Boring...
I think I'll go find some witches to burn.
I think I'll go find some witches to burn.
Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
You don't have to burn anything. All you have to do is raise the income tax rate on the top by less than 5%.
And a government stimulus that approximates the New Deal, not another pack of peanuts.
Whether this happens is left to be seen. But look on the bright side. One way or another, you'll either have a better economy or a government that more mimics your ideology than anytime since the Great Depression.
Either way, your glass is half full.
And a government stimulus that approximates the New Deal, not another pack of peanuts.
Whether this happens is left to be seen. But look on the bright side. One way or another, you'll either have a better economy or a government that more mimics your ideology than anytime since the Great Depression.
Either way, your glass is half full.
Obama had a chance to let the tax cuts for the rich expire (per your plan) but instead showed the country who he works for.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/12/us-obama-taxes-idUSTRE6AA4ZE20101112
SEOUL | Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:33am EST
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he does not want to permanently extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, sending another signal he is willing to forge some sort of compromise with newly emboldened Republicans to win an extension for the middle class.
The White House has been hinting it may be willing to come to some kind of deal on the cuts, which Republicans, heartened by their election successes this month, want to extend for the rich as well as the middle class.
"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it," Obama said at a news conference at the end of the G20 summit in South Korea.
"And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution."
Obama meets next week with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders. The cuts enacted under his predecessor George W. Bush and expiring at the end of the year are expected to be a focus of their discussions.
"My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks," Obama said.
Obama's Democrats will control both houses of the U.S. Congress through the end of 2010. If there is no deal by then, the new Congress, which will feature a House of Representatives with a Republican majority after a strong showing in November 2 elections, could take up the issue again in January.
Obama and his fellow Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only to families making less than $250,000 a year, while Republicans want them extended to all Americans.
Obama has insisted tax cuts for the wealthiest should not become permanent because of a potential $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade. He has left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels.
Obama adviser David Axelrod told The Huffington Post website this week there are concerns Congress will continue passing temporary extensions for the wealthy "but I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point."
Axelrod, asked about the article, said by e-mail that the Huffington Post's conclusion that Obama was ready to accept an across-the-board temporary continuation of the tax cuts was overwritten and contained nothing Obama had not already said.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, editing by Sanjeev Miglani)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/12/us-obama-taxes-idUSTRE6AA4ZE20101112
SEOUL | Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:33am EST
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he does not want to permanently extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, sending another signal he is willing to forge some sort of compromise with newly emboldened Republicans to win an extension for the middle class.
The White House has been hinting it may be willing to come to some kind of deal on the cuts, which Republicans, heartened by their election successes this month, want to extend for the rich as well as the middle class.
"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it," Obama said at a news conference at the end of the G20 summit in South Korea.
"And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution."
Obama meets next week with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders. The cuts enacted under his predecessor George W. Bush and expiring at the end of the year are expected to be a focus of their discussions.
"My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks," Obama said.
Obama's Democrats will control both houses of the U.S. Congress through the end of 2010. If there is no deal by then, the new Congress, which will feature a House of Representatives with a Republican majority after a strong showing in November 2 elections, could take up the issue again in January.
Obama and his fellow Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only to families making less than $250,000 a year, while Republicans want them extended to all Americans.
Obama has insisted tax cuts for the wealthiest should not become permanent because of a potential $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade. He has left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels.
Obama adviser David Axelrod told The Huffington Post website this week there are concerns Congress will continue passing temporary extensions for the wealthy "but I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point."
Axelrod, asked about the article, said by e-mail that the Huffington Post's conclusion that Obama was ready to accept an across-the-board temporary continuation of the tax cuts was overwritten and contained nothing Obama had not already said.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, editing by Sanjeev Miglani)
Between TARP, QE 1-xx, GWB 2008 stimulus, O stimulus 1 and 2, cash for clunkers, etc etc. Peanuts? Trillions and trillions of peanuts is not enough?
Our government (FED) leveraged 54 to 1 is not enough?
How many more trillions of fiat money pumped into the system would be not "peanuts"? $50tril, $100tril?
What will the bond market think of all these more trillions and trillions of peanuts on our already exhausted balance sheet? I don't reckon they'd like it. Bond vigilantes might start treating us like the EU.
