs, whatever that "lock" would be, then it could bargain away
> > its debt to zero.
>
> Amazing "logic" you espose. Your philosophy seems to be a sort of
> "eat, drink, and be merry," because we haven't got a chance anyway.
Well, you really don't have a chance. If you're such an economics
major, you figure it out how to solve the problem in no time. Just
remember that there are 12 zeroes that follow any single- or double-
digit trillion dollar figure, 14 if you count the cents. Also
remember that there are 307,000,000 Americans now that want their
health care, roads paved, law enforcement, military, and everything
else that people get from government and take for granted as actually
coming from the government. You better factor all of that in,
otherwise you'll have a pesky problem on your hands, to say the least.
> You should speak for yourself boy. Most onservatives will suffer too,
> but they are far more likely to survive and prosper, even when the
> country fails, because they have planned ahead AS INDIVIDUALS. Of
> course, those who are completely dependent on others (government) are
> headed for the toilet.
There's nothing "individual" about a bunch of rabid sheep who get
together and spout the same lines and act the same way and
collectively end up being and looking stupider when they leave than
when they came.
>
> In the meantime, the country has to function and it
>
> > won't function without money. The more people in the country, and the
> > more that are added to it each and every day through immigration,
> > legal or illegal, as well as births, the more money the government
> > needs.
>
> I'm all for stopping illegal immigration and even working to deport as
> many illegals as we can. You seem to favor giving them healthcare.
You'll never stop immigration unless people like you - good ol'-
fashioned, hard-working Americans - are willing to work in the fields
12 hours a day picking fruits and vegetables. You don't see too many
hearty-souled Americans doing that these days, do you? So that just
means no immigrants, then no fruits and vegetables for you, and then
you'll wonder why you have to pay more for them when they're imported
from some other country thousands of miles away. And if an immigrant
happens to contract a virus from a good ol'-fashioned white American,
like the H1N1 flu, and he can't get health care, then what do you
think is going to happen? It'll just spread like wildfire and before
you know it, all those other good ol'fashioned Americans will contract
it, because, as we all should very well know, disease knows no bounds
and them immigrants really know how to spread it, right? But by
ensuring that the immigrant gets health care, you actually preserve
the good ol'fashioned American population from extinction, believe it
or not, so it's to you white ass benefit that immigrants have their
illnesses nipped in the bud before it ends up costing a lot of lives
and tons more money to treat everyone that otherwise wouldn't have had
to have been treated if prevention was exercised. You're really so
silly in how such small terms you see the world.
>
> If you really want to wipe out the debt and deficit quick, get
>
> > rid of half the population now, maybe even two-thirds, and then you'll
> > see expenses plummet and revenues skyrocket, especially if all you
> > keep are the wealthier people. It's all those damned poor people,
> > which could very well include you if you don't make more than $100
> > grand a year, which I strongly suspect you don't, that are draining
> > the country's financial resources. Do something patriotic for your
> > country if you love it - move out of it!
>
> Unfortunately it would not be moral to "get rid of half" the
> citizenry. But, Darwin is going to take care of that in the long run,
> sooner perhaps than one might think.
Uh, Darwin can't do anything - he's dead.
> Since you "know" that the
> country is headed for complete economic collapse under any
> circumstances, you should know what that implies.
Anarchy. Out of the ashes of which will rise Socialism! The real
kind, not the kind you hallucinate that you have now.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread...
You may have made your business to learn about the loans, but it
really doesn't sound like anything sunk in because you still
hysterically claim it's the socialist boogey man that's caused all of
the country's problems. Like a typical Republican, when faced with a
truth he refuses to accept or merely understand, avoid it at all costs
and redirect any fault to an imaginary boogey man.
>
> > Why would a bank loosen its criteria for lending money so much? Well,
> > banks didn't keep these mortgages. They didn't care whether they are
> > risky and the borrower will ever pay them back simply because they
> > sold the mortgages to Wall Street. The Wall Street then sold them to
> > global investors ... as low risk investments."
>
> >http://www.stock-market-investors.com/
> > stock-investment-risk/the-subprime-mortgage
> > -crisis-explained.html
>
> > So there you have it. SIVA, NIVA and NINA, all concocted under Bush's
> > watch with no stopping the speeding bullet to disaster now. You gotta
> > read up on stuff like this if you want to know anything worth knowing.
>
> Actually, your synopsis isn't far from wrong in some respects. But
> being "concocted under Bush's watch" doesn't make him any more to
> blame for these things than the deficits that occurred during his
> terms. You don't learn well, do you? And you fail to include the
> critical role of the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie in particular, and the
> fact that all these factors you mention were secondary causal
> factors. None of those things you mention would ever have come to
> pass if it were not for Clinton and his boys (HUD) setting de facto
> quotas to the GSEs for affirmative action loans, including suprimes,
> to minorities in the late 90s.
