You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[jc456]

1. Executive Orders: Biden signed executive orders to promote unionization, including one establishing a task force to encourage worker organizing and empower workers.
2. Pro-Union Legislation: They strongly support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which aims to strengthen workers' rights to unionize and collectively bargain.
3. Appointment of Pro-Labor Officials: Biden appointed pro-labor leaders to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other key positions, which has helped restore and strengthen labor protections.
4. Infrastructure and Economic Plans: Their infrastructure plan includes provisions for creating good-paying, union jobs, with a focus on rebuilding the middle class.
5. Support for Strikes and Union Activities: Biden has publicly supported union strikes and workers' rights, including backing Amazon and Kellogg workers during their strikes.

You're such a dishonest hypocrite. I have better things to do with my precious time and energy than continue going back and forth with a disingenuous shithead like you, so have the last word and deceive yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

Still not in her policy

 

[beagle9]

From the link I posted. This is truly hilarious. no income, no job, no assets, got people loans. Nothing to see could go wrong there? hhahahahahahahaahahahahahaaha self inflicted chaos.

During the early-to-mid 2000s, the lending standards for some lenders became so relaxed; it sparked the creation of the NINJA loan: "no income, no job, no assets." Investment firms were eager to buy these loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and other structured credit products.

And it was all caused by Democrat governance.. The same bull shite is happening today as we speak, but only in different repackaged program's, concepts or ridiculous thinking that goes against the American people and their ideologies concerning many thing's that were and have been proven.

If anyone can't see the Democrat hands that has caused so much destruction and carnage over time, then we are heading for a serious crash.

 

[TruthNotBS]

And it was all caused by Democrat governance.. The same bull shite is happening today as we speak, but only in different repackaged program's, concepts or ridiculous thinking that goes against the American people and their ideologies concerning many thing's that were and have been proven.

If anyone can't see the Democrat hands that has caused so much destruction and carnage over time, then we are heading for a serious crash.

It was started by Republicans, not Democrats, back in the 1980s:

​

1. Laissez-Faire Economics and Deregulation​

• Deregulation: Republican administrations have often championed deregulation, under the belief that reducing government intervention would foster economic growth. However, this approach led to the loosening of antitrust laws, allowing for the rise of monopolies and large corporate mergers. These monopolies gained significant power, enabling them to suppress wages, reduce benefits, and break up labor unions without fear of competition or repercussions.
• Offshoring and Outsourcing: Deregulation also made it easier for corporations to move manufacturing operations overseas, particularly to countries like China, where labor was cheaper. This shift gutted the U.S. manufacturing base, leading to the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs.

2. Trickle-Down Economics​

• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Trickle-down economics, a core Republican economic policy, is based on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will lead to investment, job creation, and overall economic growth. However, instead of reinvesting in the American workforce, many corporations used these tax breaks to buy back stock, increase executive compensation, and invest overseas, further eroding the U.S. manufacturing base.
• Wealth Inequality: Trickle-down economics exacerbated wealth inequality. As the rich got richer, the benefits failed to "trickle down" to the working class. Wage stagnation became the norm, and workers saw little to no improvement in their living standards despite increased productivity.

3. Attack on Labor Unions​

• Union Busting: Republican administrations and legislatures have historically opposed labor unions, viewing them as obstacles to business flexibility and economic efficiency. Policies were enacted that made it more difficult for workers to unionize and for unions to operate effectively. The weakening of unions stripped workers of their collective bargaining power, leading to lower wages, fewer benefits, and less job security.
• Right-to-Work Laws: These laws, which have been heavily supported by Republicans, further undermined unions by allowing workers to benefit from union negotiations without actually joining or paying dues to the union. This weakened the financial and organizational strength of unions, making it harder for them to fight for workers' rights.

4. Impact on Wages and Cost of Living​

• Stagnant Wages: With unions weakened and the manufacturing base eroded, wages for working-class Americans have stagnated. The loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, replaced by lower-paying service sector jobs, further exacerbated income inequality.
• Higher Cost of Living: The cost of living has risen steadily, particularly in areas like housing, healthcare, and education. Republican opposition to rent controls and other consumer protections has contributed to these increases, making it harder for working-class families to afford basic necessities.

