And now a word from the "Coffee Party".....

[MaggieMae]

sure can

Can you say Barney Franks should have his nuts in a vice for lying and saying that Fannie and Freddie had were in great fiscal shape?

How about; NAFTA fucked us all?

or; Giving home loans to people on welfare was a bad idea?

F&F were in good shape until they too got into the subprime profit extravaganza.

And it isn't NAFTA where all our jobs are going: That's the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, specifically Canada and Mexico. It's all the others that jumped on the bandwagon, with some countries put on the so-called "fast-track" which bypassed Congressional approval completely.

The standards for giving home loans to people on welfare was INCREASED by the Bush Administration's 2004 policy of giving them no-down payment options, and non-conventional loans which provided leaner income-to-expense formulas. The whole purpose of that newer policy was to INCREASE minority homeownership!

Rather than posting AGAIN all the links to the above facts, time to do your own research: Just insert a few key words and voila!

So it seems we agree that both parties screwed us over.

So are you still a member of the DNC?

No, I'm not a "member" of the Democratic National Committee. They're elected. Again, do you ever really know what the hell you're talking about?

But to answer your question, until a Republican comes along that doesn't believe that they all belong in a class all to themselves and attempt to enact laws reflecting that, and instead attempt to do what is RIGHT for ALL Americans to have equal opportunities, and do it without destroying lives of some people who might only be half-way there, then I will vote for a Democrat...because they DO try to consider all of those things.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Patriot Act

He's increased it's powers and signed it 3 times.

This is why I can't trust you and your ilk to get ANYTHING right. Obama signed ONE amendment to the PA, last May to be precise. The PA has been amended to remove portions that were an obvious violation of individual rights, such as snooping into library accounts, but it also added domestic terrorism tools. Funny you chose that particular issue, because as I recall it was all the cons who would shout out to anyone against the Patriot Act, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Imagine that.

It was conservatives that were against this. You know, us insane ones.

And wasn't it dems that screamed this was a violation of our rights and didn't obama say this was going to go away?

No.

 

[MaggieMae]

And yet someone has to take advantage of the opportunity represented by that demand. If a million people stand up and say, "I want a three-handled family credenza!", nothing's going to happen until someone invests some capital, builds a three-handled family credenza factory, hires people, and starts making three-handled family credenzas to sell to those million people.

The problem is when government places heavy regulatory burdens on the making of three-handled family credenzas, making three-handled family credenzas too expensive to build for a price that those million people are willing to pay; and saying to the public that three-handled family credenza makers are what's wrong with the country, with all their three-handled family credenza private jets.

Get it now?

Yep, demand creates corporations in addition to creating jobs, got it.

No, you don't. Demand by itself creates nothing but opportunity. It takes a person to create jobs to fulfill that demand.

Those people are evil capitalists.

Seems those capitalists can't even figure out that demand won't be there if people have no money to spend because they either have no jobs, or are working for much less money and need to sort out their priorities before rushing off to buy the latest biggest and bestest.

 

[MaggieMae]

I could get behind him a little more if he actually showed some understanding of the Constitution.

Apparently, you can be a scholar in a subject and be utterly clueless about it.

Your words are always meaningless because you never show examples. How has the Constitution been violated?

Obama violated the Commerce Clause by mandating that every American purchase a product from a private company.

Apparently a federal court didn't think so.

Appeals court upholds health care law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Let's see what the USSC has to say. But of course being a right-wing majority membership, you won't have to worry any longer because I think we all know how the vote will be.

 

[MaggieMae]

And yet someone has to take advantage of the opportunity represented by that demand. If a million people stand up and say, "I want a three-handled family credenza!", nothing's going to happen until someone invests some capital, builds a three-handled family credenza factory, hires people, and starts making three-handled family credenzas to sell to those million people.

The problem is when government places heavy regulatory burdens on the making of three-handled family credenzas, making three-handled family credenzas too expensive to build for a price that those million people are willing to pay; and saying to the public that three-handled family credenza makers are what's wrong with the country, with all their three-handled family credenza private jets.

Get it now?

This is something "new" that has occurred just since Obama was elected? When YOU start understanding that HE didn't generate the corporate mindset that "stuff" can be produced much cheaper overseas and income taxes avoided as well, then you'll finally "get it."