Clinton did what he did, but there was nothing in what he did that
allowed SIVA, NIVA and NINA because there was no demand for it at the
time, so how could he have foreseen something for which there was no
demand in order to make sure that nothing like that were to be
possible to happen? He couldn't. The demand was created three years
into the Bush administration and that's when it was allowed to
happen. Somebody in the administration and/or Treasury Dept. was
clearly asleep at the wheel or just decided to roll over and play dead
or even wanted to encourage those loans, which was most obviously the
case. Clinton had nothing to do with it at that time, but Bush or any
of his people could've stopped it dead in its trackst. The buck
stopped with Bush at that time, not Clinton.
Lifsabsurd
What is even more astounding is your tangential and irrational
thinking. You bounce from one trite, meaningless statement to another
in an almost incoherent way. You asked if I had the money "right now"
to pay my share of the national debt. I answered. Then you launched
into a rant about paying taxes on a continuous ongoing basis. You
seem to feel the need to impress someone by making statements of
common knowledge and then claiming I do not know these things. In
short, you are ranting like you are drunk or on drugs
> > Does each and every American, including newborns and the aged
>
> > > at death's door, have $30,000 to spare right now to clear that debt
> > > off the books right now? Of course not. So what does it matter if
> > > another trillion or ten gets added, the U.S. can't even pay off what
> > > it owes now.
>
> > Do you really mean readers to take that kind of nonsense seriously.
> > When a boat is sinking, one stops making the hole bigger and bails
> > like hell.
>
> The U.S. is a boat with already one big gaping hole for a floor that's
> only staying afloat by being patched up by flimsy paper, there is no
> bigger hole to create - the hole in its entirety is already there.
> There is NO fix for the U.S. economy now, only patch-up work.
> Period. What is it about trillions of dollars to repay as being
> impossible, especially with interest applied on it, that you don't
> understand?
Again, you make a simplistic, hackneyed argument with the arrogant
pretense of its being meaningful, and accuse me of being unable to
understand it. You are getting to be a waste of my time.
> > Everybody will just have to keep covering whatever costs
>
> > > are incurred, and that's what true capitalism is all about - debt. If
> > > the U.S. excels at anything, it's that.
>
> > Socialism caused the debt. Not capitalism.
>
> Capitalism thrives on debt, it's designed to make the wealthy
> wealthier at everyone else's expense. And if socialism caused the
> debt, then explain why socialist countries like Sweden and Finland
> have a much lower debt than the U.S. Check out the pretty chart:
>
> http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/3/13/
> saupload_hh_debt_oecd.png
Your link didn't work, and I am not going to waste time pursuing it.
The absolute numbers of debt for such countries would be expected to
be lower because this country has a much larger GDP and can sustain
more debt. If the per capita numbers are lower that is likely due in
part to the differences in demographics, and, more likely, due to a
socialist government making regulations that punish borrowing. The
demographic differences mean that these countries have more rsponsible
people. They are also more homogeneous. What percent of these two
countries consists of minorities with average IQs of 85?
> > > > He also wants the insane cap-and-TAX
> > > > legislation. How completely stupid/crazy to tax energy production to
> > > > keep CO2 emissions down, when the latest climatological models show
> > > > that CO2 has no greenhouse effect on the planet whatsoever?
>
> > > The thing you don't seem to realize is that right now everybody wants
> > > something in the bill. It doesn't mean that everybody will end up
> > > getting what they want in the final draft. If the final draft shows
> > > that the pros outweigh whatever cons, then regardless of what's in it,
> > > Obama had better sign it, otherwise nothing will change and that'll
> > > only end up costing you even more, which practically every House
> > > member agrees on.
>
> > Here's an idea. Let's make some changes that are sane. Let's start
> > to slowly and sensibly cut back all the ridiculous socialist programs
> > and phase them out. DUH. We might even save a part of the country,
> > the good part.
>
> It wasn't "socialist" programs that got the country in the mess it's
> in over the last year. It was the subprime mortgage fiasco, among
> other Bush fiascos, which was facilitated by Bush's administration
> that caused the spike in the debt and deficit. How come you keep
> forgetting that?
Because it isn't true. Bush had far less to do with the subprime
mortgage mess than Clinton's socialist housing policies. How come you
keep forgetting that?
There's a clear and umistakeable correlation between
> Bush's term in office, and any Republican's term in office for that
> matter, and the fiscal mess the country gets in. Here, need I remind
> you with another pretty chart?
>
> http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/
> Natl_Debt_Chart_2006.gif
That URL didn't work either. No matter. I have made the point to you
at least 3 times that it is not logically possible to assign blame to
a president for all the events that happen during his watch. How come
you keep forgetting that? Are you drunk? On drugs?
> > > > Not very likely. Why? Because there would've
>
> > > > > been no mess to clean up. Even if the health care plan would've ended
> > > > > up being as Obama's only and biggest deficit maker, that's still only
> > > > > $1 trillion spread over 10 years, far from any $9 trillion total.