You don't have to burn anything. All you have to do is raise the income tax rate on the top by less than 5%.
And a government stimulus that approximates the New Deal, not another pack of peanuts.
I'll get right on that.
"O.K. boys, roll out those ink-barrels, an' we're working double overtime again. The boss wants QE 3 and this one will make you shit your pants and your grand-kids kill you in your sleep."
Seriously Disco, do you work for JP Morgan?
The witch burning bit was in reply to another post that some opinions are not worthy of respect because they are irrational and border (or pass into) pure fantasy.
Again with the monkeys with hammers...
"Wait Dr. Fartinmitten...I think the monkeys can fix the computer...
They just need a bigger hammer."
I rest my case.
And a government stimulus that approximates the New Deal, not another pack of peanuts.
I'll get right on that.
"O.K. boys, roll out those ink-barrels, an' we're working double overtime again. The boss wants QE 3 and this one will make you shit your pants and your grand-kids kill you in your sleep."
Seriously Disco, do you work for JP Morgan?
The witch burning bit was in reply to another post that some opinions are not worthy of respect because they are irrational and border (or pass into) pure fantasy.
Again with the monkeys with hammers...
"Wait Dr. Fartinmitten...I think the monkeys can fix the computer...
They just need a bigger hammer."
I rest my case.
you have no case. there's no new printing of money
but simply collecting off the rich.....for Disco's plan.
but simply collecting off the rich.....for Disco's plan.
This story tonight from Bloomberg News....
...........................................................................................................
The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.
The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
.................................................................................................................
Here's the article;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
Our politicians work for the banksters
...........................................................................................................
The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.
The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
.................................................................................................................
Here's the article;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
Our politicians work for the banksters
Sorry, didn't mean you personally, mrceosote.
Nice comeback.
Gramps, this is just my opinion so I hope I don't offend. We're not going back to the gold standard and we're not going to ditch the fed. These are problematic but we knew problematic in 1912. It was a bumpy ride for decades trying to manage inflation but a ride in the park compared to supply side economics and 'starve the beast' policies.
The fed wouldn't be attempting to address liquidity problems with big banks if Congress would do their job and legislate revenues-meets-spending measures. At the same time we can endure austerity for the folks who don't recognize the fact we're burning our entire fuse. There will be nothing left for our children except the explosion.
We have the human element in the equation the sees members of both parties chasing special interests. But far more significant is a party that attempts to pull the plug on things they can't manage to wind down. It's time to wash the ferkin dishes. These yo-yos want to pull the table cloth from asunder and break everything so they don't have to do their jobs.
Maybe you'd prefer the auto companies to fail and lay off workers all down the supply chain. Some estimate as many as 7 figures. But the auto bailouts were either paid back or are being paid back with interest. Do you have any idea whatsoever how losing that many jobs that suddenly would do to our chances of recovery? It might be easier to swallow an ideology that measures the amount of potential human suffering. The market makes winners but it also makes victims. Too much greed for predators to make a living honestly. They go after the good folks in the name of SOTF.
Bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing - none of these are economic strategies. They are desperate attempts to address the problems created by a demographic who doesn't want to pay taxes and votes for legislators that refuse to match revenues to spending.
I don't like the big brother aspect of government any more than the next guy. But it's a complicated world with complicated problems that Austrian economics doesn't address. If Ayn Rand were a zoo keeper, she'd have thrown lions into the antelope pen and praise the much improved antelope musculature. Ayn wouldn't address all the carnage and mayhem. After all, predators need victims. IMO, suggesting the market will weed out the lions is no better than eat cake.
I'm the last guy to attempt to predict we'll eventually get our shit back together like we did after the depression. We were on track to tackle the debt and manage whatever funding deficits we had in social security or whatever (because revenues matched spending.)
IMO, GDP based monetary standards, 10:1 leverage and a fed chief are compatible to a traffic cop at an intersection. It doesn't prevent wrecks (because nothing can do that.) It manages wrecks by directing the large flow of traffic, accident-free. The wrecks are manageable.
