The inevitable victory of the Left

[occupied]

Much like unbridled capitalism.

Which doesn't exist.

.

WE had the closest we've had since the 1920's, under Dubya. How'd that turn out?

It's not any better now, in some ways the monopolists are even more emboldened since our "socialist" president didn't do anything to them except pass some almost symbolic regs that are already being chipped away piece by piece. There will be another bubble along to further enslave us to the big banks any time now.

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

 

[Dad2three]

Much like unbridled capitalism.

Which doesn't exist.

.

WE had the closest we've had since the 1920's, under Dubya. How'd that turn out?

It's not any better now, in some ways the monopolists are even more emboldened since our "socialist" president didn't do anything to them except pass some almost symbolic regs that are already being chipped away piece by piece. There will be another bubble along to further enslave us to the big banks any time now.

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

"
DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

House passes 1.1 trillion spending bill after week of drama - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO




For all the anger among progressives about a Wall Street bailout provision that made its way into the just-passed $1.1 trillion government spending bill, there's been little attention on the person who put it in there.

Meet Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas).

Yoder, a second-term congressman whose largest contributors are in the finance industry, introduced the provision last summer. It was literally written by Citigroup executives, but Yoder took their language and rolled it into an amendment to a spending bill in a House subcommittee meeting. It got swept into the year-end spending package because it "was within the scope of negotiations" on it, according to an Appropriations Committee aide.

Kevin Yoder MIA After Tucking Wall Street Bailout Into Government Spending Bill

 

[occupied]

Which doesn't exist.

.

WE had the closest we've had since the 1920's, under Dubya. How'd that turn out?

It's not any better now, in some ways the monopolists are even more emboldened since our "socialist" president didn't do anything to them except pass some almost symbolic regs that are already being chipped away piece by piece. There will be another bubble along to further enslave us to the big banks any time now.

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

"
DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

House passes 1.1 trillion spending bill after week of drama - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO




For all the anger among progressives about a Wall Street bailout provision that made its way into the just-passed $1.1 trillion government spending bill, there's been little attention on the person who put it in there.

Meet Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas).

Yoder, a second-term congressman whose largest contributors are in the finance industry, introduced the provision last summer. It was literally written by Citigroup executives, but Yoder took their language and rolled it into an amendment to a spending bill in a House subcommittee meeting. It got swept into the year-end spending package because it "was within the scope of negotiations" on it, according to an Appropriations Committee aide.

Kevin Yoder MIA After Tucking Wall Street Bailout Into Government Spending Bill

Great, the financial regulatory agencies get more money but what are they going to do with it when the big banks can easily afford to defend themselves in court for years on end but the government has limited resources? What is enforcement when the legal framework for prosecution is so full of loopholes and exceptions that it is really only pretending to be regulations.

 

[Dad2three]

WE had the closest we've had since the 1920's, under Dubya. How'd that turn out?

It's not any better now, in some ways the monopolists are even more emboldened since our "socialist" president didn't do anything to them except pass some almost symbolic regs that are already being chipped away piece by piece. There will be another bubble along to further enslave us to the big banks any time now.

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

"
DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

House passes 1.1 trillion spending bill after week of drama - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO




For all the anger among progressives about a Wall Street bailout provision that made its way into the just-passed $1.1 trillion government spending bill, there's been little attention on the person who put it in there.

Meet Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas).

Yoder, a second-term congressman whose largest contributors are in the finance industry, introduced the provision last summer. It was literally written by Citigroup executives, but Yoder took their language and rolled it into an amendment to a spending bill in a House subcommittee meeting. It got swept into the year-end spending package because it "was within the scope of negotiations" on it, according to an Appropriations Committee aide.

Kevin Yoder MIA After Tucking Wall Street Bailout Into Government Spending Bill

Great, the financial regulatory agencies get more money but what are they going to do with it when the big banks can easily afford to defend themselves in court for years on end but the government has limited resources? What is enforcement when the legal framework for prosecution is so full of loopholes and exceptions that it is really only pretending to be regulations.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point (2004) that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. AND CHEERED ON ANOTHER GOP BUBBLE, LIKE REAGAN'S S&L CRISIS (WHICH FED HIS 'RECOVERY', AND HARDING/COOLIDGE'S GREAT DEPRESSION)

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (50% TO 56% IN 2004)

Lowering Investment banks capital requirements (2004), Net Capital rule

Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)

Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Obama doing any of that? Yes, Gov't HAS been captured by big money, but to NOT see a difference in the 2 parties, is mind boggling

 

[occupied]

It's not any better now, in some ways the monopolists are even more emboldened since our "socialist" president didn't do anything to them except pass some almost symbolic regs that are already being chipped away piece by piece. There will be another bubble along to further enslave us to the big banks any time now.