>
> > > > If you actually believe that Obamacare as outlined in HR3200 would
> > > > cost only 1T over the next 10 years, you need a brain transplant.
>
> > > Just this morning Jay Rockefeller cited two independent studies, one
> > > claiming that it would only add up to $238 billion over the first ten
> > > years, the other that it would add a trillion over the next ten years
> > > after that. Who do you believe? It's all stupid projections that
> > > look at the plan and its execution from different perspectives and
> > > arrive at different conclusions. You can't believe any of it because
> > > they don't arrive at any consistent figures. So there's no point in
> > > throwing around projection figures as fact - they never end up that
> > > way.
>
> > History has shown that virtually all such budget projections for such
> > socialist programs in the past were low.
>
> Show me all those charts where "history has shown".
Look at the lines just below. I asked first. "Name a large
social welfare program that ever came in at or below the levels
projected."
> > One should look to that to
> > determine what to believe about the current projections. Name a large
> > social welfare program that ever came in at or below the levels
> > projected. The projections aren't merely inaccuracies. They are a
> > combination of wishing thinking and willful lies.
>
> So stop referring to them as a basis for anything in backing up
> whatever you want to say.
They can be used, as I already explained as a lowest possible
estimate. If the lowest possible estimate is already understood to be
too high, then there is no reason to know the more accurate, higher,
true value. This is a mathematical concept. You don't seem to
understand it.
Complete non sequitur. Did you ever take a logic course?
> > > > And that
>
> > > > > bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> > > > > something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> > > > > do.
>
> > > > You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
> > > > the money back and get the government off their backs.
>
> > > Hey, if it's such a dictatorship, why don't you move elsewhere? Or is
> > > the U.S. still the least "dictatorship" country in the world to you?
> > > If so, then you're kind of stuck having to live in the best
> > > "dictatorship" country in the world, aren't you? So just deal with it
> > > then, if that's what you really think it is.
>
> > That's a thought. Or, I could stay and fight the dictator in every
> > way I can.
>
> By posting inanities on a newsgroup? Yeah, that's showing your
> rmight.
Another non sequitur. Like posting is all I do to fight back. This
is getting boring.
> > > > Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
>
> > > > > it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> > > > > the way things were going? Of course not.
>
> > > > Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
> > > > let the economy sink?
>
> > > You can't blame him for something the banks are still not doing, like
> > > lending money. But then, that's the capitalist thing to do, right?
> > > You're all for a free market place, right? Denying credit is part of
> > > that free market place. It's also a large part of what's preventing
> > > the problem from getting fixed quicker. I think what you really want
> > > to see IS a dictator, someone who can step in and completely call all
> > > the shots and nobody can argue. Because that's the only way anything
> > > can get done fast, screw the democratic process, it just takes too
> > > forever long to get through anything. You're the real fascist-minded
> > > if you expect instant debt-proof results without hassles.
>
> > I expect capitalist solutions.
>
> A capitalist solution requires debt, it's the nature of the beast.
> And debt, via capitalism, can be so easily incurred simply from
> interest payments alone. It's in the nature of the beast. There's no
> getting around it. Capitalism is a debt-based monetary philosophy.
Debt is a part of all economies, even "communist" ones.
> > Socialism isn't a solution. It's the
> > problem.
>
> So Buish was a socialist when everything went to pieces under his
> watch?
Bush moved too far to the left for me, but not a far as the average
Demoncrap, and nowhere close to initiating the types of socialist
housing practices that Clinton did.
> > As I have pointed out twice now, socialism caused the mess
> > we are in. Trying to give houses to people who could not afford them
> > was the first mistake that led to this recession/depression.
>
> That's not socialism, proving how clueless you are in your
> unuderstanding of it. That was all capitalist-driven to create debt
> from which capitalists could make even more money on that debt.
> Socialism would be where the houses would be partially or wholly
> funded by public funds.
Yes. And that is exactly what happened. The GSEs ,representing the
government, and funded by taxpayers (public funds) assumed the risk of
house loans in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the working poor.
In the end, as we see, the government/pubic paid for it.
The subprime mortgage fiasco was all private
> dealings and all about how much money moneymen could make off you.
> You didn't check out that link which explained it all, did you? I
> didn't think you would, which only means I'm talking to a brick wall
> for a brain who's absolutely content to wallow in his own insular
> fantasy of what he believes happened but has it confused with
> something that took place in an alternate reality, not this one.
I have read more than enough about the subprime mortgage crisis to
know that the policies which Clinton began with the GSEs started the
whole mess. And government sponsored enterprises are not in any real
sense private institutions.
Didn't check that link because all of this is a moot point anyway. I
have already stated that even a capitalist system won't work when you
have far too many irresponsible people in the citizenry. All your
last paragraph does is to reinforce that point. There are too many
worthless, useless, dependent people in this country today. Period.