5. Corporate Consolidation and Monopolies​

• Monopoly Power: The Republican push for deregulation has led to an era of unprecedented corporate consolidation. Large corporations and monopolies dominate key industries, reducing competition, which often results in higher prices for consumers and less innovation.
• Job Security and Benefits: As corporations grew larger and more powerful, they were able to dictate terms to their workers. Job security declined, benefits were slashed, and the traditional social contract between employer and employee was broken. Workers found themselves in increasingly precarious employment situations, often with little to no benefits or job security.

6. Consumer Credit Card Debt and Increased Debt In General:​

• Deregulation of Financial Institutions: Republican policies, particularly the repeal of key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, contributed to the deregulation of financial institutions. This deregulation allowed banks and other financial entities to engage in more speculative and risky behaviors, leading to a surge in the availability of credit. While this initially spurred consumer spending, it also led to an explosion of consumer credit card debt.
• Predatory Lending Practices: The relaxed regulatory environment also enabled predatory lending practices to flourish, with banks and credit card companies targeting vulnerable consumers with high-interest loans and credit cards. Many working-class Americans, facing stagnant wages and rising costs of living, turned to credit to cover basic expenses, leading to a cycle of debt that became increasingly difficult to escape.
• General Increase in Debt: As wages stagnated and the cost of living increased, many Americans found themselves relying more on credit not just for discretionary spending but for essential needs such as housing, healthcare, and education. This rise in debt, encouraged by an unregulated financial sector, has left many working-class families financially insecure, contributing to a broader economic instability.

Conclusion: The Republican Legacy​

• The policies advocated and implemented by Republicans over the past several decades have systematically stripped the American working class of their economic power, job security, and collective bargaining rights. The shift toward a service-based economy, coupled with the loss of manufacturing jobs, has left many workers in lower-paying, less secure employment. The promise of trickle-down economics failed to materialize for the vast majority, leaving behind a legacy of income inequality, stagnant wages, and diminished prospects for the American working class.

In contrast, while Democrats are not without fault, it is primarily these Republican-led policies that have contributed to the decline of the American manufacturing base and the stripping away of workers' rights and benefits. The result has been a significant weakening of the working class and a widening gap between the rich and everyone else.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the reality is that the 2008 financial crisis was a direct result of a deregulated, profit-driven capitalist system that prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability. If we had a more socialist banking system, one that was focused on serving the public good rather than maximizing profits for a few, the crisis wouldn't have happened. In a socialist framework, banks would be publicly owned and operated with the primary goal of supporting the economic well-being of all citizens, not engaging in speculative activities that enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Under a socialist banking system, lending practices would be transparent, fair, and based on actual community needs rather than predatory schemes designed to trap people in debt. The reckless gambling with people's lives and the economy that we saw in 2008 wouldn't even be possible because the system wouldn't allow private financial institutions to create and trade in toxic assets just to make a quick buck. Instead of banks being motivated by profit, they would be accountable to the people, ensuring that financial stability and economic justice are the top priorities. That’s the fundamental difference—a socialist banking system is designed to prevent exactly the kind of catastrophic collapse that the capitalist model brought us in 2008.

Todd, the reality is that the 2008 financial crisis was a direct result of a deregulated, profit-driven capitalist system that prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability.

Exacerbated by government stupidity. Regulations that made things worse.

If we were more like your beloved USSR, instead of booms and busts, we'd be all busts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine arguing that it’s not the fossil fuel industry’s fault that our atmosphere is being polluted by more and more gas-burning vehicles because they’re just meeting the demand created by the regulations encouraging highway construction. But what you’re conveniently leaving out is how the industry’s lobbying efforts have gutted or blocked any meaningful regulations that would have invested in public transit or renewable energy infrastructure—solutions that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and take millions of gas-guzzling cars off the roads. Similarly, the banks didn’t just fall victim to a few bad regulations; they actively lobbied for the repeal of protective measures like Glass-Steagall, which once prevented them from engaging in the kind of reckless, profit-driven behavior that led to the 2008 crisis.

The financial crisis wasn’t the inevitable result of regulation—it was the result of a financial industry that manipulated the regulatory environment to maximize their profits while offloading risk onto everyone else. Just like the fossil fuel industry prioritizes short-term profits over long-term environmental sustainability, the financial industry prioritized risky, high-return investments over the stability of the global economy. And when the house of cards came tumbling down, it wasn’t the free market that stepped in to save the day—it was the government, using taxpayer money to bail out the very institutions that had caused the collapse.

Our gas vehicles are cleaner than ever, how clean are your commie cars?