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

"
DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

House passes 1.1 trillion spending bill after week of drama - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO




For all the anger among progressives about a Wall Street bailout provision that made its way into the just-passed $1.1 trillion government spending bill, there's been little attention on the person who put it in there.

Meet Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas).

Yoder, a second-term congressman whose largest contributors are in the finance industry, introduced the provision last summer. It was literally written by Citigroup executives, but Yoder took their language and rolled it into an amendment to a spending bill in a House subcommittee meeting. It got swept into the year-end spending package because it "was within the scope of negotiations" on it, according to an Appropriations Committee aide.

Kevin Yoder MIA After Tucking Wall Street Bailout Into Government Spending Bill

Great, the financial regulatory agencies get more money but what are they going to do with it when the big banks can easily afford to defend themselves in court for years on end but the government has limited resources? What is enforcement when the legal framework for prosecution is so full of loopholes and exceptions that it is really only pretending to be regulations.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point (2004) that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. AND CHEERED ON ANOTHER GOP BUBBLE, LIKE REAGAN'S S&L CRISIS (WHICH FED HIS 'RECOVERY', AND HARDING/COOLIDGE'S GREAT DEPRESSION)

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (50% TO 56% IN 2004)

Lowering Investment banks capital requirements (2004), Net Capital rule

Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)

Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Obama doing any of that? Yes, Gov't HAS been captured by big money, but to NOT see a difference in the 2 parties, is mind boggling

Of course I see a difference but either through strategically timed cave-ins or just plain old cowardice the democrats, in spite of claiming that they favor stronger regs and enforcement, have just not delivered and I am weary of watching Wall Street always win in the end. If the republicans want to gift them with anything they want and democrats are too chickenshit stop it then what are we to do?

 

[Dad2three]

Chipped away? By whom?

Yes, there MAY be a bubble that is cheered on by ANOTHER GOPers/conservative, doubtful Obama, OR Prez Hillary would ignore regulator warnings like Reagan/Dubya did that caused both the S&L crisis (and 1987 black Monday drop) and Dubya's great recession

By whom? By everyone in congress and the president. There may be a few willing to still fight the good fight but we lost another piece of Dodd-Frank just recently when a democrat tacked on an amendment to the continuing spending bill and the president signed it with a lame excuse about picking his battles. The big banks have won.

"
DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

House passes 1.1 trillion spending bill after week of drama - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO




For all the anger among progressives about a Wall Street bailout provision that made its way into the just-passed $1.1 trillion government spending bill, there's been little attention on the person who put it in there.

Meet Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas).

Yoder, a second-term congressman whose largest contributors are in the finance industry, introduced the provision last summer. It was literally written by Citigroup executives, but Yoder took their language and rolled it into an amendment to a spending bill in a House subcommittee meeting. It got swept into the year-end spending package because it "was within the scope of negotiations" on it, according to an Appropriations Committee aide.

Kevin Yoder MIA After Tucking Wall Street Bailout Into Government Spending Bill

Great, the financial regulatory agencies get more money but what are they going to do with it when the big banks can easily afford to defend themselves in court for years on end but the government has limited resources? What is enforcement when the legal framework for prosecution is so full of loopholes and exceptions that it is really only pretending to be regulations.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point (2004) that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. AND CHEERED ON ANOTHER GOP BUBBLE, LIKE REAGAN'S S&L CRISIS (WHICH FED HIS 'RECOVERY', AND HARDING/COOLIDGE'S GREAT DEPRESSION)

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (50% TO 56% IN 2004)

Lowering Investment banks capital requirements (2004), Net Capital rule

Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)

Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Obama doing any of that? Yes, Gov't HAS been captured by big money, but to NOT see a difference in the 2 parties, is mind boggling

Of course I see a difference but either through strategically timed cave-ins or just plain old cowardice the democrats, in spite of claiming that they favor stronger regs and enforcement, have just not delivered and I am weary of watching Wall Street always win in the end. If the republicans want to gift them with anything they want and democrats are too chickenshit stop it then what are we to do?

We vote for the lesser of 2 evils, but IF we had not SOME regulators on the beat, unlike GOPers want, the chance of the US looking like Greece or Russia, is probably the outcome, IMO


Weak regulations can be overcome with GOOD OVERSIGHT. Unfortunately we elect guys who like Reagan/Dubya/Harding/Coolidge who 'don't believe in Gov't, then WE are shocked when under their regulatory oversight, shit happens!

In the Roosevelt thread, I'm arguing with a couple right wing morons, who 'believe', that the federal reserve caused the great depression, by Uncle Miltie Friedman's (Less Gov't, more Laizze affaire) posit no less, that the Federal reserve DIDN'T step up and backstop the banks *shaking head*

You can't make this shit up!