People who want something for nothing. Conservatives, like myself, do
not borrow excessively. Conservatives have the character to delay
gratification of their wants until they can afford them. You and the
Demoncraps, people who want free stuff, and who borrow more than they
can afford, are the sort of immature assholes who drive up unpayable
credit card balances. My wife and I have never paid a dime in
interest on any credit card. Literally. Period. We use them only
for convenience and pay off all balances at the end of every month.
How much debt do you have on credit cards?
> > On the other hand, socialism is so fundamentally
> > flawed that it can't even work with good people. Of course, no sytem
> > works when you have mostly garbage for citizenry. And that is the
> > problem with the country today. Garbage in. Garbage out. Socialist
> > trash becomes the majority. Socialist shit is elected. Socialism
> > destroys the country. Those good people who are responsible for
> > themselves, the minority, suffer also.
>
> Again, if you think you're really suffering and you're under the thumb
> of a socialist state, then move. But you won't because you know
> you're just spouting off nothing but baloney.
I know that I would rather stay and fight. And I do. In more ways
than admittedly useless posting like this.
> > > > Have you paid attention to what China thinks? Or other countries that
> > > > hold our IOUs? Have you noticed that the yield on T bills is going
> > > > up, i.e., we are paying out more interest to borrow money? Have you
> > > > noticed that the dollar is under attack as the world's most trusted
> > > > currency?
>
> > > Yeah, but so what? You'll never ever be able to pay any of that back
> > > to everyone anyway, not in your lifetime, nor anyone else's. The only
> > > way it could happen is if the U.S. got a lock on something the whole
> > > world needs, whatever that "lock" would be, then it could bargain away
> > > its debt to zero.
>
> > Amazing "logic" you espose. Your philosophy seems to be a sort of
> > "eat, drink, and be merry," because we haven't got a chance anyway.
>
> Well, you really don't have a chance. If you're such an economics
> major, you figure it out how to solve the problem in no time. Just
> remember that there are 12 zeroes that follow any single- or double-
> digit trillion dollar figure, 14 if you count the cents. Also
> remember that there are 307,000,000 Americans now that want their
> health care, roads paved, law enforcement, military, and everything
> else that people get from government and take for granted as actually
> coming from the government. You better factor all of that in,
> otherwise you'll have a pesky problem on your hands, to say the least.
I never said I was an economist. And there is only one long term
solution for the problem of having so many weak, dependent, useless
people who are dead weight in an economy. Darwin, or if you prefer,
Darwinism, will solve it in the long run.
> > You should speak for yourself boy. Most onservatives will suffer too,
> > but they are far more likely to survive and prosper, even when the
> > country fails, because they have planned ahead AS INDIVIDUALS. Of
> > course, those who are completely dependent on others (government) are
> > headed for the toilet.
>
> There's nothing "individual" about a bunch of rabid sheep who get
> together and spout the same lines and act the same way and
> collectively end up being and looking stupider when they leave than
> when they came.
Meaningless tripe.
1. Kick the immigrants out and thus solve the supposed problems with
disease spread by them.
2. Take citizens off welfare and they will pick veggies or starve.
> > If you really want to wipe out the debt and deficit quick, get
>
> > > rid of half the population now, maybe even two-thirds, and then you'll
> > > see expenses plummet and revenues skyrocket, especially if all you
> > > keep are the wealthier people. It's all those damned poor people,
> > > which could very well include you if you don't make more than $100
> > > grand a year, which I strongly suspect you don't, that are draining
> > > the country's financial resources. Do something patriotic for your
> > > country if you love it - move out of it!
>
> > Unfortunately it would not be moral to "get rid of half" the
> > citizenry. But, Darwin is going to take care of that in the long run,
> > sooner perhaps than one might think.
>
> Uh, Darwin can't do anything - he's dead.
My that is such a clever retort. NOT.
> > Since you "know" that the
> > country is headed for complete economic collapse under any
> > circumstances, you should know what that implies.
>
> Anarchy. Out of the ashes of which will rise Socialism! The real
> kind, not the kind you hallucinate that you have now.
Socialism very likely will keep rising out of the ashes for many
centuries to come. But it will always cause suffering and ultimately
fail.
You mean like blaming everything on an imaginary rich, white,
capitalist pig?
If you were really knowledgable on this issue, you would know as I
have already written, that others knew what was going to happen. They
predicted almost immediately that Clinton's actions would lead to an
eventual collapse in housing. Clinton set the whole PREDICTABLE mess
in motion.
The demand was created three years
> into the Bush administration and that's when it was allowed to
> happen.
Nonsense. Clinton started this in the late 90s near the end of his
second term. Naturally the subprimes began climbing in frequency
during Bush's early years. This is precisely the point I keep
returning to and you never learn. Something started under one
president often doesn't have time to cause problems until the term of
another. Man are you dense!