Now we have planes and diesel locomotives bearing down on the same intersection from decades of voodoo economics and starve-the-beast policies. Pointing at the cop looks away from the obvious. So pull out the cop, let all that mayhem smash into one great catastrophe so bad we'll have to go back to outhouses on the creek to keep from shitting in the nest.
That poor little traffic cop can't possibly hold up against all the deregulation and fraud flung by folks that have one wet dream - yank the rug from under government so we can yank the rug from under each other.
Nice comeback.Gramps, this is just my opinion so I hope I don't offend. We're not going back to the gold standard and we're not going to ditch the fed. These are problematic but we knew problematic in 1912. It was a bumpy ride for decades trying to manage inflation but a ride in the park compared to supply side economics and 'starve the beast' policies.
The fed wouldn't be attempting to address liquidity problems with big banks if Congress would do their job and legislate revenues-meets-spending measures. At the same time we can endure austerity for the folks who don't recognize the fact we're burning our entire fuse. There will be nothing left for our children except the explosion.
We have the human element in the equation the sees members of both parties chasing special interests. But far more significant is a party that attempts to pull the plug on things they can't manage to wind down. It's time to wash the ferkin dishes. These yo-yos want to pull the table cloth from asunder and break everything so they don't have to do their jobs.
Maybe you'd prefer the auto companies to fail and lay off workers all down the supply chain. Some estimate as many as 7 figures. But the auto bailouts were either paid back or are being paid back with interest. Do you have any idea whatsoever how losing that many jobs that suddenly would do to our chances of recovery? It might be easier to swallow an ideology that measures the amount of potential human suffering. The market makes winners but it also makes victims. Too much greed for predators to make a living honestly. They go after the good folks in the name of SOTF.
Bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing - none of these are economic strategies. They are desperate attempts to address the problems created by a demographic who doesn't want to pay taxes and votes for legislators that refuse to match revenues to spending.
I don't like the big brother aspect of government any more than the next guy. But it's a complicated world with complicated problems that Austrian economics doesn't address. If Ayn Rand were a zoo keeper, she'd have thrown lions into the antelope pen and praise the much improved antelope musculature. Ayn wouldn't address all the carnage and mayhem. After all, predators need victims. IMO, suggesting the market will weed out the lions is no better than eat cake.
I'm the last guy to attempt to predict we'll eventually get our shit back together like we did after the depression. We were on track to tackle the debt and manage whatever funding deficits we had in social security or whatever (because revenues matched spending.)
IMO, GDP based monetary standards, 10:1 leverage and a fed chief are compatible to a traffic cop at an intersection. It doesn't prevent wrecks (because nothing can do that.) It manages wrecks by directing the large flow of traffic, accident-free. The wrecks are manageable.
Now we have planes and diesel locomotives bearing down on the same intersection from decades of voodoo economics and starve-the-beast policies. Pointing at the cop looks away from the obvious. So pull out the cop, let all that mayhem smash into one great catastrophe so bad we'll have to go back to outhouses on the creek to keep from shitting in the nest.
That poor little traffic cop can't possibly hold up against all the deregulation and fraud flung by folks that have one wet dream - yank the rug from under government so we can yank the rug from under each other.
Not at all. I was alluding to the fact that all these peanuts flying around are eventually going to have to be repaid. And that you can reach a point in time where the market can tell that, due to large structural problems, the amount of peanuts coming in can never pay off the amount of peanuts outstanding and that printing fiat peanuts to cover the difference eventually fails.
The potential exists that there may be a point where the FED ends themselves and the market chooses which peanuts they like best. Be it gold, silver, or some other fiat currency of choice bound by a new set of promises. Maybe the Euro?
Maybe so, but there in lies the rub. No one is doing their jobs. Ever. Haven't been for a very long time IMO.
Agree to disagree that we are addressing liquidity issues. These are solvency issues trying to be papered over with liquidity. The Europe Debt Crisis hype is covering up the fact that we are all in the same bankrupt boat.
Hence all of the global protesting and political instability. I feel bad for the traffic cop, but the he's standing on the railroad tracks and the Math Train is bearing down on him.
Government intervention can only hide solvency issues for so long IMO.
While a major portion of our government is dedicated to not repaying. They want to use the fiscal crisis to divert tax policy to safety-net elimination.
