How were the “experts” so wrong about 2024 election and will it carry to 2028?

[pknopp]

Bailing out banks prevented a large scale economic downturn…

That isn't what I asked. You do understand that in Capitalism when you screw up you get a down turn, right?

a systemic issue that would ultimately harm the very people that you claim to want to protect. Think stabilization vs handouts. They are very different things.

Bugger off with your false narratives and your socialism for the rich.

 

[SweetTea]

That isn't what I asked. You do understand that in Capitalism when you screw up you get a down turn, right?

Yes, and I also understand that everyone, including the poor, would suffer in such cases. I certainly believe banks should be regulated and overseen to prevent the need for a bailout.

Bugger off with your false narratives and your socialism for the rich.

The rich provide the poor with jobs and money. You may be envious, but that is on you.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, if we could only adopt a Socialist system that took MORE money from the bad top 20%, you know, the ones that worked for it, and give it to those that want freebees, everything would be great. I know you have said you don’t agree with Socialism, but you support a party that is openly going down that path and fast. It is people like you that need to wake up and not vote against your own self-interest.

Nope. I'm at the point where I'm close to retiring, so I don't care one way or the other.

I would be happy to see our new Socialist Government screw over the rich, because quite honestly, **** those guys.

Here's the thing. When the rich succeed, they get to enjoy all their success. When they fail, they get big old government bailouts.

You know, like these rich farmers who are losing money because Trump pooched our trade with China, and we're giving them a bailout. Argentina swallows the Libertarian Rat Poison, let's give them a bailout, too!

The reason the system exists is because those of us that don’t spend our time belly aching and being envious are able to enjoy the fruits of our labor. This is not the case in many countries around the world.

Most of the advanced countries make the rich pay their fair share and take care of their people. Imagine that.

o use a sports analogy, good teams don’t spend their time yelling at the refs over a perceived bad call. They hunker down and focus on the game so they can win. Every team gets “bad” calls. The good ones overcome them. You are on a bad team(Democrats) who will never win anything with your current attitude.

Why do you always use sports analogies?

If you want to use sports, most teams play in government subsidized stadiums, and draw their players from government subsizied colleges. And for every player that gets a big contract, there's a player who gets concussive head injuries and dies at a young age.

Another great example of the system working well for the rich.

You know, instead of for the rest of us.

But as long as you idiots in Jesusland keep voting against your own economic interests, this will continue.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, and I also understand that everyone, including the poor, would suffer in such cases.

That's Capitalism. That's what you pretend to support.

I certainly believe banks should be regulated and overseen to prevent the need for a bailout.

It came about because we lifted regulations. (yes a simplification of the issue but factual)

The rich provide the poor with jobs and money. You may be envious, but that is on you.

I retired at 58. It's not about me but that is how it is often spun.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, and I also understand that everyone, including the poor, would suffer in such cases. I certainly believe banks should be regulated and overseen to prevent the need for a bailout.

Wait, guy, you think lack of regulation was the problem? Really?

NO.

The problem was they got greedy, and they had whole departments figuring out ways to game the system (at the expense of working folks) to make more money.

Whoopsie, we screwed up, the economy crashed again, let's start issuing bailouts.

 

[Frankenstein]

Nope. I'm at the point where I'm close to retiring, so I don't care one way or the other.

I would be happy to see our new Socialist Government screw over the rich, because quite honestly, **** those guys.

View attachment 1178908

Here's the thing. When the rich succeed, they get to enjoy all their success. When they fail, they get big old government bailouts.

You know, like these rich farmers who are losing money because Trump pooched our trade with China, and we're giving them a bailout. Argentina swallows the Libertarian Rat Poison, let's give them a bailout, too!



Most of the advanced countries make the rich pay their fair share and take care of their people. Imagine that.



Why do you always use sports analogies?

If you want to use sports, most teams play in government subsidized stadiums, and draw their players from government subsizied colleges. And for every player that gets a big contract, there's a player who gets concussive head injuries and dies at a young age.

Another great example of the system working well for the rich.

You know, instead of for the rest of us.

But as long as you idiots in Jesusland keep voting against your own economic interests, this will continue.

Right because success creates your envy, and forces you to be poor

 

[JoeB131]

Right because success creates your envy, and forces you to be poor

No, I don't "envy" the rich. I don't want to be like them, most of them are awful people.

Make them pay their fair share and take care of the rest of us. Seems reasonable to me.

We used to do that in this country before Ronald Reagan, and it worked just fine.

 

[SweetTea]

Here's the thing. When the rich succeed, they get to enjoy all their success. When they fail, they get big old government bailouts.

How does a “rich” person making 500k/yr get bailouts? Do tell.

Most of the advanced countries make the rich pay their fair share and take care of their people. Imagine that.