Somebody in the administration and/or Treasury Dept. was
> clearly asleep at the wheel or just decided to roll over and play dead
> or even wanted to encourage those loans, which was most obviously the
> case. Clinton had nothing to do with it at that time, but Bush or any
> of his people could've stopped it dead in its trackst. The buck
> stopped with Bush at that time, not Clinton.
Bush also had the problem of a Demoncrap congress during part of his
tenure, and of bucking the black-racist component of the subprime
mortgage mess. The minute Bush called for doing something about the
problem, we heard cries of 'racism'. That insanity has, up until
now, trumped sanity.
You may have the last word unless you actually manage to write
something interesting. I feel that this is a waste of my time.
wy
Do you even remember how you answered? I asked if you had $30 grand
right now to pay off the U.S. debt. You replied, "Yes. But I don't
intend to offer it up." And then I said you're already doing it
through taxes of one form or another. Some of your supposed $30 grand
that you claim to have is already being offered up, whether you're
doing it willingly or not either through whatever taxes you pay or
products you buy. Nothing tangential or irrational about that
thinking at all, just stating a pure fact - and facts are something
you seem to have great deal in accepting.
>
> > > Does each and every American, including newborns and the aged
>
> > > > at death's door, have $30,000 to spare right now to clear that debt
> > > > off the books right now? Of course not. So what does it matter if
> > > > another trillion or ten gets added, the U.S. can't even pay off what
> > > > it owes now.
>
> > > Do you really mean readers to take that kind of nonsense seriously.
> > > When a boat is sinking, one stops making the hole bigger and bails
> > > like hell.
>
> > The U.S. is a boat with already one big gaping hole for a floor that's
> > only staying afloat by being patched up by flimsy paper, there is no
> > bigger hole to create - the hole in its entirety is already there.
> > There is NO fix for the U.S. economy now, only patch-up work.
> > Period. What is it about trillions of dollars to repay as being
> > impossible, especially with interest applied on it, that you don't
> > understand?
>
> Again, you make a simplistic, hackneyed argument with the arrogant
> pretense of its being meaningful, and accuse me of being unable to
> understand it. You are getting to be a waste of my time.
Well, if you actually showed howthe U.S. economy and the government's
finances could be fixed pronto, then I'd pay attention to your
proposal. But apparently you're showing no ability to even to do
that, so I'm supposed to take your comment about my arguments being
simplistic and hackneyed seriously? Such a perfect Republican you
are: complain but offer no possible solutions.
>
> > > Everybody will just have to keep covering whatever costs
>
> > > > are incurred, and that's what true capitalism is all about - debt. If
> > > > the U.S. excels at anything, it's that.
>
> > > Socialism caused the debt. Not capitalism.
>
> > Capitalism thrives on debt, it's designed to make the wealthy
> > wealthier at everyone else's expense. And if socialism caused the
> > debt, then explain why socialist countries like Sweden and Finland
> > have a much lower debt than the U.S. Check out the pretty chart:
>
> >http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/3/13/
> > saupload_hh_debt_oecd.png
>
> Your link didn't work, and I am not going to waste time pursuing it.
You need to highlight both lines, connecting the '13/' with the
'saupload' into a single link, then copy and paste into the address
bar. What's the problem?
> The absolute numbers of debt for such countries would be expected to
> be lower because this country has a much larger GDP and can sustain
> more debt.
Excuses, excuses. The debt is in relation to whatever the GDP is, it
has nothing to do with larger GDP sustaining more debt, as other
countries with larger GDP than Sweden and Finland show how poorly they
sustain their debt. Don't try to pretend to be an economist, you,re
not very good at it.
> If the per capita numbers are lower that is likely due in
> part to the differences in demographics, and, more likely, due to a
> socialist government making regulations that punish borrowing. The
> demographic differences mean that these countries have more rsponsible
> people. They are also more homogeneous. What percent of these two
> countries consists of minorities with average IQs of 85?
Well, Sweden ranks in a 2-way tie for No. 9 with an average 101 IQ,
while Finland is in a 3-way tie for No. 22 with 97 and the U.S. in a 5-
way tie, along with Mongolia, for No. 17 with 98. And if Mongolia has
a population with an identical IQ to that of the U.S. popuilation,
that doesn't say much about the typical American's IQ, does it? Asian
countries dominate the top 4 spots followed by "socialist" countries
Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands to round out the Top 10.
So what was that comment about minorities?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Don't you know how to link the two lines together into one?
Does it matter? I've already told you that projections are a
pointless exercise, they're a joke, I don't deal with projections,
it's not worth my time. And yet, you persist in relying on the art of
flimsy calculations as being some form of credibility in anything.
Snap out of it already.
>
> > > One should look to that to
> > > determine what to believe about the current projections. Name a large
> > > social welfare program that ever came in at or below the levels
> > > projected. The projections aren't merely inaccuracies. They are a
> > > combination of wishing thinking and willful lies.
>
> > So stop referring to them as a basis for anything in backing up
> > whatever you want to say.
