Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was not the government's fault. Unless you blame government for being corrupted by corporate lobbyists and allowing corporate lawyers to craft laws, write regulatory rules and capture regulatory agencies. But that is not the agenda of liberals, it is the agenda of conservatives, the Republican party, the right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court and all their wealthy backers. They believe THAT is government's function; to protect the corporations.
That is spin.
Conservatives and the GOP overall believe that Government should not be incolved in implementing policies that have a direct negative affect on capitalsim....
The GOP is attrempting to protect capitalism from Government.
Curious...what you did was spin the intent of the GOP and Conservatives. Why did you feel the need to do that? Are you concerned that without the spin, the intentions of the GOP may come acorss as valid?
I really wish it were spin JH. But you have unwittingly confirmed that it is fact and in direct conflict with what our founding fathers intended or practiced.
Conservatives love to use the 'show me where in the Constitution' argument. So show me where in the Constitution, Federalist papers, any of our founding documents or examples of governance where our founding fathers ever mentioned 'protect capitalism' as their goals.
I really wish it were spin JH. But you have unwittingly confirmed that it is fact and in direct conflict with what our founding fathers intended or practiced.
Conservatives love to use the 'show me where in the Constitution' argument. So show me where in the Constitution, Federalist papers, any of our founding documents or examples of governance where our founding fathers ever mentioned 'protect capitalism' as their goals.
Or favoring collective rights over individual rights.
Here is where we have a problem. You folks on the right don't even know what happened and why. The financial meltdown of our economy was not because OF regulations, it was caused by DEregulation, regulatory capture (corporations writing regulations for their benefit) and the circumventing of existing regulations.
It had nothing to do with low and middle income people buying a home.
I bet I do understand what happened.
The housing bubble burst because unsustainable practices were encouraged. Regulations used to require that banks show that they were carrying enough collateral to offset their loans, that usually meant that banks would require at least 30% down on any mortgage.
This caused a hardship in some neighborhoods, and Congress was lobbied to encourage banks to make more loans to traditionally lower income/minority groups. In order to accomplish this they had to change the laws about collateral. This helped create the housing bubble larger because there was no way a bank could possibly offer a high risk borrower a 0 down mortgage without offering the same deal to other customers with good credit. If they did this they would have lost the better customers because of unfair and preferential treatment to others.
So, in a way, you are correct that this was the fault of deregulation, but the complete truth is that regulations that encouraged the behavior that you point out is not the main cause of the crisis actually went all the way up the pay scale, and everyone took advantage of loan policies that were meant to encourage home ownership by minorities. These polices are the direct result of government interventions and regulations.
Want to tell me again this is not the governments fault?
It was not the government's fault. Unless you blame government for being corrupted by corporate lobbyists and allowing corporate lawyers to craft laws, write regulatory rules and capture regulatory agencies. But that is not the agenda of liberals, it is the agenda of conservatives, the Republican party, the right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court and all their wealthy backers. They believe THAT is government's function; to protect the corporations.
Or favoring collective rights over individual rights.
Clearly the power to conscript soldiers favors collective over individual rights. So does the power to tax.
Or favoring collective rights over individual rights.
Clearly the power to conscript soldiers favors collective over individual rights. So does the power to tax.
I bet I do understand what happened.
The housing bubble burst because unsustainable practices were encouraged. Regulations used to require that banks show that they were carrying enough collateral to offset their loans, that usually meant that banks would require at least 30% down on any mortgage.
This caused a hardship in some neighborhoods, and Congress was lobbied to encourage banks to make more loans to traditionally lower income/minority groups. In order to accomplish this they had to change the laws about collateral. This helped create the housing bubble larger because there was no way a bank could possibly offer a high risk borrower a 0 down mortgage without offering the same deal to other customers with good credit. If they did this they would have lost the better customers because of unfair and preferential treatment to others.
So, in a way, you are correct that this was the fault of deregulation, but the complete truth is that regulations that encouraged the behavior that you point out is not the main cause of the crisis actually went all the way up the pay scale, and everyone took advantage of loan policies that were meant to encourage home ownership by minorities. These polices are the direct result of government interventions and regulations.
Want to tell me again this is not the governments fault?