So it's not unlike, "Pay attention to my left hand not paying your bill so you won't see my right hand throwing a wrench in your machine (that used to work.) So not only are you broke, your machine that used to help in times of crisis is no more. All so you can pay my salary in the private sector."
Respectfully, that's a nice story that assumes that sanity would allow wolves to dictate the foundations of stability when we know their veracious appetite wants it yesterday and ignores tomorrow.
Commerce is being allowed to return to the antithesis of managed stability. I empathize with your concern for solvency but lunatics running supply-side government and capitalists reaping the benefits is like pouring ether on an oil lamp.
But it is kinda nice to blame the match that lit the lamp that started the ether fire, even though the ether was consciously and copiously applied.
I'd say that's highly possibly. And yes, many aren't doing their jobs.
We wouldn't have to paper over deregulation if we reform banking. Agree to disagree that deregulated capitalism beget crisis fed measures.
IMO, part of government is also attempting to hide the giveaway to the top. It's not just that our government stopped swinging the bat. In the 80s, part of em dropped the bat and picked up a blade. Now they're cutting throats and saying, "Government's not supposed to hit the ball, you are."
Last edited:
The writing style signifies how intelligent the author is. An absolute genius of literature and philosophy!
If the macro economy was a balloon, supply side economics is the hand that squeezes 99% of the balloon to over inflate the other 1%.
The lie is that the over inflated 1% will sustain the deflated 99%. It's a lie, folks. The 1% knows a deflated 99% can't purchase the necessary commerce to keep unemployment in the 4 to 4.5% range. So they hunker down with their wealth and lobby for a tighter squeeze on the balloon.
It's a lie, folks.
Decades of statistics prove that top-down policies are as corrupt as the excuses that point fingers in distracting directions or attempt to kiss the cheek before stabbing the back. Get a supply-sider in the corner long enough and they'll eventually admit the bottom is shrinking - just like the statistics have always indicated. Some will snicker and make you realize they're throwing baloney at knives in debate.
So how do we improve the economy and reduce unemployment? We pump up the deflated portion of the balloon before the big lie sucks it into a vacuum.
How do we do that? Since the top is lying and not participating in the recovery, how do we inflate 99% of the balloon? There's two ways to fast-track the recovery and manage the deficits into the black. If you want real deficit reform that tackles the national debt, these two factors have to be sustained long enough to pay it off. After that we may decide that smaller government is what we want. But without the following two measures, we'll never get back on track.
What the recalcitrant portion of the 1% needs to realize is that government only needs their additional support until the economy starts humming again. Asking them to pay their fair share of taxes will increase the demand they're looking for. If they're willing to work for it, they'll get wealthier than sitting on their laurels, counting their interest and allocating campaign funds to crooked politicians.
In short, the top needs to go back to obtaining money the old fashioned way - they need to earn it. Government needs to shuck the big lie and reform policies that squeeze the balloon.
The top suffers from greed the most. We should have a certain degree of empathy for this horrible reflection of humanity as it's in us all. But an instant later we need to realize the market wont mitigate the shrinking balloon on it's own.
And, "Get a job" isn't worthy of stoner debate, much less for campaign rhetoric, Newt
. If you're a true fan of the big lie, shout it from the rooftops. I promise, we'd respect that more than ignoring history and further propagating the big lie. Not all supply siders convert their ideologies. But if they suffer long enough, they start pulling the blue lever in the voter booth. If their like my late granddad, they still worship the sound bites but (eventually) realize the consequences.
The lie is that the over inflated 1% will sustain the deflated 99%. It's a lie, folks. The 1% knows a deflated 99% can't purchase the necessary commerce to keep unemployment in the 4 to 4.5% range. So they hunker down with their wealth and lobby for a tighter squeeze on the balloon.
It's a lie, folks.
Decades of statistics prove that top-down policies are as corrupt as the excuses that point fingers in distracting directions or attempt to kiss the cheek before stabbing the back. Get a supply-sider in the corner long enough and they'll eventually admit the bottom is shrinking - just like the statistics have always indicated. Some will snicker and make you realize they're throwing baloney at knives in debate.
So how do we improve the economy and reduce unemployment? We pump up the deflated portion of the balloon before the big lie sucks it into a vacuum.