>
> They can be used, as I already explained as a lowest possible
> estimate. If the lowest possible estimate is already understood to be
> too high, then there is no reason to know the more accurate, higher,
> true value. This is a mathematical concept. You don't seem to
> understand it.
Because it's irrelevant. Debt and deficits have a life of their own
independent of any projections, that's why they always tend to be off
the mark due to unexpected factors. Hey, you know, like that mortgage
meltdown? And then the Big 3 meltdown? And who knows what other
meltdown might be around the corner that projections won't take into
account.
Well, no doubt you need one in order to be able to follow it.
>
> > > > > And that
>
> > > > > > bailout money, by the way, just as with the banks' bailouts, is
> > > > > > something to be paid back, just as some banks have already begun to
> > > > > > do.
>
> > > > > You mean if the little dictator and his boys ALLOW the banks to pay
> > > > > the money back and get the government off their backs.
>
> > > > Hey, if it's such a dictatorship, why don't you move elsewhere? Or is
> > > > the U.S. still the least "dictatorship" country in the world to you?
> > > > If so, then you're kind of stuck having to live in the best
> > > > "dictatorship" country in the world, aren't you? So just deal with it
> > > > then, if that's what you really think it is.
>
> > > That's a thought. Or, I could stay and fight the dictator in every
> > > way I can.
>
> > By posting inanities on a newsgroup? Yeah, that's showing your
> > rmight.
>
> Another non sequitur. Like posting is all I do to fight back. This
> is getting boring.
What the hell else do you do that's more productive than posting?
>
> > > > > Did projections for this year take into account the paybacks when
>
> > > > > > it probably didn't expect that anybody would be paying anything back
> > > > > > the way things were going? Of course not.
>
> > > > > Did initial projections take into account how bad Obama was going to
> > > > > let the economy sink?
>
> > > > You can't blame him for something the banks are still not doing, like
> > > > lending money. But then, that's the capitalist thing to do, right?
> > > > You're all for a free market place, right? Denying credit is part of
> > > > that free market place. It's also a large part of what's preventing
> > > > the problem from getting fixed quicker. I think what you really want
> > > > to see IS a dictator, someone who can step in and completely call all
> > > > the shots and nobody can argue. Because that's the only way anything
> > > > can get done fast, screw the democratic process, it just takes too
> > > > forever long to get through anything. You're the real fascist-minded
> > > > if you expect instant debt-proof results without hassles.
>
> > > I expect capitalist solutions.
>
> > A capitalist solution requires debt, it's the nature of the beast.
> > And debt, via capitalism, can be so easily incurred simply from
> > interest payments alone. It's in the nature of the beast. There's no
> > getting around it. Capitalism is a debt-based monetary philosophy.
>
> Debt is a part of all economies, even "communist" ones.
But communism debt wasn't about moneymen making a profit at the
expense of others.
>
> > > Socialism isn't a solution. It's the
> > > problem.
>
> > So Buish was a socialist when everything went to pieces under his
> > watch?
>
> Bush moved too far to the left for me, but not a far as the average
> Demoncrap, and nowhere close to initiating the types of socialist
> housing practices that Clinton did.
Bush moved too far to the left? What planet are you living on, where
all those Supermen Bizarro characters are?
>
> > > As I have pointed out twice now, socialism caused the mess
> > > we are in. Trying to give houses to people who could not afford them
> > > was the first mistake that led to this recession/depression.
>
> > That's not socialism, proving how clueless you are in your
> > unuderstanding of it. That was all capitalist-driven to create debt
> > from which capitalists could make even more money on that debt.
> > Socialism would be where the houses would be partially or wholly
> > funded by public funds.
>
> Yes. And that is exactly what happened. The GSEs ,representing the
> government, and funded by taxpayers (public funds) assumed the risk of
> house loans in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the working poor.
> In the end, as we see, the government/pubic paid for it.
GSEs date back to 1916 so they've been around for a while. According
to some quickie Wiki info on them, some of the GSEs (such as Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac until 2008) have been privately owned but publicly
chartered; others, such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, are owned by
the corporations that use their services. GSE securities carry no
explicit government guarantee of creditworthiness, but lenders grant
them favorable interest rates, and the buyers of their securities
offer them high prices. This is partly due to an "implicit guarantee"
that the government would not allow such important institutions to
fail or default on debt. This perception has allowed Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac to an estimated $2 billion per year in borrowing costs.
This implicit guarantee was tested by the subprime mortgage crisis,
which forced the U.S. government to bail out and put into
conservatorship Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac in September, 2008.
So by that description, it's not only the working poor that benefit
from GSEs but money-lenders too from going belly-up. It can be argued
as to whether GSEs are necessary, but I don't know enough about the
intricacies of their value to the economy as a whole. But the fact
that they've been around for over 90 years suggests that there's some
sort of need for them.
> The subprime mortgage fiasco was all private
>
> > dealings and all about how much money moneymen could make off you.