It was not the government's fault. Unless you blame government for being corrupted by corporate lobbyists and allowing corporate lawyers to craft laws, write regulatory rules and capture regulatory agencies. But that is not the agenda of liberals, it is the agenda of conservatives, the Republican party, the right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court and all their wealthy backers. They believe THAT is government's function; to protect the corporations.
Yep, corporate lobbyists/activist that lobbied for the "right" of home ownership.
Both parties fell for that trap because it bought them votes, not because there was money in it. If you did not see the world as liberal v conservative you would see that the problem is with the government itself, not one side or the other. Would you like a list the congress-critters from both parties who thought this was a grand idea? Or would you prefer to see only one side, and ignore the other doing the same thing? One way will lead to you growing more cynical, the other will leave you a partisan hack.
Your choice.
It was not the government's fault. Unless you blame government for being corrupted by corporate lobbyists and allowing corporate lawyers to craft laws, write regulatory rules and capture regulatory agencies. But that is not the agenda of liberals, it is the agenda of conservatives, the Republican party, the right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court and all their wealthy backers. They believe THAT is government's function; to protect the corporations.
Yep, corporate lobbyists/activist that lobbied for the "right" of home ownership.
Both parties fell for that trap because it bought them votes, not because there was money in it. If you did not see the world as liberal v conservative you would see that the problem is with the government itself, not one side or the other. Would you like a list the congress-critters from both parties who thought this was a grand idea? Or would you prefer to see only one side, and ignore the other doing the same thing? One way will lead to you growing more cynical, the other will leave you a partisan hack.
Your choice.
You just continue to tool along under the false assumption that selling homes to low and middle income families was the cause of the housing bubble. It was NOT.
What we DO know:
The Community Reinvestment Act was not to blame - 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.
Fannie and Freddie were not the central cause
The majority of people foreclosed on were wealthy not poor
Speaking of BS, this thread. All the waivers are temporary:
A. Crappe mini med waivers OVER when plan is implemented in 2014.
B. The rest, union cadillac plans, waivers over by 2018, when union plans are renegotiated. The dupes of bought off Pubs are totally misled...seem to WANT to be screwed forever by their heroes, the mega rich...
Yep, corporate lobbyists/activist that lobbied for the "right" of home ownership.
Both parties fell for that trap because it bought them votes, not because there was money in it. If you did not see the world as liberal v conservative you would see that the problem is with the government itself, not one side or the other. Would you like a list the congress-critters from both parties who thought this was a grand idea? Or would you prefer to see only one side, and ignore the other doing the same thing? One way will lead to you growing more cynical, the other will leave you a partisan hack.
Your choice.
You just continue to tool along under the false assumption that selling homes to low and middle income families was the cause of the housing bubble. It was NOT.
What we DO know:
The Community Reinvestment Act was not to blame - 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.
Fannie and Freddie were not the central cause
The majority of people foreclosed on were wealthy not poor
What the fuck, can you read at all? I specifically pointed out that the banks provided the no down payment loans to all their customers and that that policy drove the housing bubble to unsustainable heights. Come ba and debate with me when you are actually talking about the same thing I am.
You just continue to tool along under the false assumption that selling homes to low and middle income families was the cause of the housing bubble. It was NOT.
What we DO know:
The Community Reinvestment Act was not to blame - 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.
Fannie and Freddie were not the central cause
The majority of people foreclosed on were wealthy not poor
What the fuck, can you read at all? I specifically pointed out that the banks provided the no down payment loans to all their customers and that that policy drove the housing bubble to unsustainable heights. Come ba and debate with me when you are actually talking about the same thing I am.
Are you THAT fucking obtuse? You keep on mindlessly tooling along under the ASSumption that you know what caused the housing bubble. You DON'T. But NOW you expect me to accept your fallacy as truth and debate it with you?
The housing bubble was not caused by government. It was caused by the private sector. Government did not create predatory lending. The private sector did. There was never a government program that implemented predatory lending as a way for minorities to buy a home. Private lenders created predatory lending as a way to allow wealthy home flippers to buy and sell with minimal up front investment and private lenders used it to prey on mostly elderly folks on fixed income. Government loan policies meant to encourage home ownership by minorities WERE NOT THE CAUSE of the housing bubble. Those loan policies were based on sound practices that had worked since the New Deal.