Roosevelt s Great Depression Page 24 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JFK_USA]

They are dying off, literally. [emoji2]

 

[DonaldFG]

More Marxist bullcrap.
Things change in this country. There was a movement of drug legalization in the 1960s that died out. But best of all people have seen what unbridled liberalism does: it brings nothing but poverty, misery and death.

Yeah, all that seems to have happened since 1980! Let's see, who was elected that year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If not for liberalism you might have grown up working in a coal mine instead of going to school,

despite your obvious failure to learn much.

lol no I wouldn't have. But your abject failure has been noted and recorded for posterity.

Did conservatism end child labor? Prove it.

If not for liberalism you might have grown up working in a coal mine instead of going to school,

despite your obvious failure to learn much.

lol no I wouldn't have. But your abject failure has been noted and recorded for posterity.

You're pissing on your shoes, Granny.

FYI

I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone who doesn't acknowledge my posts, and simply changes the subject at will.

Win

Post like an adult and you'll be treated like an adult.

Are you saying William Wilberforce wasn't a Christian evangelist, and wasn't the leading abolitionist and the driving force behind the abolition of slavery in Britain?

dumb ass.

Martin Luther King was a REVEREND are you implying a Christian can't be a liberal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's already over. They're just dragging out the inevitable. The population is becoming more liberal as it becomes more educated and diverse. Support for liberal policies like drug legalization, feminism and abortion, and using words as a first resort rather than drones and bombs is going to keep growing. Support for the conservative positions like racism, sexism, and xenophobia are going to die off with the aging conservative population. I can honestly see a purely liberal America within the next fifty years if demographic trends continue. The main things holding us back from this are the bastions of the Right: the fear mongering conservative media, traditional Christian whitebread society, and religion. Luckily all three of these things are dying at record pace.

Census: White Population Will Lose Majority In U.S. By 2043

Census White Population Will Lose Majority In U.S. By 2043

I ran some numbers on that in a previous thread and it turns out that if Democrats merely maintain their current majorities among non-white voters,

by around 2040 the Democrats will be able to win presidential elections with just 14% of the white vote.

 

[Meathead]

We vote for the lesser of 2 evils, but IF we had not SOME regulators on the beat, unlike GOPers want, the chance of the US looking like Greece or Russia, is probably the outcome, IMO

Do you have any idea how over-regulated the Greek economy was? In fact, regulation is what got Greece into the mess and the deregulation of the Greek economy is the linchpin of any economic recovery. Don't discuss things about which you are clueless.

Google

 

[Mac1958]

Much like unbridled capitalism.

Which doesn't exist.

.

WE had the closest we've had since the 1920's, under Dubya. How'd that turn out?

Terribly, and the GOP appears to be pushing to return.

But we can still be honest in political discourse.

With so much at stake, hyperbole and dishonesty helps nothing.

.

 

[Kondor3]

...The population is becoming more liberal as it becomes more educated and diverse...

Yeah... uhhh-huhhh... sure it is...

That's why Liberals lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms... that's why Liberals could not re-take the House in either the 2012 general election or the 2014 mid-terms, and that's why Liberals lost the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms... not to mention being at grave risk of losing the White House in the 2016 general election IF the Pubs can get their heads out of their asses and field a viable candidate who inspires sufficient confidence to give the Pubs the whole enchilada...

Also, Liberals are generally perceived as pussies, when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and this is the wrong time in history to give limp-wrists and head-in-the-sand ostriches the keys to the castle, so... don't hold your breath about Liberals taking-over, long-term, anytime soon...

 

[RKMBrown]

The hardcore Left has not been very effective, ever.

Not a single one of their ideas have worked, nor will they ever work.

• Medicare
• Social security
• Desegregation
• Obamacare (the left can't take credit; this was a conservative idea)

The "Affordable Care Act" was supposed to lower costs of health care. That has not worked. The only part that's working is redistribution of income.

Now you think the left invented same sex marriage? ROFL put down the drugs. Marriage is not a federal government program. Duh!

Medicare costs have skyrocketed. SS costs are an order of magnitude higher now than when it started. Each generation gets screwed twice as much as the prior generation. These pyramid scheme programs will bankrupt our grandchildren.

Desegregation was republican.

 

[JoeNormal]

Much like unbridled capitalism.

Which doesn't exist.

.

Close enough to do enormous damage.

 

[Paperman299]

...The population is becoming more liberal as it becomes more educated and diverse...

Yeah... uhhh-huhhh... sure it is...

That's why Liberals lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms... that's why Liberals could not re-take the House in either the 2012 general election or the 2014 mid-terms, and that's why Liberals lost the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms... not to mention being at grave risk of losing the White House in the 2016 general election IF the Pubs can get their heads out of their asses and field a viable candidate who inspires sufficient confidence to give the Pubs the whole enchilada...

Also, Liberals are generally perceived as pussies, when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and this is the wrong time in history to give limp-wrists and head-in-the-sand ostriches the keys to the castle, so... don't hold your breath about Liberals taking-over, long-term, anytime soon...