> > You didn't check out that link which explained it all, did you? I
> > didn't think you would, which only means I'm talking to a brick wall
> > for a brain who's absolutely content to wallow in his own insular
> > fantasy of what he believes happened but has it confused with
> > something that took place in an alternate reality, not this one.
>
> I have read more than enough about the subprime mortgage crisis to
> know that the policies which Clinton began with the GSEs started the
> whole mess. And government sponsored enterprises are not in any real
> sense private institutions.
Where's the tie-in between Clinton and the GSEs now. Do you make all
this stuff up as you go along?
Remember to link up all three lines into a single link. Just
reminding you.
> I have already stated that even a capitalist system won't work when you
> have far too many irresponsible people in the citizenry. All your
> last paragraph does is to reinforce that point. There are too many
> worthless, useless, dependent people in this country today. Period.
> People who want something for nothing. Conservatives, like myself, do
> not borrow excessively. Conservatives have the character to delay
> gratification of their wants until they can afford them. You and the
> Demoncraps, people who want free stuff, and who borrow more than they
> can afford, are the sort of immature assholes who drive up unpayable
> credit card balances. My wife and I have never paid a dime in
> interest on any credit card. Literally. Period. We use them only
> for convenience and pay off all balances at the end of every month.
> How much debt do you have on credit cards?
The last time I had a credit card was back in the '80s. I learned my
lesson. It's been nothing but cash or checks with me ever since. It
really does do wonders for one's balance sheet, that's for sure.
Why wait? It'll be way past too late by then. Get rid of them all
now.
>
> > > You should speak for yourself boy. Most onservatives will suffer too,
> > > but they are far more likely to survive and prosper, even when the
> > > country fails, because they have planned ahead AS INDIVIDUALS. Of
> > > course, those who are completely dependent on others (government) are
> > > headed for the toilet.
>
> > There's nothing "individual" about a bunch of rabid sheep who get
> > together and spout the same lines and act the same way and
> > collectively end up being and looking stupider when they leave than
> > when they came.
>
> Meaningless tripe.
Didm't you see that march on Washington? How embarrassing for old,
white, fat people in America.
Well, I hop eyou can cough up another trillion bucks to do that. They
comprise 11% of the U.S. population, 14% of all workers and 20% of all
low-wage workers. not only would you have to find and kick out 33
million people, but what are you going to tell all those small
businessmen and large rip-off companies that rely on that 20% of all
low-wage workers when they can't get cheap labor anymore?
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:zw
Blz_70Dx8J:www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/
310880_lowwage_immig_wkfc.pdf+percentage+
of+immigrant+work+force+in+u.s.&hl=en
>
> 2. Take citizens off welfare and they will pick veggies or starve.
Easier said than done. No single woman with 8 kids will do it.
Otherwise you'd have to find some socialist means of making sure that
her kids all get daycare because the low wages she'd be earning would
barely cover her monthly rent, never mind anything else. You love
fantasizing about unrealistic scenarios, don't you? You're a true
dictator at heart, that's for sure.
>
> > > If you really want to wipe out the debt and deficit quick, get
>
> > > > rid of half the population now, maybe even two-thirds, and then you'll
> > > > see expenses plummet and revenues skyrocket, especially if all you
> > > > keep are the wealthier people. It's all those damned poor people,
> > > > which could very well include you if you don't make more than $100
> > > > grand a year, which I strongly suspect you don't, that are draining
> > > > the country's financial resources. Do something patriotic for your
> > > > country if you love it - move out of it!
>
> > > Unfortunately it would not be moral to "get rid of half" the
> > > citizenry. But, Darwin is going to take care of that in the long run,
> > > sooner perhaps than one might think.
>
> > Uh, Darwin can't do anything - he's dead.
>
> My that is such a clever retort. NOT.
>
> > > Since you "know" that the
> > > country is headed for complete economic collapse under any
> > > circumstances, you should know what that implies.
>
> > Anarchy. Out of the ashes of which will rise Socialism! The real
> > kind, not the kind you hallucinate that you have now.
>
> Socialism very likely will keep rising out of the ashes for many
> centuries to come. But it will always cause suffering and ultimately
> fail.
Seems the U.S. is among the biggest failures right now, while
socialists at least have full health coverage - each and every one of
them.
Follow the money. Just follow the money is all you have to do.
Yeah, and how did you and everyone else come to know this? By divine
inspiration? And prove that you and everyone else knew this was going
to happen. Show discussions dating back to 1999 and 2000 to that
effect.
>
> The demand was created three years
>
> > into the Bush administration and that's when it was allowed to
> > happen.
>
> Nonsense. Clinton started this in the late 90s near the end of his
> second term. Naturally the subprimes began climbing in frequency
> during Bush's early years. This is precisely the point I keep
> returning to and you never learn. Something started under one
> president often doesn't have time to cause problems until the term of
> another. Man are you dense!