The Trabant was a brilliant piece of commie engineering, eh comrade?

Glass-Steagall wouldn't have done a thing to prevent bad mortgages from being written.

You whine about people with poor credit not being able to get mortgages, you push the government to help, the government forces banks to make bad loans, the mortgages default and you blame capitalism and the banks.

Typical leftard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, in a market-socialist system, the financial sector would be reoriented to serve the public good rather than the profit motives of a few. Banks would operate under public ownership, with the primary goal of providing secure, affordable mortgages to all citizens. This approach would ensure that lending practices are fair and transparent, focused on helping people secure homes without the predatory tactics that led to the 2008 crisis. In this system, employment would be guaranteed, meaning more people would have stable jobs with livable wages and comprehensive benefits. This stability would create a more secure environment for homeownership, where housing prices remain reasonable, and the risk of default is minimized because people are paid fairly for their labor and have strong job security.

Furthermore, under market socialism, workers would be unionized, giving them the collective power to negotiate better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This empowerment would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and ensure that the economy works for everyone, not just the elite. By tying financial institutions to the public good and ensuring that employment is secure and wages are fair, a market-socialist system would create a stable, sustainable economy where people can afford homes without the fear of being exploited by the financial system. This would prevent the kind of economic instability that led to the 2008 crisis, ensuring that the economy serves the needs of the many rather than the greed of the few.

How much subprime did they buy, dollarwise?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered that, but you can continue pretending otherwise if it toots your horn.

View attachment 1003408​

If bad loans were the sole issue, why did banks push so hard for the ability to engage in these riskier activities, which Glass-Steagall had prevented? The answer is clear: the repeal allowed them to bundle these bad loans into securities, offload the risk, and profit immensely, all while leaving the broader economy to suffer the consequences when the bubble burst. This wasn't just about bad loans; it was about how those loans were exploited in a deregulated environment that favored short-term gains over long-term stability.

You still haven't answered the crucial question: If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't important, why did the financial industry invest so much time, money, and effort to get rid of it? They didn’t push for this change out of sheer coincidence. The financial sector lobbied hard because they knew it would allow them to engage in riskier, high-profit activities that Glass-Steagall had previously restrained. These activities, particularly the bundling of subprime loans into mortgage-backed securities, were central to the 2008 crisis. If the repeal was so inconsequential, why the intense lobbying? Answer that.

If bad loans were the sole issue, why did banks push so hard for the ability to engage in these riskier activities, which Glass-Steagall had prevented? The answer is clear: the repeal allowed them to bundle these bad loans into securities, offload the risk, and profit immensely, all while leaving the broader economy to suffer the consequences when the bubble burst.

Which banks bundled the bad loans into MBS?

Post your list.

If the repeal was so inconsequential, why the intense lobbying?

Which banks lobbied? Post your list.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Just a Man and his best friend

An animated gif. Make your own gifs with our Animated Gif Maker.

imgflip.com

Our gas vehicles are cleaner than ever, how clean are your commie cars?

The Trabant was a brilliant piece of commie engineering, eh comrade?

Glass-Steagall wouldn't have done a thing to prevent bad mortgages from being written.

You whine about people with poor credit not being able to get mortgages, you push the government to help, the government forces banks to make bad loans, the mortgages default and you blame capitalism and the banks.

Typical leftard.

Our gas vehicles are cleaner than ever, how clean are your commie cars?

We should've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear decades ago, electrifying our means of transportation or at least using non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.

The Trabant was a brilliant piece of commie engineering, eh comrade?

What do Trabants have to do with us today in 2024 or in 2034? You're going off on another one of your evasive, irrelevant polemical tangents.

Glass-Steagall wouldn't have done a thing to prevent bad mortgages from being written.

It indeed would've prevented the type of bad loans that led to the 2008 crisis, for the reasons I mentioned in earlier posts, which you continue to deny. I guess the financial industry spent so much money and effort lobbying politicians in Washington to repeal Glass Steagal for nothing because its elimination was completely worthless. Durrrrr.

You whine about people with poor credit not being able to get mortgages, you push the government to help, the government forces banks to make bad loans, the mortgages default and you blame capitalism and the banks.

Your silly claim that the government forced banks to write bad loans is a bald-faced lie. Banks eagerly pursued these risky loans because they saw massive profits in bundling them into securities. They weren’t victims of government coercion; they actively lobbied politicians in Washington to repeal Glass-Steagall, knowing it would free them to engage in even riskier, more lucrative practices. This wasn’t about helping people get mortgages; it was about cashing in on their lobbying investments and passing the inevitable fallout onto the public.