Ummm...where did I say that? Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
It's rather a given, at this point.

However, Obama is pushing for more intrusive and oppressive government regulation of business.

How so? Again, is it possible for you to ever be specific? All I know is that Obama wants existing regulations to be abided by, which the investment banking community and Wall Street investors have ignored for a decade, and he doesn't plan to allow the Republicans to eliminate EPA requirements for making sure factories don't flush their garbage into nearby waterways or the clean air. Some want to eliminate the EPA entirely. Scorched earth, here we come.

 

[daveman]

The tea party faction elected last year are standing in the way of real reform. All you have to do is read the right-wing publications, these message boards and the blogs they often refer to in order to see that way too many actually believe that abolishing all "welfare" would lead to greater sustainability. The argument being that ONLY individuals should be responsible for their own situations, and disregarding circumstances that may have been no fault of their own--like losing a job because some private sector business couldn't keep its head above water, even with massive tax breaks and deregulation.

Who?

Who specifically says these things. I've been here for a while and have yet to hear anyone say close down welfare or any other support 100%.

I've concluded you don't "hear" much of anything.

I haven't heard anyone saying those things, either. If it's so common, you won't have any problems providing links, will you?

 

[MaggieMae]

sure can

Can you say Barney Franks should have his nuts in a vice for lying and saying that Fannie and Freddie had were in great fiscal shape?

How about; NAFTA fucked us all?

or; Giving home loans to people on welfare was a bad idea?

F&F were in good shape until they too got into the subprime profit extravaganza.

And it isn't NAFTA where all our jobs are going: That's the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, specifically Canada and Mexico. It's all the others that jumped on the bandwagon, with some countries put on the so-called "fast-track" which bypassed Congressional approval completely.

The standards for giving home loans to people on welfare was INCREASED by the Bush Administration's 2004 policy of giving them no-down payment options, and non-conventional loans which provided leaner income-to-expense formulas. The whole purpose of that newer policy was to INCREASE minority homeownership!

Rather than posting AGAIN all the links to the above facts, time to do your own research: Just insert a few key words and voila!

You mean key words like North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement?

What is the north atlantic free trade agreement

There is no such thing as North ATLANTIC Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA is for North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America.​

Well pardon me all to fucking hell. I don't pretend to be perfect, unlike some assholes here.

 

[daveman]

Yep, demand creates corporations in addition to creating jobs, got it.

No, you don't. Demand by itself creates nothing but opportunity. It takes a person to create jobs to fulfill that demand.

Those people are evil capitalists.

Seems those capitalists can't even figure out that demand won't be there if people have no money to spend because they either have no jobs, or are working for much less money and need to sort out their priorities before rushing off to buy the latest biggest and bestest.

Of course those capitalists have figured it out. The left is screeching about the trillions they're sitting on instead of expanding business.

The reason they're not expanding business is because this government is hostile towards business.

 

[MaggieMae]

Such policies are not detrimental to the middle and lower income people; on the contrary it offers more jobs and an increased chance to advance.

Oh really? How do you explain the wage gap, the income gap, the fact that real wages have been stagnant and are now in alarming decline? Such policies have ABSOLUTELY been detrimental to the working poor and middle class. Take your head out of the CEO's ass and look around you.

Salary of Top American Executives Up 23 Percent in 2010 - ABC News

Hey, they can afford it!!!! Corporate profits grew 36.8% in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950!! Where else to distribute that wealth? Surely not to the workers who were responsible for all the hard work, surely not to rehire those workers they laid off. I mean seriously?

 

[MaggieMae]

Such policies are not detrimental to the middle and lower income people; on the contrary it offers more jobs and an increased chance to advance.

Oh really? How do you explain the wage gap, the income gap, the fact that real wages have been stagnant and are now in alarming decline? Such policies have ABSOLUTELY been detrimental to the working poor and middle class. Take your head out of the CEO's ass and look around you.

Salary of Top American Executives Up 23 Percent in 2010 - ABC News

Hey, they can afford it!!!! Corporate profits grew 36.8% in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950!! Where else to distribute that wealth? Surely not to the workers who were responsible for all the hard work, surely not to rehire those workers they laid off. I mean seriously?