How is a “rich” person making 500k/yr not paying their fair share?

It came about because we lifted regulations. (yes a simplification of the issue but factual)

Yes, “we” sure did. It was bleeding heart liberals responsible for that.

The problem was they got greedy, and they had whole departments figuring out ways to game the system (at the expense of working folks) to make more money.

Whoopsie, we screwed up, the economy crashed again, let's start issuing bailouts.

They did get greedy. They took advantage of a system created by bleeding heart liberals who were too naive to recognize the consequences of their childish, pie in the sky ideas.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Newsom told Charlie to his face that his son was begging to stay home from school to meet Charlie…then when Charlie died, Newsom said his son was not a fan, he was just aware if who Charlie was.

Newsom is like all the other Dems. Just lie constantly.

He is special. He can go to dinner with friends when YOU would have been arrested for doing the same thing.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, “we” sure did. It was bleeding heart liberals responsible for that.

Liberals wanted to lift banking regulations?

 

[citygator]

It's clear. Trump cheated with bamboo ballots.

Lets see.. .every election is within a point or two in popular vote and the swing voter keeps voting against the incumbent swinging it the other way. Anyone finding a mandate in any election in the last few decades is a partisan homer.

 

[SweetTea]

Liberals wanted to lift banking regulations?

Sure did. They wanted to lift loan regulations to allow less qualified applicants access. What could go wrong?

 

[pknopp]

Sure did. They wanted to lift loan regulations to allow less qualified applicants access. What could go wrong?

It was a quid pro quo. BOTH sides screwed us over. But you just can't bring yourself to condemn your cult for anything.

 

[midcan5]

I'll say it again, America, especially its back-roads is too dumb to elect a woman. Trump beat two, any male would have beat him. Kinda simple but then again the simple is often overlooked.

 

[Unkotare]

No, I don't "envy" the rich. ...

Liar.

 

[Unkotare]

Nope. I'm at the point where I'm close to retiring, so I don't care one way or the other.

I would be happy to see our new Socialist Government screw over the rich, because quite honestly, **** those guys.

View attachment 1178908

Here's the thing. When the rich succeed, they get to enjoy all their success. When they fail, they get big old government bailouts.

You know, like these rich farmers who are losing money because Trump pooched our trade with China, and we're giving them a bailout. Argentina swallows the Libertarian Rat Poison, let's give them a bailout, too!



Most of the advanced countries make the rich pay their fair share and take care of their people. Imagine that.



Why do you always use sports analogies?

If you want to use sports, most teams play in government subsidized stadiums, and draw their players from government subsizied colleges. And for every player that gets a big contract, there's a player who gets concussive head injuries and dies at a young age.

Another great example of the system working well for the rich.

You know, instead of for the rest of us.

But as long as you idiots in Jesusland keep voting against your own economic interests, this will continue.

Class warfare clown ^^^

 

[SweetTea]

It was a quid pro quo. BOTH sides screwed us over. But you just can't bring yourself to condemn your cult for anything.

Clinton tweaked the CRA and put pressure on banks to make loans based largely on demographics and less on qualifications. They called this the CRA Evaluation System. Banks were scored and their score greatly affected their ability to expand or merge. This was the impetus for the upcoming failure.

 

[pknopp]

Clinton tweaked the CRA and put pressure on banks to make loans based largely on demographics and less on qualifications.

Yes and it was done to get the lax regulations. Do you understand what quid pro quo means?

It was then Bush who ran with it.

Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership

They called this the CRA Evaluation System. Banks were scored and their score greatly affected their ability to expand or merge. This was the impetus for the upcoming failure.

The banks being allowed to gamble with money that wasn't theirs is why the mess became so big.

 

[JoeB131]

How is a “rich” person making 500k/yr not paying their fair share?

Are they paying 70% like they did before Reagan? Then, no, they aren't paying their fair share.

Yes, “we” sure did. It was bleeding heart liberals responsible for that.

Nope, it was greedy rich people who were too greedy.

They did get greedy. They took advantage of a system created by bleeding heart liberals who were too naive to recognize the consequences of their childish, pie in the sky ideas.

Uh, guy, the 2008 wasn't caused by poor people buying moderate houses.

It was caused by middle-class people buying McMansions, hoping to flip them, and the Bankers (not a ******* one of whom went to jail) misrepresenting the value of those mortgages as investments.

 

[SweetTea]

Yes and it was done to get the lax regulations. Do you understand what quid pro quo means?

It was then Bush who ran with it.

Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership

The banks being allowed to gamble with money that wasn't theirs is why the mess became so big.

Yes, Clinton started the mess and Bush ran with it to help the economy. It was just as wrong for Bush to run with it than it was for bankers and investors to take advantage of it, however, it was the lack of foresight by Clinton that opened the door for people to take advantage.