You just have your head so far up your ass that you can't get yourself to admit it.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If bad loans were the sole issue, why did banks push so hard for the ability to engage in these riskier activities, which Glass-Steagall had prevented? The answer is clear: the repeal allowed them to bundle these bad loans into securities, offload the risk, and profit immensely, all while leaving the broader economy to suffer the consequences when the bubble burst.

Which banks bundled the bad loans into MBS?

Post your list.

If the repeal was so inconsequential, why the intense lobbying?

Which banks lobbied? Post your list.

It's well-documented that major financial institutions like Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America were deeply involved in the lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They pushed for this change because it allowed them to combine commercial and investment banking, enabling them to bundle risky subprime mortgages into Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and sell them as low-risk investments. These banks weren’t just passive players, they actively sought to deregulate the industry so they could engage in these risky practices, offload the risk, and maximize their profits. If Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, they wouldn’t have invested so much in getting it repealed.

 

[TruthNotBS]

How much subprime did they buy, dollarwise?

it's estimated that major banks were involved in purchasing trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that included subprime loans. These institutions played a significant role in the housing bubble, buying and securitizing these risky mortgages, which contributed to the financial crisis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just a Man and his best friend

An animated gif. Make your own gifs with our Animated Gif Maker.

imgflip.com

We should've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear decades ago, electrifying our transportation or at least using non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.



What do Trabants have to do with us today in 2024 or in 2034? You're going off on another one of your evasive, irrelevant polemical tangents.



It indeed would've prevented the type of bad loans that led to the 2008 crisis, for the reasons I mentioned in earlier posts, which you continue to deny. I guess the financial industry spent so much money and effort lobbying politicians in Washington to repeal Glass Steagal for nothing because its elimination was completely worthless. Durrrrr.



Your silly claim that the government forced banks to write bad loans is a bald-faced lie. Banks eagerly pursued these risky loans because they saw massive profits in bundling them into securities. They weren’t victims of government coercion; they actively lobbied politicians in Washington to repeal Glass-Steagall, knowing it would free them to engage in even riskier, more lucrative practices. This wasn’t about helping people get mortgages; it was about cashing in on their lobbying investments and passing the inevitable fallout onto the public.

You just have your head so far up your ass that you can't get yourself to admit it.

We should've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear decades ago, electrifying our transportation

Tell your fellow leftards. They're more worried about nuclear than about CO2.

or at least using non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.


Name your 3 favorite non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.


What do Trabants have to do with us today in 2024 or in 2034?


When a commie whines about clean capitalist cars, why wouldn't I bring up Trabants?

It indeed would've prevented the type of bad loans that led to the 2008 crisis


You're lying.


Your silly claim that the government forced banks to write bad loans is a bald-faced lie.

What did the CRA require banks to do?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's well-documented that major financial institutions like Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America were deeply involved in the lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They pushed for this change because it allowed them to combine commercial and investment banking, enabling them to bundle risky subprime mortgages into Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and sell them as low-risk investments. These banks weren’t just passive players, they actively sought to deregulate the industry so they could engage in these risky practices, offload the risk, and maximize their profits. If Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, they wouldn’t have invested so much in getting it repealed.

It's well-documented that major financial institutions like Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America were deeply involved in the lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall.

What about the thousands of other banks?

These banks weren’t just passive players, they actively sought to deregulate the industry so they could engage in these risky practices, offload the risk, and maximize their profits.


Did Glass-Steagall prevent those banks from writing subprime mortgages?


Did Glass-Steagall prevent those banks from selling subprime mortgages?


Did Glass-Steagall prevent Countrywide from turning subprime mortgages into MBS?


If Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, they wouldn’t have invested so much in getting it repealed.

How much did they invest?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it's estimated that major banks were involved in purchasing trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that included subprime loans. These institutions played a significant role in the housing bubble, buying and securitizing these risky mortgages, which contributed to the financial crisis.

No, silly, how much subprime did Fannie and Freddie buy?

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, silly, how much subprime did Fannie and Freddie buy?

It was just Fannie & Freddie? Durrrrrr.....

 

[TruthNotBS]

It's well-documented that major financial institutions like Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America were deeply involved in the lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall.

What about the thousands of other banks?

These banks weren’t just passive players, they actively sought to deregulate the industry so they could engage in these risky practices, offload the risk, and maximize their profits.