Here's the real story that you don't know about:
"Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and
President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending
bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill,
Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the
omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization
Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The
essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading
(financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes
in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk
for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for
by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted
energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to
the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated
securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part
of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between
$900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage
of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act."
And who was Phil Gramm? Why, a Republican! Surprise, surprise!
There's a crucial missing gap filled in for you. Is that the Clinton
bill you've been referring to all this time?
> Somebody in the administration and/or Treasury Dept. was
>
> > clearly asleep at the wheel or just decided to roll over and play dead
> > or even wanted to encourage those loans, which was most obviously the
> > case. Clinton had nothing to do with it at that time, but Bush or any
> > of his people could've stopped it dead in its trackst. The buck
> > stopped with Bush at that time, not Clinton.
>
> Bush also had the problem of a Demoncrap congress during part of his
> tenure, and of bucking the black-racist component of the subprime
> mortgage mess. The minute Bush called for doing something about the
> problem, we heard cries of 'racism'. That insanity has, up until
> now, trumped sanity.
>
> You may have the last word unless you actually manage to write
> something interesting. I feel that this is a waste of my time.
You only have sly Phil Gramm to thank for everything that made
everything else possible.
Kevin Cunningham
>
> I get that responsible people only borrow what they have a reasonable
> chance to pay back. And that a capitalist system works if citizens
> are responsible. On the other hand, socialism is so fundamentally
> flawed that it can't even work with good people. Of course, no sytem
> works when you have mostly garbage for citizenry. And that is the
> problem with the country today. Garbage in. Garbage out. Socialist
> trash becomes the majority. Socialist shit is elected. Socialism
> destroys the country. Those good people who are responsible for
> themselves, the minority, suffer also.
(more crap)
This from a racist repug who gleefully watched as the repugs ran up
the deficit to a new all time high. In 8 years of utter financial
chaos this government hog never once asked the repugs to quit piling
on the debt. See, this repug is getting his pay out, so he's set now
he want to stop any one else from sidling up to the trough.
And then there is the on going racism......
Lifsabsurd
I made the point at the end of my last post that I wouldn't waste much
more time with you. And I answer this post only to confirm that. You
have no idea what taxes of any sort I do or don't pay. Still you feel
the need to point out in general that people pay taxes, as if that is
a brilliant point worth printing. You seem to be a low IQ type who
has no insight into his own lack of insight.
I have already stated how I think the current financial mess will be
resolved, and it won't be by government. It will be by a culling of
the herd, ala Darwin (if you even understand what I mean).
I don't intend to waste time patching together your defective links.
I made that point. You ignored it or failed to understand it.
I had a good laugh at you meaningless spouting of average IQs by
country, as if that had any bearing on the answer to my question. You
just aren't bright. One illogical rant after another.
And I quit reading after that point. But I probably read your
nonsense much longer than almost anyone else did, except perhaps
Cunningham, who is as big a waste of time as you.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wy
Do I care what taxes you pay or don't pay? Not particularly. The
point of the matter is that you do pay taxes in one form or another,
whether you'd like to admit it or not. If your share happens to be
less than the average, then great for you. But no one gets through
life without paying any taxes whatsoever. Fill up your gas tank
lately? There's tax in that price you pay at the pump, you know.
> Still you feel
> the need to point out in general that people pay taxes, as if that is
> a brilliant point worth printing. You seem to be a low IQ type who
> has no insight into his own lack of insight.
Those who ridicule other people's IQ baselessly are only divulging
their insecurity with their own actual IQ. Anyone with a high enough
IQ knows that, which is why anyone with a high enough IQ never resorts
to it.
>
> I have already stated how I think the current financial mess will be
> resolved, and it won't be by government. It will be by a culling of
> the herd, ala Darwin (if you even understand what I mean).
That sounds like A-bomb talk to me.
>
> I don't intend to waste time patching together your defective links.
> I made that point. You ignored it or failed to understand it.
Ahhh, ignorance must truly be bliss for you when you don't even want
to patch up links for fear of possibly being enlightened.
>
> I had a good laugh at you meaningless spouting of average IQs by
> country, as if that had any bearing on the answer to my question. You
> just aren't bright. One illogical rant after another.
Hey, you asked the question, I gave you the answer. Don't blame me if
you can't accept the numerical data. But Republicans really never
were good with numerical data anyway, right?
> And I quit reading after that point. But I probably read your
> nonsense much longer than almost anyone else did, except perhaps
> Cunningham, who is as big a waste of time as you.
And yet, you keep wasting time on us. Nice.
Kevin Cunningham
> On Sep 13, 7:02 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
What the above gutless wonder can't do is defend his practices. He
admits that the government trough is open to him but he want to stop
all those furriners, etc, etc, and every other American from getting
any. Typical conservative, he's got his so he is all right.
That and he gave up on learning when he got kicked out of high
school. The above poster claims to be in the bio-business but he
doesn't know what a grant is. Odd that........