 

[daveman]

Your words are always meaningless because you never show examples. How has the Constitution been violated?

Obama violated the Commerce Clause by mandating that every American purchase a product from a private company.

Apparently a federal court didn't think so.

Appeals court upholds health care law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Let's see what the USSC has to say. But of course being a right-wing majority membership, you won't have to worry any longer because I think we all know how the vote will be.

Yes, because right-wing judges tend to use the actual Constitution when deciding a law's constitutionality.

 

[daveman]

This is something "new" that has occurred just since Obama was elected? When YOU start understanding that HE didn't generate the corporate mindset that "stuff" can be produced much cheaper overseas and income taxes avoided as well, then you'll finally "get it."

Ummm...where did I say that? Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
It's rather a given, at this point.

However, Obama is pushing for more intrusive and oppressive government regulation of business.

How so? Again, is it possible for you to ever be specific? All I know is that Obama wants existing regulations to be abided by, which the investment banking community and Wall Street investors have ignored for a decade, and he doesn't plan to allow the Republicans to eliminate EPA requirements for making sure factories don't flush their garbage into nearby waterways or the clean air. Some want to eliminate the EPA entirely. Scorched earth, here we come.

You say "It's rather a given, at this point.", then complain that I don't offer specifics?

Here's some specifics, from the people who would know -- business owners:

In recent months, however, that relationship has begun to fray. First, Democrats included a provision in the health-care bill -- over the Roundtable's objection -- that reduced corporate subsidies for drug coverage to retirees, a move that could cost big companies millions of dollars. Then the EPA unveiled rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions even without climate-change legislation, creating uncertainty about the future cost of energy.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas.​

 

[daveman]

F&F were in good shape until they too got into the subprime profit extravaganza.

And it isn't NAFTA where all our jobs are going: That's the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, specifically Canada and Mexico. It's all the others that jumped on the bandwagon, with some countries put on the so-called "fast-track" which bypassed Congressional approval completely.

The standards for giving home loans to people on welfare was INCREASED by the Bush Administration's 2004 policy of giving them no-down payment options, and non-conventional loans which provided leaner income-to-expense formulas. The whole purpose of that newer policy was to INCREASE minority homeownership!

Rather than posting AGAIN all the links to the above facts, time to do your own research: Just insert a few key words and voila!

You mean key words like North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement?

What is the north atlantic free trade agreement

There is no such thing as North ATLANTIC Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA is for North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America.​

Well pardon me all to fucking hell. I don't pretend to be perfect, unlike some assholes here.

No, you just lecture others on doing research.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who?

Who specifically says these things. I've been here for a while and have yet to hear anyone say close down welfare or any other support 100%.

I've concluded you don't "hear" much of anything.

I haven't heard anyone saying those things, either. If it's so common, you won't have any problems providing links, will you?

Quotes and links from individuals? Sorry, that's a usual way to deflect the problem: Asking someone to spend hours searching for direct quotes. But the Republican budget study committee sure had to come up with these lulus from somewhere. Already posted, but look at it again. There are 20 listed per slide beneath the title. You do know you have to click on that, I hope.

20 Huge Spending Cuts Republicans Want To Make Right Now

 

[daveman]

I've concluded you don't "hear" much of anything.

I haven't heard anyone saying those things, either. If it's so common, you won't have any problems providing links, will you?

Quotes and links from individuals? Sorry, that's a usual way to deflect the problem: Asking someone to spend hours searching for direct quotes.

When someone claims people say something, asking for quotes is not a deflection.

Looks like your assertion is unproven, then. If you don't care enough to back it up, why should I? I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, you don't. Demand by itself creates nothing but opportunity. It takes a person to create jobs to fulfill that demand.

Those people are evil capitalists.

Seems those capitalists can't even figure out that demand won't be there if people have no money to spend because they either have no jobs, or are working for much less money and need to sort out their priorities before rushing off to buy the latest biggest and bestest.

Of course those capitalists have figured it out. The left is screeching about the trillions they're sitting on instead of expanding business.

The reason they're not expanding business is because this government is hostile towards business.