Did Glass-Steagall prevent those banks from writing subprime mortgages?


Did Glass-Steagall prevent those banks from selling subprime mortgages?


Did Glass-Steagall prevent Countrywide from turning subprime mortgages into MBS?


If Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, they wouldn’t have invested so much in getting it repealed.

How much did they invest?

You keep pretending it all amounts to "subprime mortgages, " ignoring everything else I've continually mentioned in my posts.

You’re conveniently ignoring that the repeal of Glass-Steagall removed the critical barriers that prevented these banks from engaging in reckless, profit-driven activities that led to the crisis. For the 854th time, I'm repeating myself; Glass-Steagall’s repeal allowed banks to combine commercial and investment banking, creating a toxic environment where risky loans could be bundled into securities and sold globally, spreading the risk far beyond subprime mortgages. If this was so inconsequential, why did these banks invest millions in lobbying for its repeal? Because they knew it would open the floodgates for profit at the public’s expense. Durrrrrrrrrr....

 

[TruthNotBS]

We should've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear decades ago, electrifying our transportation

Tell your fellow leftards. They're more worried about nuclear than about CO2.

or at least using non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.


Name your 3 favorite non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.


What do Trabants have to do with us today in 2024 or in 2034?


When a commie whines about clean capitalist cars, why wouldn't I bring up Trabants?

It indeed would've prevented the type of bad loans that led to the 2008 crisis


You're lying.


Your silly claim that the government forced banks to write bad loans is a bald-faced lie.

What did the CRA require banks to do?

Tell your fellow leftards. They're more worried about nuclear than about CO2.

Your fellow Republican contards, in the fossil fuel industry lobby the US government and invest in media that demonize nuclear energy, spreading lies about it, to frighten the public and keep them addicted to fossil fuels. About a year and 1/2 ago, I told you this and you challenged me to present evidence, and I did. You conceded that the fossil fuel industry invests in poisoning people's minds about nuclear energy, making it more difficult for nuclear to replace fossil fuels. The American people and much of humanity are being deprived of the benefits of modern, safe, clean nuclear energy due to capitalism.

Name your 3 favorite non-carbon emitting clean burning, liquid fuels.

1. Hydrogen: Produced via electrolysis using nuclear energy and can be converted into liquid hydrogen.
2. Ammonia: Created from nitrogen and hydrogen, it’s a carbon-free fuel.
3. Methanol: Can be synthesized using captured CO2 and hydrogen from nuclear-powered electrolysis.
4. Synthetic Diesel: Created from CO2 and hydrogen through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
5. Synthetic Jet Fuel: Produced similarly to synthetic diesel for aviation use.
6. Dimethyl Ether (DME): A clean-burning fuel made from methanol.
7. Synthetic Gasoline: Produced via methanol-to-gasoline synthesis.
8. Liquid Hydrogen-Carriers: Substances like liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) can be synthesized for easier hydrogen transport.
9. Ethylene Glycol: Used as an antifreeze or fuel component, synthesized from carbon and hydrogen.
10. Butanol: Another alcohol fuel that can be synthesized using nuclear energy for hydrogen production.

These fuels can be part of a clean energy transition, using nuclear power for their production and ensuring carbon-free emissions when burned.

When a commie whines about clean capitalist cars, why wouldn't I bring up Trabants?

Our cars aren't clean, they're relying on fossil fuels. Trabants are old tech from the last century, wake up, it's the 21st century. You're the one "whining".

You're lying.

What did the CRA require banks to do?

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encouraged banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, but it did not force banks to write bad loans or engage in reckless financial practices. Banks still had the responsibility to ensure loans were sound and affordable. The CRA did not mandate subprime lending or the bundling of risky loans into toxic securities, you dishonest dumbass.

The banks lobbied hard for the repeal of Glass-Steagall because they wanted to engage in riskier, profit-driven practices, not because they were forced by the government to make bad loans.

As for spending millions on lobbying, banks clearly saw the repeal as a ticket to enormous profits through increased financial speculation, not because they were compelled by the CRA to take reckless actions. The financial crisis wasn’t about government coercion; it was about banks exploiting deregulation for their gain. You're truly dumb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was just Fannie & Freddie? Durrrrrr.....

No.

How much did HUD force Fannie and Freddie to buy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep pretending it all amounts to "subprime mortgages, " ignoring everything else I've continually mentioned in my posts.