What the fuck, can you read at all? I specifically pointed out that the banks provided the no down payment loans to all their customers and that that policy drove the housing bubble to unsustainable heights. Come ba and debate with me when you are actually talking about the same thing I am.
Are you THAT fucking obtuse? You keep on mindlessly tooling along under the ASSumption that you know what caused the housing bubble. You DON'T. But NOW you expect me to accept your fallacy as truth and debate it with you?
The housing bubble was not caused by government. It was caused by the private sector. Government did not create predatory lending. The private sector did. There was never a government program that implemented predatory lending as a way for minorities to buy a home. Private lenders created predatory lending as a way to allow wealthy home flippers to buy and sell with minimal up front investment and private lenders used it to prey on mostly elderly folks on fixed income. Government loan policies meant to encourage home ownership by minorities WERE NOT THE CAUSE of the housing bubble. Those loan policies were based on sound practices that had worked since the New Deal.
You can't read, thanks for answering that question definitively.
Nearly 1 in 5 Obamacare waivers go to restaurants, nightclubs, hotels in Pelosi
"A recent employer survey by McKinsey & Co. found that more than half of all American companies are likely to dump their workers into the government-run exchanges. If half of the 180 million workers who enjoy employer-provided care wind up in the exchanges, the annual cost of Obamacare would increase by $400 billion by 2021. If the other half eventually follows suit, and all American employees wind up in the exchanges which we believe is a goal of Obamacare then the annual cost of the exchanges would increase by more than $800 billion. Like Medicare in 1965, this would be more than nine times the original cost estimate of $93 billion each year ($893 billion vs. $93 billion)."
*Ron Johnson is a Republican senator from Wisconsin. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser to John McCains 2008 presidential campaign, is president of American Action Forum, a nonpartisan research institute.*
BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?
WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.
BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--
WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.
If you're actually interested in reading why companies are issued waivers read the following page.
Health Care Law Waivers | FactCheck.org
However, I'm sure most of you aren't interested in learning anything but continuing to believe what you want to believe.
Just like companies are issued WOTC tax credits..
I know all about the waivers...
Who's going to pay for Obamacare if all democrat worshipers get waivers???
Oh yeah thats right....
Get it???
I believe GE got a fucking waiver...... Gee wonder why that is????
When you can explain what "paying for Obamacare" entails, then we can talk.
Just like companies are issued WOTC tax credits..
I know all about the waivers...
Who's going to pay for Obamacare if all democrat worshipers get waivers???
Oh yeah thats right....
Get it???
I believe GE got a fucking waiver...... Gee wonder why that is????
When you can explain what "paying for Obamacare" entails, then we can talk.
Obamacare starts with the premise that everyone will have health care insurance. Those above a certain income level will be required to buy insurance for themselves and those below that level will have it paid for by taxing those that are above a certain income level.
Any questions?
Let's try an adult approach...the TRUTH
The Truth About Health Care Waivers
The waivers only apply to one provision of the law the provisions phasing out annual limits. Insurance companies and employers that receive waivers must comply with all other parts of the Affordable Care Act.
The waivers last one year. Insurance companies must reapply for the waivers each year between now and 2014 when annual limits on coverage will be completely prohibited and individuals will have more affordable and better private insurance choices in the competitive Exchange markets.
All employers and insurers that offer mini-med plans may apply for a waiver if they demonstrate that there will be large increases in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage without a waiver. You can read a list of employers and insurers that have received waivers here.
Seriously, someone explain that to me.
A rational explanation is not forthcoming.
perhaps because the assessment is inaccurate?
seems to me government forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is far more invasive than any of the annoyances the right complains about on a regular basis... like seat belts and registering guns, and cutting down on the amount of salt in prepared foods.... or having to purchase health insurance like you do auto insurance.
just sayin'
but good to see you, dave.
How many restaurants, night clubs, and hotels that employ 20 people or more do you think there are in SF?
Seriously? An asston I'm thinking? All the restaurants I've ever worked in had 20 or more employees. And hotels, really, do you think there's no one else but the front desk guys?
Do you live in reality?