How do we do that? Since the top is lying and not participating in the recovery, how do we inflate 99% of the balloon? There's two ways to fast-track the recovery and manage the deficits into the black. If you want real deficit reform that tackles the national debt, these two factors have to be sustained long enough to pay it off. After that we may decide that smaller government is what we want. But without the following two measures, we'll never get back on track.
1 - Take the hand off the balloon in the form of charging the top their fair share of taxes, end welfare for the top and surtax their gains for the short term. Diminish surtaxes as the economy surpasses key markers and ultimately settle in or around the Clinton tax rates.
This will shrink top gains in the near term. But increased commerce from the bottom will generate increased demand for products and services. Not only will the bottom be better sustained, ensuring a steady supply of demand for bonus-seeking executives, the top will once again become a positive force in domestic economics. More yin to the yang.
2 - Releasing the hand from the balloon won't create recovery fast enough without employment to create demand (so that executives start hiring again.) Our national infrastructure is crumbling so repair is natural order. Couple the need for infrastructure repair with the need for employment and we have the opportunity to inflate the balloon w/o the top who's atm sitting on their collective ass, waiting for increased demand.
Trust me, where there's increased demand they'll bite the hook.
Otherwise, business wont hire and commerce won't grow. The big lie doesn't pay. The bottom will continue to deflate with the big lie running the show.
Folks either forget or ignore that increased demand grows economies (makes the balloon bigger... more air... yada yada.)This will shrink top gains in the near term. But increased commerce from the bottom will generate increased demand for products and services. Not only will the bottom be better sustained, ensuring a steady supply of demand for bonus-seeking executives, the top will once again become a positive force in domestic economics. More yin to the yang.
2 - Releasing the hand from the balloon won't create recovery fast enough without employment to create demand (so that executives start hiring again.) Our national infrastructure is crumbling so repair is natural order. Couple the need for infrastructure repair with the need for employment and we have the opportunity to inflate the balloon w/o the top who's atm sitting on their collective ass, waiting for increased demand.
Trust me, where there's increased demand they'll bite the hook.
Otherwise, business wont hire and commerce won't grow. The big lie doesn't pay. The bottom will continue to deflate with the big lie running the show.
What the recalcitrant portion of the 1% needs to realize is that government only needs their additional support until the economy starts humming again. Asking them to pay their fair share of taxes will increase the demand they're looking for. If they're willing to work for it, they'll get wealthier than sitting on their laurels, counting their interest and allocating campaign funds to crooked politicians.
In short, the top needs to go back to obtaining money the old fashioned way - they need to earn it. Government needs to shuck the big lie and reform policies that squeeze the balloon.
The top suffers from greed the most. We should have a certain degree of empathy for this horrible reflection of humanity as it's in us all. But an instant later we need to realize the market wont mitigate the shrinking balloon on it's own.
And, "Get a job" isn't worthy of stoner debate, much less for campaign rhetoric, Newt
. If you're a true fan of the big lie, shout it from the rooftops. I promise, we'd respect that more than ignoring history and further propagating the big lie. Not all supply siders convert their ideologies. But if they suffer long enough, they start pulling the blue lever in the voter booth. If their like my late granddad, they still worship the sound bites but (eventually) realize the consequences.
No umbrage taken, dear fellow...
Just because I'm reasonably certain your solutions to our current condition are 180 degrees different than mine and I'm more than certain that Greenday is crazier than a syphilitic marmoset residing in an outdoor convenience is a very poor reason to not consider ourselves all brothers in heart and mind that share a love in common.
As with brothers, there may, on occasion, be some light-hearted bantering but never evil intent.
But I still think we need to toss a line to Green and get him into the sunshine fast.
I'm concerned for his health.
BTW, speaking of health:
I hope you get over your current bout with Krugmanophilia. Even die-hard Keynesians are fleeing its virulent clutches and it seems to infect only the weakest members of society with compromised immunity from putting their faith in doctrinal theory instead of real world economic fact.
Try Immodium. It won't cure it, but it may save you from public embarrassment.
Just because I'm reasonably certain your solutions to our current condition are 180 degrees different than mine and I'm more than certain that Greenday is crazier than a syphilitic marmoset residing in an outdoor convenience is a very poor reason to not consider ourselves all brothers in heart and mind that share a love in common.
As with brothers, there may, on occasion, be some light-hearted bantering but never evil intent.
But I still think we need to toss a line to Green and get him into the sunshine fast.
I'm concerned for his health.
BTW, speaking of health:
I hope you get over your current bout with Krugmanophilia. Even die-hard Keynesians are fleeing its virulent clutches and it seems to infect only the weakest members of society with compromised immunity from putting their faith in doctrinal theory instead of real world economic fact.
Try Immodium. It won't cure it, but it may save you from public embarrassment.
you can't face the truth so you resort to insults.
"crazier than a syphilitic marmoset"
go burn some witches; your 'manifest destiny'
is an utter failure.
"crazier than a syphilitic marmoset"
go burn some witches; your 'manifest destiny'
is an utter failure.
Your disagreement is no embarrassment and I don't seek to embarrass in return. I invite you to demonstrate through statistics, charts, graphs etc, the accomplishments of supply-side economics or Friedman economics or deregulation or whatever you call padding the top at the expense of the macro economy.
In turn I'll show you every significant bust since the late 1700s and point to indicators that reflect degrees we see today.
I don't just have the benefit of hearing diverse messages and choosing the one that most fondly strokes my romantic imaginations. I actually look at the track records and compare bottom lines and choose the better imperfect scenarios. Or closer to one better scenario and a big lie.
Listen as your elected representatives admit they're 'starving the beast' and realize they don't admit this publicly. Like I say, shout from the rooftops if your a fan of supply-side but I'd carefully consider masquerading it as anything remotely imitating macro economic strategy.
As a card-carrying member of those you consider the weakest of society, I'm honored to invite you to do FAR more than bump gums. I'm not sorry to admit you'll have a tough time even finding data to support the macro from supply side policies. You'll find just the opposite, a shrinking working class - exactly the opposite of what was promised.
I don't have a crystal ball but I'll signature bet that you attempt to match loads of statistics with conservative rhetoric
and nothing else. I so invite you to embarrass me.
In turn I'll show you every significant bust since the late 1700s and point to indicators that reflect degrees we see today.
Lowest minimum wage adjusted for inflation since 1968.
Lowest revenues since 1952.
Largest income disparity since 1929.
Lowest revenues since 1952.
Largest income disparity since 1929.
Statistics that prove that 30+ years of the big lie are shrinking the middle class and expanding the working poor, unemployed and homeless populations.
I can do more than paraphrase policy ideas, ideas which happen to coincide with economic booms and busts. I can show you trends and varying degrees of boneheaded legislation that expanded the top at the expense of the bottom and by how much.
I don't just have the benefit of hearing diverse messages and choosing the one that most fondly strokes my romantic imaginations. I actually look at the track records and compare bottom lines and choose the better imperfect scenarios. Or closer to one better scenario and a big lie.
Listen as your elected representatives admit they're 'starving the beast' and realize they don't admit this publicly. Like I say, shout from the rooftops if your a fan of supply-side but I'd carefully consider masquerading it as anything remotely imitating macro economic strategy.
As a card-carrying member of those you consider the weakest of society, I'm honored to invite you to do FAR more than bump gums. I'm not sorry to admit you'll have a tough time even finding data to support the macro from supply side policies. You'll find just the opposite, a shrinking working class - exactly the opposite of what was promised.
I don't have a crystal ball but I'll signature bet that you attempt to match loads of statistics with conservative rhetoric
and nothing else.
I so invite you to embarrass me.
Last edited:
We can forget 'occupy' or 'protest' if this passes Congress....
And drug users are considered 'terrorist'
under government guidelines ( George & Laura Bush).....
Citizens To Be Imprisoned Without Charge Or Trial
http://coloradocannabisblog.com/?p=1390#more-1390
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...y-define-being
NDAA Would Allow Citizens To Be Imprisoned Without Charge Or Trial
News
While this post is not directly related to cannabis, we thought it was important enough to share. Please see below for important information from The American Civil Liberties Union:
While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.
Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?
The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.
But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.
In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”
The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.
In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.
The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.
Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
via Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.
onegreenday is online now Add to onegreenday's Reputation Report Post
And drug users are considered 'terrorist'
under government guidelines ( George & Laura Bush).....
Citizens To Be Imprisoned Without Charge Or Trial
http://coloradocannabisblog.com/?p=1390#more-1390
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...y-define-being
NDAA Would Allow Citizens To Be Imprisoned Without Charge Or Trial
News
While this post is not directly related to cannabis, we thought it was important enough to share. Please see below for important information from The American Civil Liberties Union:
While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.
Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?
The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.
But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.
In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”
The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.
In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.
The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.
Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
via Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.
onegreenday is online now Add to onegreenday's Reputation Report Post
Mr Creosote, if you happened to give me an unhelpful rating, no harm no foul. But if you're they one giving down votes while simultaneously suggesting I'm embarrassing myself, you my friend are blowing da BIG baloney.
I don't kid myself I'll convert any diehards. But I'll present the evidence and even the diehards will eventually recognize they can't pontificate a smokescreen over reality. Some will snicker that the top really is cleaning our fucking clock and squeel GO, BOYEEEEEE!
:
Unless he says why, we may never know. Wouldn't be surprised if he grew frustrated with an opposition that plays ball from the cockpit of a demolition swing.
Wouldn't be surprised if he's frustrated with an opposition and it's network contemporary devoted to blaming him for the housing crisis.
The agency reform protocols you equated to lowered lending standards wasn't what you were suggesting. It wasn't even proof that reform had taken place. It was legalese describing the legal process, should reform take place.
From Jan 3, 1995 until January 3rd, 2007, the Republican majority failed to pass a single reform for Freddie or Fannie or Indy or any GSE. It wasn't until the 2007 class (elected in Nov 2006) that reform was passed and Hank Paulsen used the democratic legislation to put Freddie and Fannie into government receivership. You can google the vote, I bet dimes to doughnuts it was party-line.
Granted, democrats want fair lending, they want lenders to stop red lining neighborhoods and communities. But nothing of relevance suggests they legislated or even pressured lenders to:
approve loans for deadbeats
curtail and even totally dispose of due diligence of the borrower
qualify approved loans (with qualifying information only the lender would know.) In other words, the so-called deadbeat wouldn't know how big a lie to tell in order to get the loan he wanted (and I'll whisper this real quiet) the lender was at least complicit and at worst the perp.)
curtail and even totally dispose of due diligence of the borrower
qualify approved loans (with qualifying information only the lender would know.) In other words, the so-called deadbeat wouldn't know how big a lie to tell in order to get the loan he wanted (and I'll whisper this real quiet) the lender was at least complicit and at worst the perp.)
The fact there are documented cases of mortgage fraud doesn't mitigate the fact that a great amount was lender fraud. Same way folks decry voter fraud, the vast majority of documented cases are actually election fraud. Some Americans don't know the difference and some don't care enough to realize they're being under informed at best or misled at worst.
Not only didn't conservatives attempt a single F&F reform as super congress, super majority or working majority in 12 long years. The former leader of the first Republican takeover in over 40 years managed to rake at least 1.8 million dollars (supposedly showing F&F how to persuade congressional consideration against reform.) Neither he, nor his party nor his party's president managed a single reform when they could have easily done it unilaterally. Thing is, they would have enjoyed democratic support. Republicans were incompetent or they didn't want to reform F&F.
Convenience sets in and the housing crisis coincides with the democratic takeover of Congress. Simple enough, blame the democrats. But a simple view of the timeline demonstrates the fact that a working majority, a super majority and even a super Congress failed to introduce, let alone pass F&F reform.
Another interesting factor - where is any other example of Republicans legislating protections for the working class? Republican policies favor the top, not the working class. Republicans are attempting to blame lack of reform on other folks when Republicans held the steering wheel. They're attempting to insinuate after the fact that reform was necessary but the democrats didn't do their jobs. It's one of the first priorities that democrats passed after a 12 year hiatus at calling congressional shots.
If two diametrically opposed political parties could manage honest debate and brief voters honestly, I expect the logjam of compromise would be frustrating by itself. But when recalcitrants ignore their own meeting minutes and instead blame the other side, we're not working with adults. We're working with clever children who recognize their constituents don't pay enough attention to call out their obvious obfuscations.
- Status