You’re conveniently ignoring that the repeal of Glass-Steagall removed the critical barriers that prevented these banks from engaging in reckless, profit-driven activities that led to the crisis. For the 854th time, I'm repeating myself; Glass-Steagall’s repeal allowed banks to combine commercial and investment banking, creating a toxic environment where risky loans could be bundled into securities and sold globally, spreading the risk far beyond subprime mortgages. If this was so inconsequential, why did these banks invest millions in lobbying for its repeal? Because they knew it would open the floodgates for profit at the public’s expense. Durrrrrrrrrr....

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent those banks from writing subprime mortgages.


Glass-Steagall didn't prevent those banks from selling subprime mortgages.


Glass-Steagall didn't prevent Countrywide from turning subprime mortgages into MBS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your fellow Republican contards, in the fossil fuel industry lobby the US government and invest in media that demonize nuclear energy, spreading lies about it, to frighten the public and keep them addicted to fossil fuels. About a year and 1/2 ago, I told you this and you challenged me to present evidence, and I did. You conceded that the fossil fuel industry invests in poisoning people's minds about nuclear energy, making it more difficult for nuclear to replace fossil fuels. The American people and much of humanity are being deprived of the benefits of modern, safe, clean nuclear energy due to capitalism.

1. Hydrogen: Produced via electrolysis using nuclear energy and can be converted into liquid hydrogen.
2. Ammonia: Created from nitrogen and hydrogen, it’s a carbon-free fuel.
3. Methanol: Can be synthesized using captured CO2 and hydrogen from nuclear-powered electrolysis.
4. Synthetic Diesel: Created from CO2 and hydrogen through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
5. Synthetic Jet Fuel: Produced similarly to synthetic diesel for aviation use.
6. Dimethyl Ether (DME): A clean-burning fuel made from methanol.
7. Synthetic Gasoline: Produced via methanol-to-gasoline synthesis.
8. Liquid Hydrogen-Carriers: Substances like liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) can be synthesized for easier hydrogen transport.
9. Ethylene Glycol: Used as an antifreeze or fuel component, synthesized from carbon and hydrogen.
10. Butanol: Another alcohol fuel that can be synthesized using nuclear energy for hydrogen production.

These fuels can be part of a clean energy transition, using nuclear power for their production and ensuring carbon-free emissions when burned.



Our cars aren't clean, they're relying on fossil fuels. Trabants are old tech from the last century, wake up, it's the 21st century. You're the one "whining".



View attachment 1003816




The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encouraged banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, but it did not force banks to write bad loans or engage in reckless financial practices. Banks still had the responsibility to ensure loans were sound and affordable. The CRA did not mandate subprime lending or the bundling of risky loans into toxic securities, you dishonest dumbass.

The banks lobbied hard for the repeal of Glass-Steagall because they wanted to engage in riskier, profit-driven practices, not because they were forced by the government to make bad loans.

As for spending millions on lobbying, banks clearly saw the repeal as a ticket to enormous profits through increased financial speculation, not because they were compelled by the CRA to take reckless actions. The financial crisis wasn’t about government coercion; it was about banks exploiting deregulation for their gain. You're truly dumb.

You conceded that the fossil fuel industry invests in poisoning people's minds about nuclear energy,

Link?

Thanks for your ten non-carbon emitting fuels.
#1 is explosive.
#2 is incredibly hazardous.
#3-7 and #9 and 10 are not non-carbon emitting.
#8 sounds too complex and inefficient for cars.

Our cars aren't clean, they're relying on fossil fuels.

Our cars are incredibly clean. Fossil fuels, when they are burned cleanly, release mostly CO2 and H2O. Clean. CO2 isn't dirty.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encouraged banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, but it did not force banks to write bad loans

Right. It "encouraged" banks to write lower quality mortgages.

As for spending millions on lobbying, banks clearly saw the repeal as a ticket to enormous profits through increased financial speculation,

Which banks? How much did they spend?

 

[jc456]

And it was all caused by Democrat governance.. The same bull shite is happening today as we speak, but only in different repackaged program's, concepts or ridiculous thinking that goes against the American people and their ideologies concerning many thing's that were and have been proven.

If anyone can't see the Democrat hands that has caused so much destruction and carnage over time, then we are heading for a serious crash.

well now veterans dollars are now being spent on room and board for illegals and the demofks are okay with screwing Vets. We need to sing that tune often