Once again, how?????????? No specifics, as usual. The government gave businesses every tax break imaginable during the initial meltdown in order to boost incentives, and some, such as not waiting a year to take deductions for depreciation of business equipment will remain in place for at least another two years.

To listen to you people go on about this, one would think that business and industry is operating under some giant thumb belonging to Barack Obama where none of them stands a chance of being successful until he is gone from office. WTF? Any business man or woman with any common sense knows that the whiners who complain the administration is being "hostile" is simply not true. Not when they STILL can take advantage of ALL OF THESE PERKS, none of which has been eliminated:

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Business Expenses

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Capital Expenses

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama violated the Commerce Clause by mandating that every American purchase a product from a private company.

Apparently a federal court didn't think so.

Appeals court upholds health care law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Let's see what the USSC has to say. But of course being a right-wing majority membership, you won't have to worry any longer because I think we all know how the vote will be.

Yes, because right-wing judges tend to use the actual Constitution when deciding a law's constitutionality.

You mean like calling corporations "people"??

 

[MaggieMae]

Ummm...where did I say that? Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
It's rather a given, at this point.

However, Obama is pushing for more intrusive and oppressive government regulation of business.

How so? Again, is it possible for you to ever be specific? All I know is that Obama wants existing regulations to be abided by, which the investment banking community and Wall Street investors have ignored for a decade, and he doesn't plan to allow the Republicans to eliminate EPA requirements for making sure factories don't flush their garbage into nearby waterways or the clean air. Some want to eliminate the EPA entirely. Scorched earth, here we come.

You say "It's rather a given, at this point.", then complain that I don't offer specifics?

Here's some specifics, from the people who would know -- business owners:

In recent months, however, that relationship has begun to fray. First, Democrats included a provision in the health-care bill -- over the Roundtable's objection -- that reduced corporate subsidies for drug coverage to retirees, a move that could cost big companies millions of dollars. Then the EPA unveiled rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions even without climate-change legislation, creating uncertainty about the future cost of energy.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas.​

So I guess conservatives would prefer that Medicare Advantage continue to be subsidized out of the general Medicare fund because those insurers cover things Medicare doesn't, such as hearing aids and eyeglasses, which every person over 65 will need one or the other by then. It's the reason those items were never included in Medicare coverage in the first place. A no-brainer, because Medicare would have been bankrupt in the first five years.

So I guess conservatives would prefer that the financial institutions continue to play Russian Roulette with other people's money. (Sorry, we just don't have the money you put in and don't know when we will. Funny that the credit card companies don't buy that excuse for individuals.)

So I guess conservatives would prefer that "Buy American" is a lost cause and that it's fine and dandy that tradition is gone with the wind, as well as America seeing any financial benefit at all by way of taxing those companies. So be it. This is NOT the American way that I grew up with. It is NOT an attitude that has made America the greatest leader in the world and why governments of other countries who wish to succeed try to emulate us. It IS the attitude that has made the populations of other allied nations scoff at our greed and intense need to prove that material stuff is what's most important to well-being and all the pushing and shoving that goes along with it is far more important. Animals do that because that's all they know. People should know better.

 

[Rinata]

God damned right Obama is failing...and rightfully so. But hey? You are profiting right? How's it feel to back the LOSER that is Obama?

That's not the question of the day. The real question of the day is how does it feel to really want the president of your country to fail?? That would make a person pretty low, in my estimation. Because they must know it means their country will fail and they don't care. That is low.

Oh the drama,
we saw ALL during the Bush years how a lot of people wanted BUSH to win. Starting with the anti-war protesters..NOW THAT WAS LOW
And the COUNTRY survived..go figure

Can you ever follow the bouncing ball???

 

[Rinata]

I have never in my entire adult life ever wished that any president of my country would fail.
The fact that you would even print a poster like that tells me you don't understand the stakes at all. And if you DO understand, you just don't care. Justify it all you want, Dave. But it doesn't play.

You don't get it. Gasp.

You, like many leftists, think Obama IS the nation.

But he's not. America is bigger than any President. We've survived some pretty bad ones, and we'll survive the current bad one.

I don't even know what you are talking about. But I do know that as long as you constantly insist that you know what other people are thinking, you're going to remain a clueless person.