Democrats have been at a severe disadvantage in the House since 2010, when Republicans gerrymandered themselves some electoral security. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/1...s-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As to 2014, the party of the sitting president always loses seats in the midterms of that president's second term. Always. So it's hardly indicative of the more long-term acceleration of liberal attitudes.

And quite frankly, following Iraq, the failure to kill Osama bin Laden, and Bush being REVILED worldwide, Republican politicians have nothing left on foreign policy except to shut up.

 

[Paperman299]

The hardcore Left has not been very effective, ever.

Not a single one of their ideas have worked, nor will they ever work.

• Medicare
• Social security
• Desegregation
• Obamacare (the left can't take credit; this was a conservative idea)

The "Affordable Care Act" was supposed to lower costs of health care. That has not worked. The only part that's working is redistribution of income.

Now you think the left invented same sex marriage? ROFL put down the drugs. Marriage is not a federal government program. Duh!

Medicare costs have skyrocketed. SS costs are an order of magnitude higher now than when it started. Each generation gets screwed twice as much as the prior generation. These pyramid scheme programs will bankrupt our grandchildren.

Desegregation was republican.

You specified liberal "ideas," and if making same-sex marriage legal wasn't a liberal idea then please point out the conservative who owns it (is Mitt running from his past again??)

Yes, the Baby Boomers are causing some real problems, which is nothing new. Every government program is going to run into challenges, though. Once the egg in the snake has passed through the system, these programs will become easier to manage. And I think you'll find many older voters who for decades hVe benefitted from these programs, so I think they've already had millions of successes.

Desegregation was Republican, but certainly not conservative.

 

[Kondor3]

...The population is becoming more liberal as it becomes more educated and diverse...

Yeah... uhhh-huhhh... sure it is...

That's why Liberals lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms... that's why Liberals could not re-take the House in either the 2012 general election or the 2014 mid-terms, and that's why Liberals lost the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms... not to mention being at grave risk of losing the White House in the 2016 general election IF the Pubs can get their heads out of their asses and field a viable candidate who inspires sufficient confidence to give the Pubs the whole enchilada...

Also, Liberals are generally perceived as pussies, when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and this is the wrong time in history to give limp-wrists and head-in-the-sand ostriches the keys to the castle, so... don't hold your breath about Liberals taking-over, long-term, anytime soon...

Democrats have been at a severe disadvantage in the House since 2010, when Republicans gerrymandered themselves some electoral security. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/1...s-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As to 2014, the party of the sitting president always loses seats in the midterms of that president's second term. Always. So it's hardly indicative of the more long-term acceleration of liberal attitudes.

And quite frankly, following Iraq, the failure to kill Osama bin Laden, and Bush being REVILED worldwide, Republican politicians have nothing left on foreign policy except to shut up.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Dad2three]

We vote for the lesser of 2 evils, but IF we had not SOME regulators on the beat, unlike GOPers want, the chance of the US looking like Greece or Russia, is probably the outcome, IMO

Do you have any idea how over-regulated the Greek economy was? In fact, regulation is what got Greece into the mess and the deregulation of the Greek economy is the linchpin of any economic recovery. Don't discuss things about which you are clueless.

Google

Got it, it WASN'T the Banksters who hosed Greece, but to much regulation, lol


Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

...The population is becoming more liberal as it becomes more educated and diverse...

Yeah... uhhh-huhhh... sure it is...

That's why Liberals lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms... that's why Liberals could not re-take the House in either the 2012 general election or the 2014 mid-terms, and that's why Liberals lost the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms... not to mention being at grave risk of losing the White House in the 2016 general election IF the Pubs can get their heads out of their asses and field a viable candidate who inspires sufficient confidence to give the Pubs the whole enchilada...

Also, Liberals are generally perceived as pussies, when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and this is the wrong time in history to give limp-wrists and head-in-the-sand ostriches the keys to the castle, so... don't hold your breath about Liberals taking-over, long-term, anytime soon...

The Truth About ‘The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010

According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans. Or, to put it another way:

Democrats got a full 50 percent more votes than Republicans, and lost nine seats. Or to put it yet another way:

If the Senate actually represented the voting public, it would be 68-32 to Democrats, instead of 54-46 to Republicans.

The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party



GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

A recent memo by the Republican State Leadership Committee emphasizes the party's 2010 victories in state legislatures as central to the House GOP retaining its majority in the 2012 elections.

The reason? Redistricting -- or more precisely, gerrymandering.

In the memo -- titled "How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013" -- RSLC boasts that it "raised more than $30 million in 2009-2010, and invested $18 million after Labor Day 2010 alone" to ensure statehouse victories in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

"The rationale was straightforward," reads the memo. "Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade."

GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority