Topic: Teabaggers are the dumbest group in America.
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #32,097
Wanting a less wasteful and more efficient government in exchange for less taxes. Who in their right mind would want that?
Let's look at just a few of Obama's accomplishments that teabaqqers hate:
-Amount of people on food stamps up 43% under Obama
-Welfare recipients have grown by 35% under Obama.
-Number of people collecting Disability from Social Security up 35%
-median income down $3,000 since Obama took office
-unemployment still at 7.5% despite $800 billion in stimulus and $6 trillion in addition debt
Teabaqqers are so dumb.
Let's look at just a few of Obama's accomplishments that teabaqqers hate:
-Amount of people on food stamps up 43% under Obama
-Welfare recipients have grown by 35% under Obama.
-Number of people collecting Disability from Social Security up 35%
-median income down $3,000 since Obama took office
-unemployment still at 7.5% despite $800 billion in stimulus and $6 trillion in addition debt
Teabaqqers are so dumb.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later[^] [v] #449,691
mad
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 40 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #449,692
lol
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #449,694
teabaggers also took steps to guarantee that a government shut down would occur. They don't want compromise. They want to bully.
honestly i think it all goes back to 2000 when we had a republican house and senate. whenever that was. I think the republicans got spoiled, for years they had a majority and could just pass whatever laws they wanted. it's like they think compromise is a waste of time and the only way to get anything done in washington anymore is to just have a majority and fuck compromise. Just stonewall, bully and impede government until republicans have a majority again.
it's fucking crooked.
honestly i think it all goes back to 2000 when we had a republican house and senate. whenever that was. I think the republicans got spoiled, for years they had a majority and could just pass whatever laws they wanted. it's like they think compromise is a waste of time and the only way to get anything done in washington anymore is to just have a majority and fuck compromise. Just stonewall, bully and impede government until republicans have a majority again.
it's fucking crooked.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,703
Part of the conservative movement is the equivalent of a Christian Taliban. Another part is simply racist and mad as fuck about a ton of stupid shit they don't even really understand. There is a small group of somewhat reasonable, rational conservatives, and most of those identify themselves as some sort of half assed Libertarian (they're not at all Libertarians where it counts though).
> Amount of people on food stamps up 43% under Obama
> Welfare recipients have grown by 35% under Obama
The direct result of a Conservative induced depression
> Number of people collecting Disability from Social Security up 35%
Citation needed. But if true it's likely directly proportional with aging baby boomers.
> median income down $3,000 since Obama took office
That was taking a dive long before Obama got in office.
> -unemployment still at 7.5% despite $800 billion in stimulus and $6 trillion in addition debt
Imagine how bad it would be without stimulus.
> Teabaggers are so dumb.
They sure do bitch a lot. Where is their list of solutions? Oh wait...
> Amount of people on food stamps up 43% under Obama
> Welfare recipients have grown by 35% under Obama
The direct result of a Conservative induced depression
> Number of people collecting Disability from Social Security up 35%
Citation needed. But if true it's likely directly proportional with aging baby boomers.
> median income down $3,000 since Obama took office
That was taking a dive long before Obama got in office.
> -unemployment still at 7.5% despite $800 billion in stimulus and $6 trillion in addition debt
Imagine how bad it would be without stimulus.
> Teabaggers are so dumb.
They sure do bitch a lot. Where is their list of solutions? Oh wait...
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,704
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,705
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,707
@449,704 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah, they started that shit almost the instant everything started imploding. It was disgusting, and it still is. Zero accountability whilst nonstop bitching.
Yeah, they started that shit almost the instant everything started imploding. It was disgusting, and it still is. Zero accountability whilst nonstop bitching.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,708
Presidents in really complicated and deep recessions have more people on welfare, food stamps, etc. than presidents who preside over a stable/booming economy. This isn't surprising.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,710
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,714
@449,703 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Hey Corky, please list the specific REPUBLICAN POLICIES that led to the financial crisis.
Hey Corky, please list the specific REPUBLICAN POLICIES that led to the financial crisis.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,715
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,716
@449,714 (A)
"Mr. Bush inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from Mr. Clinton in 2000, which fell to $128 billion in 2001. By 2002, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $158 billion, which rose to $377 billion in 2003, and $413 billion in 2004. The deficit fell to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, and $161 billion in 2007, then shot up to $459 billion in 2008.
It should be noted as well that the fiscal 2009 budget was submitted to Congress by Mr. Bush in January 2008 and took effect on Oct. 1 of that year – almost four months before President Obama took office.
Thus the government was running historically large budget deficits long after the end of the 2001 recession. As I have previously documented, these deficits resulted to a large extent from legislated tax cuts during the Bush years."
"Mr. Bush inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from Mr. Clinton in 2000, which fell to $128 billion in 2001. By 2002, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $158 billion, which rose to $377 billion in 2003, and $413 billion in 2004. The deficit fell to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, and $161 billion in 2007, then shot up to $459 billion in 2008.
It should be noted as well that the fiscal 2009 budget was submitted to Congress by Mr. Bush in January 2008 and took effect on Oct. 1 of that year – almost four months before President Obama took office.
Thus the government was running historically large budget deficits long after the end of the 2001 recession. As I have previously documented, these deficits resulted to a large extent from legislated tax cuts during the Bush years."
Anonymous I double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,717
@449,714 (A)
"Most economists believe that running large deficits during cyclical upturns is a bad idea because they overstimulate the economy when it’s not needed and thus sow the seeds of economic imbalances that lead to subsequent recessions. One can argue that George W. Bush’s budgetary profligacy was a major cause of the 2007-9 recession – the longest and deepest of the postwar era."
"Even if one isn’t willing to go that far, it is apparent that had Mr. Bush reduced budget deficits rather than enlarging them through tax cuts and spending increases for wars, pork-barrel projects and a new entitlement program (Medicare Part D), the federal government would have had more fiscal ammunition available to fight the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush."
"Most economists believe that running large deficits during cyclical upturns is a bad idea because they overstimulate the economy when it’s not needed and thus sow the seeds of economic imbalances that lead to subsequent recessions. One can argue that George W. Bush’s budgetary profligacy was a major cause of the 2007-9 recession – the longest and deepest of the postwar era."
"Even if one isn’t willing to go that far, it is apparent that had Mr. Bush reduced budget deficits rather than enlarging them through tax cuts and spending increases for wars, pork-barrel projects and a new entitlement program (Medicare Part D), the federal government would have had more fiscal ammunition available to fight the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush."
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,718
@449,714 (A)> the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
> the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
> net capital rule changes in 2004
> foreign policy causing us to bleed trillions of dollars
> more could be listed, but fuck it. How much does one need?
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 42 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,723
@449,703 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Part of the conservative movement is the equivalent of a Christian Taliban
EXACTLY
> Part of the conservative movement is the equivalent of a Christian Taliban
EXACTLY
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,727
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,728
@previous (A)
I agree. Obama did it all. The moment he took office he implemented his ultimate plan to systematically destroy America and our FREEDOMS.
I agree. Obama did it all. The moment he took office he implemented his ultimate plan to systematically destroy America and our FREEDOMS.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,729
@449,727 (A)
You are fucking retarded. Shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're fucking talking about.
You are fucking retarded. Shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're fucking talking about.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,730
@449,718 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> > the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
Wasn't the Glass-Steagall Act repealed under the Clinton administration? Then again, IIRC, the Clinton administration took place during a time when the Republicans held the senate and house of representatives.
> > the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
Wasn't the Glass-Steagall Act repealed under the Clinton administration? Then again, IIRC, the Clinton administration took place during a time when the Republicans held the senate and house of representatives.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,731
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yes, and yes on the second part. Clinton just signed it, the repeal was a Republican thing all the way.
Yes, and yes on the second part. Clinton just signed it, the repeal was a Republican thing all the way.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,733
@449,718 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization act were both signed into law by President Clinton, so I don't see how those count as Republican policies.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization act were both signed into law by President Clinton, so I don't see how those count as Republican policies.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,734
@449,731 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Clinton just signed it, the repeal was a Republican thing all the way.
Then why did he sign it into law if he didn't agree with it? He could have vetoed it. For better or for worse, it's Clinton's law.
> Clinton just signed it, the repeal was a Republican thing all the way.
Then why did he sign it into law if he didn't agree with it? He could have vetoed it. For better or for worse, it's Clinton's law.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,736
@449,733 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Republicans held the senate and house of representatives, Clinton just signed. Would Clinton get all the credit if they had turned out to be good policies and done as much good as they did damage? Not a chance. Republicans have distanced themselves as far as possible from any responsibility or accountability whatsoever. And it's working. :-/
People aren't even talking about how the Republicans got our credit rating lowered and that was like what, last year? The conservative propaganda machine is a powerful thing.
Republicans held the senate and house of representatives, Clinton just signed. Would Clinton get all the credit if they had turned out to be good policies and done as much good as they did damage? Not a chance. Republicans have distanced themselves as far as possible from any responsibility or accountability whatsoever. And it's working. :-/
People aren't even talking about how the Republicans got our credit rating lowered and that was like what, last year? The conservative propaganda machine is a powerful thing.
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,737
@449,734 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> republicans draft law
> republicans vote it through house
> republicans vote it through senate
> Clinton signs it
> it's all the democrats fault
Really?
> republicans draft law
> republicans vote it through house
> republicans vote it through senate
> Clinton signs it
> it's all the democrats fault
Really?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,739
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Let's examine the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed Glass-Steagall.
> > republicans draft law
Fair enough, it has three Republican names on it.
> > republicans vote it through house
207 House Republicans and 155 House Democrats vote it through the House. This breaks down to 98% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats in the House voting in favor of it.
> > republicans vote it through senate
52 Republicans and 38 Democrats vote it through the Senate, meaning 98% of Senate Republicans and 75% of Senate Democrats were in favor.
>
> > Clinton signs it
Yep. Because an overwhelming majority of both parties voted yea.
> > it's all the democrats fault
No. But even if every Republican in Congress were removed, it still would have passed by over a 3/4 majority.
> Really?
Yes, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png
Let's examine the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed Glass-Steagall.
> > republicans draft law
Fair enough, it has three Republican names on it.
> > republicans vote it through house
207 House Republicans and 155 House Democrats vote it through the House. This breaks down to 98% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats in the House voting in favor of it.
> > republicans vote it through senate
52 Republicans and 38 Democrats vote it through the Senate, meaning 98% of Senate Republicans and 75% of Senate Democrats were in favor.
>
> > Clinton signs it
Yep. Because an overwhelming majority of both parties voted yea.
> > it's all the democrats fault
No. But even if every Republican in Congress were removed, it still would have passed by over a 3/4 majority.
> Really?
Yes, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,741
the republicans are like a garish caricature of a child stomping across the beach kicking down everyone's sand castles. sure, maybe the sand castles are dumb and messy and not nearly expansive enough.
but where is the republicans sand castle? all they do is stomp on everything and bluster. and when they're pressed to build their own sand castle they just upend a bucket of sand, stab a stick into the top and say, "there's your health care reform law."
but where is the republicans sand castle? all they do is stomp on everything and bluster. and when they're pressed to build their own sand castle they just upend a bucket of sand, stab a stick into the top and say, "there's your health care reform law."
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,744
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> the republicans are like a garish caricature of a child stomping across the beach
NOT NOT on my Beach...around here everyone thinks Republicans are in a self destruct mode. They seem willing to sacrifice their party as well as world economy for the sake of a bill (passed) they cannot stomach.
> the republicans are like a garish caricature of a child stomping across the beach
NOT NOT on my Beach...around here everyone thinks Republicans are in a self destruct mode. They seem willing to sacrifice their party as well as world economy for the sake of a bill (passed) they cannot stomach.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,745
@previous (Syntax)
if the republicans are dying i wish they'd quit trying to take everyone with them.
if the republicans are dying i wish they'd quit trying to take everyone with them.
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,747
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
LoL well they ain't near death yet. And Texas is helping to keep them alive.
LoL well they ain't near death yet. And Texas is helping to keep them alive.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,748
@previous (Syntax)
texas won't be a republican stronghold for long. not with all the mexicans. That's why the republicans love ted cruz. he's supposed to be the mexican jesus, but i think he's already shown himself incapable of inflicting damage upon himself. he will not last long. Yeah, texas will be a bastion of republican strength for many more cycles, but really, 9 out of 10 people my age are liberal. the conservative boomers won't be contributing forever.
texas won't be a republican stronghold for long. not with all the mexicans. That's why the republicans love ted cruz. he's supposed to be the mexican jesus, but i think he's already shown himself incapable of inflicting damage upon himself. he will not last long. Yeah, texas will be a bastion of republican strength for many more cycles, but really, 9 out of 10 people my age are liberal. the conservative boomers won't be contributing forever.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,749
@449,739 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
So there is no scenario where it's the Republicans fault unless they did it 100% on their own? Or is your point that it's both sides fault, and they really aren't that different on so many issues like this?
So there is no scenario where it's the Republicans fault unless they did it 100% on their own? Or is your point that it's both sides fault, and they really aren't that different on so many issues like this?
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,750
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Ya no its not really who is at fault. Wot counts is who does not let economy go back in2 the crapper. If Republicans help this happen ...No one will ever let them forget it.
I in years past have been a registered Republican. Back then a moderate one. We need a viable two party system but after the last two elections where Republicans lost the presidency ...They just fail to understand why they will never get it back with the road they are currently on.
Ya no its not really who is at fault. Wot counts is who does not let economy go back in2 the crapper. If Republicans help this happen ...No one will ever let them forget it.
I in years past have been a registered Republican. Back then a moderate one. We need a viable two party system but after the last two elections where Republicans lost the presidency ...They just fail to understand why they will never get it back with the road they are currently on.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,752
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,753
@449,737 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's a weird kind of doublethink. If anything good happened during the Clinton administration, republicans are eager to point out that the House and Senate were actually running government while Clinton just happened to be there to sign things.If anything bad came out the Clinton administration, then the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the tyrannical Bill Clinton who single-handedly forced it into law. Similarly, anyone who criticized Bush during the Bush administration was met with arguments about how the President is only one guy who doesn't control all aspects of government or about how this was all the result of horrible Clinton-era management. Now everything is Obama's fault no matter what.
It's a weird kind of doublethink. If anything good happened during the Clinton administration, republicans are eager to point out that the House and Senate were actually running government while Clinton just happened to be there to sign things.If anything bad came out the Clinton administration, then the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the tyrannical Bill Clinton who single-handedly forced it into law. Similarly, anyone who criticized Bush during the Bush administration was met with arguments about how the President is only one guy who doesn't control all aspects of government or about how this was all the result of horrible Clinton-era management. Now everything is Obama's fault no matter what.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,754
Teabaggers lol
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,755
@449,749 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I'm not saying it's the Republicans or Democrats' fault: an all-Republican or all-Democratic Congress would have passed it overwhelmingly. My point is, repeal of Glass-Steagall is about the most bipartisan thing ever, and it would be absurd to blame either party for it. That being said, I don't think it caused the financial crisis, at any rate.
I'm not saying it's the Republicans or Democrats' fault: an all-Republican or all-Democratic Congress would have passed it overwhelmingly. My point is, repeal of Glass-Steagall is about the most bipartisan thing ever, and it would be absurd to blame either party for it. That being said, I don't think it caused the financial crisis, at any rate.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,758
@449,753 (M)
Nailed it.
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
No single thing was responsible for the crisis. However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor. What in your opinion led to the crisis?
Nailed it.
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
No single thing was responsible for the crisis. However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor. What in your opinion led to the crisis?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,759
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor.
that would be my understanding, yes
> However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor.
that would be my understanding, yes
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,790
@449,758 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> No single thing was responsible for the crisis. However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor. What in your opinion led to the crisis?
Again, there's no single factor but I would say a large part of it was artificially cheap credit amd government policies and agencies designed to encourage homeownership (these laid the groundwork). The other major part was the desire, after the dot-com crash, Enron, and 9/11, for a "safe" investment. Your $100/share Enron stock can go "poof" and vanish in an instant, but real estate always goes up. I mean, they're not making anymore land, right?
It would be missing a lot of the picture to say this law or that person or team red/team blue caused the housing collapse. There were a lot of moving parts involved.
> No single thing was responsible for the crisis. However most experts agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was a contributing factor. What in your opinion led to the crisis?
Again, there's no single factor but I would say a large part of it was artificially cheap credit amd government policies and agencies designed to encourage homeownership (these laid the groundwork). The other major part was the desire, after the dot-com crash, Enron, and 9/11, for a "safe" investment. Your $100/share Enron stock can go "poof" and vanish in an instant, but real estate always goes up. I mean, they're not making anymore land, right?
It would be missing a lot of the picture to say this law or that person or team red/team blue caused the housing collapse. There were a lot of moving parts involved.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,792
Shouldn't the goal be to create more jobs so people do not HAVE to go on warfare or food stamps?
How is more people on the system an accomplishment?
How is more people on the system an accomplishment?
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 52 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,796
@449,703 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Conservative induced depression? Tell me more, I was 12 in 2008 amd know nothing.
Conservative induced depression? Tell me more, I was 12 in 2008 amd know nothing.
Anonymous L replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,799
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,801
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 55 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,802
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
As well you should; I'll be old enough to drink in the civilised world in a few months.
As well you should; I'll be old enough to drink in the civilised world in a few months.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,804
/me puts a gun in his mouth
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,810
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,812
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,813
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
It's a tradeoff. I'll certainly have more freedom, in many things. Whether the trade is worth it has yet to be established.
It's a tradeoff. I'll certainly have more freedom, in many things. Whether the trade is worth it has yet to be established.
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 57 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,816
@449,812 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> Enjoy being young. Trust me, It's all downhill from here.
It ain't necessary so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLoNi4qHPg
> Enjoy being young. Trust me, It's all downhill from here.
It ain't necessary so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLoNi4qHPg
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,822
@449,790 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Yeah, I don't think we're far apart on the whole thing. I just get upset about the conservatives trying to whitewash history - quite effectively I might add.
@449,796 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
To give a historical perspective. Back in the mid to late 90's the economy was so fucking good you could be 18 fresh outta high school and land a $12 an hour job. Jobs. Were. Everywhere. The jobs section of any newspaper was easily 3-4 pages at least, constantly. On top of all that money and opportunity, a lot of shit was cheap! I'm talkin' $1 a gallon gas cheap. Life was good for almost everyone.
The party continued into the early 2,000's. Then Bush and 9/11 happened. Around 2002 things started to get shaky in the economy. Previously laws had been repealed and current laws were being repealed, laws that made sure banks didn't fuck around with loans too much. Predatory lending, lending to unqualified people, and putting so much at high risk the whole house of cards would tumble if people didn't pay up. Well to no one's surprise the banks started doing all the things they couldn't previous do. Now that pesky oversight and prohibitive laws were out of the way, they were finally free to party.
Predatory lending.
Commercials ran non-stop on TV about how grandma could take out a loan against the value of her home for vacations and such, grandma liked the sound of that but didn't read the fine print! Holy shit read the fine print grandma! Grandma thought she could pay this shit back, in fact she was assured so by trusty ACME lending company that just moved into town last week and set up shop. For awhile grandma did make her payments, but all of the sudden her payments fucking BALLOONED and exploded in her face. Grandma just lost her home and likely most of her retirement funds. Sorry grandma, welcome to capitalism. Enjoy being broke as fuck on medicare in a retirement home for the rest of your days. Thanks for playing.
Now the banks and markets are being flooded with empty homes. Shit, we got all these houses, but no one qualified to take out loans to buy them! What do we do?
Banks load up too much risk.
Approve anyone. Shitty credit? No problem! Already under mountains of debt? Hell, we don't mind! If you got a pulse, you can buy a house! This led to something like a housing boom. Except it was so artificial, built on a pack of lies, sold as the American dream and soon to fail. Empty houses were everywhere and buyers were everywhere. Money was being made by everyone!
Banks spread the risk around the world. Like HIV.
Man, it's not good enough if we fuck ourselves. Lets take all these toxic shitty loans we've been handing out like candy, package them up, get them rated AAA good stuff by our buddies over in the rating offices and dump this shit. We can't carry all this risk by ourselves. So they did just that. The banks sold huge packages of shitty toxic loans to anyone buying.
The house of cards falls.
Eventually there was a tipping point in the market. In some way or another a HUGE percentage of companies are tied to the housing market. Think about all the things that go into a new home, or a new neighborhood. New furniture, TVs, all kinds of stuff. It's a big network that depends entirely on a fragile ecosystem of homes/businesses being built. Between toxic shitty loans and predatory loans the banks had flood the markets so much with pure shit it couldn't sustain itself. Too many people were defaulting on their loans, there simply wasn't enough demand to keep up with the rate of available homes on the market. New home sales came to a screeching halt. This fucked EVERYTHING. As a result businesses that depended on the housing market started to fail, remember it's a lot of businesses, plumbers, electricians, you name it. The resulting shitstorm of job losses was fucking terrifying. IIRC we were losing jobs at a rate of over 100,000 a day at one point! Big banks were failing, all those toxic loan packages they sold were finally full blown AIDS. It was madness. And we still haven't recovered. Unemployment is still high, wages are still low. And prices of almost everything have continued to go up. A kid out of high school is lucky to get a job at Mcdonalds @ minimum wage now, and gas is gonna cost him half his paycheck if it isn't next door. Things aren't great. It's a depression. If not for modern social safety nets and the stimulus packages it would have been equal or worse than the great depression. Not that it is/was much better in many places.
I think that kinda sums it up pretty okay.
Yeah, I don't think we're far apart on the whole thing. I just get upset about the conservatives trying to whitewash history - quite effectively I might add.
@449,796 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
To give a historical perspective. Back in the mid to late 90's the economy was so fucking good you could be 18 fresh outta high school and land a $12 an hour job. Jobs. Were. Everywhere. The jobs section of any newspaper was easily 3-4 pages at least, constantly. On top of all that money and opportunity, a lot of shit was cheap! I'm talkin' $1 a gallon gas cheap. Life was good for almost everyone.
The party continued into the early 2,000's. Then Bush and 9/11 happened. Around 2002 things started to get shaky in the economy. Previously laws had been repealed and current laws were being repealed, laws that made sure banks didn't fuck around with loans too much. Predatory lending, lending to unqualified people, and putting so much at high risk the whole house of cards would tumble if people didn't pay up. Well to no one's surprise the banks started doing all the things they couldn't previous do. Now that pesky oversight and prohibitive laws were out of the way, they were finally free to party.
Predatory lending.
Commercials ran non-stop on TV about how grandma could take out a loan against the value of her home for vacations and such, grandma liked the sound of that but didn't read the fine print! Holy shit read the fine print grandma! Grandma thought she could pay this shit back, in fact she was assured so by trusty ACME lending company that just moved into town last week and set up shop. For awhile grandma did make her payments, but all of the sudden her payments fucking BALLOONED and exploded in her face. Grandma just lost her home and likely most of her retirement funds. Sorry grandma, welcome to capitalism. Enjoy being broke as fuck on medicare in a retirement home for the rest of your days. Thanks for playing.
Now the banks and markets are being flooded with empty homes. Shit, we got all these houses, but no one qualified to take out loans to buy them! What do we do?
Banks load up too much risk.
Approve anyone. Shitty credit? No problem! Already under mountains of debt? Hell, we don't mind! If you got a pulse, you can buy a house! This led to something like a housing boom. Except it was so artificial, built on a pack of lies, sold as the American dream and soon to fail. Empty houses were everywhere and buyers were everywhere. Money was being made by everyone!
Banks spread the risk around the world. Like HIV.
Man, it's not good enough if we fuck ourselves. Lets take all these toxic shitty loans we've been handing out like candy, package them up, get them rated AAA good stuff by our buddies over in the rating offices and dump this shit. We can't carry all this risk by ourselves. So they did just that. The banks sold huge packages of shitty toxic loans to anyone buying.
The house of cards falls.
Eventually there was a tipping point in the market. In some way or another a HUGE percentage of companies are tied to the housing market. Think about all the things that go into a new home, or a new neighborhood. New furniture, TVs, all kinds of stuff. It's a big network that depends entirely on a fragile ecosystem of homes/businesses being built. Between toxic shitty loans and predatory loans the banks had flood the markets so much with pure shit it couldn't sustain itself. Too many people were defaulting on their loans, there simply wasn't enough demand to keep up with the rate of available homes on the market. New home sales came to a screeching halt. This fucked EVERYTHING. As a result businesses that depended on the housing market started to fail, remember it's a lot of businesses, plumbers, electricians, you name it. The resulting shitstorm of job losses was fucking terrifying. IIRC we were losing jobs at a rate of over 100,000 a day at one point! Big banks were failing, all those toxic loan packages they sold were finally full blown AIDS. It was madness. And we still haven't recovered. Unemployment is still high, wages are still low. And prices of almost everything have continued to go up. A kid out of high school is lucky to get a job at Mcdonalds @ minimum wage now, and gas is gonna cost him half his paycheck if it isn't next door. Things aren't great. It's a depression. If not for modern social safety nets and the stimulus packages it would have been equal or worse than the great depression. Not that it is/was much better in many places.
I think that kinda sums it up pretty okay.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,824
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
This was a fantastic read, Ks. Thank you. Will respond in the morning.
This was a fantastic read, Ks. Thank you. Will respond in the morning.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,825
@449,822 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Oh dear. That was really great/detailed, thank you.
One other thing; FDR's new deal, how did it go down in the states? iirc the province that weathered the Depression the best was the one that passed a "little new deal".
Oh dear. That was really great/detailed, thank you.
One other thing; FDR's new deal, how did it go down in the states? iirc the province that weathered the Depression the best was the one that passed a "little new deal".
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,828
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
I'm not sure. I read a little about that recently, but I've forgotten a lot of the details.
I'm not sure. I read a little about that recently, but I've forgotten a lot of the details.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 36 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,830
@449,822 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Yeah, I don't think we're far apart on the whole thing. I just get upset about the conservatives trying to whitewash history - quite effectively I might add.
I don't think they've been able to whitewash that effectively. People judge the president by how they're doing financially and the Obama administration's been just dreadful. Again, this is not to say Romney would have done any different: lest we forget, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same in all meaningful ways, differing only in scale. Except if Romney had won, he would have called his plan the Bald Eagle 9/11 Memorial Capitalist Free Enterprise plan and Hannity and Rush would have creamed their pants to it.
>
> To give a historical perspective. Back in the mid to late 90's the economy was so fucking good you could be 18 fresh outta high school and land a $12 an hour job. Jobs. Were. Everywhere. The jobs section of any newspaper was easily 3-4 pages at least, constantly. On top of all that money and opportunity, a lot of shit was cheap! I'm talkin' $1 a gallon gas cheap. Life was good for almost everyone.
You've described either the Clinton '90s or the Reagan '80s
> The party continued into the early 2,000's. Then Bush and 9/11 happened. Around 2002 things started to get shaky in the economy. Previously laws had been repealed and current laws were being repealed, laws that made sure banks didn't fuck around with loans too much. Predatory lending, lending to unqualified people, and putting so much at high risk the whole house of cards would tumble if people didn't pay up. Well to no one's surprise the banks started doing all the things they couldn't previous do. Now that pesky oversight and prohibitive laws were out of the way, they were finally free to party.
What is "predatory lending", though? Why do you feel poor people should not be able to get credit?
>
> Predatory lending.
> Commercials ran non-stop on TV about how grandma could take out a loan against the value of her home for vacations and such, grandma liked the sound of that but didn't read the fine print! Holy shit read the fine print grandma! Grandma thought she could pay this shit back, in fact she was assured so by trusty ACME lending company that just moved into town last week and set up shop. For awhile grandma did make her payments, but all of the sudden her payments fucking BALLOONED and exploded in her face. Grandma just lost her home and likely most of her retirement funds. Sorry grandma, welcome to capitalism. Enjoy being broke as fuck on medicare in a retirement home for the rest of your days. Thanks for playing.
So granny taking out a reverse mortgage caused the financial collapse?
> Now the banks and markets are being flooded with empty homes. Shit, we got all these houses, but no one qualified to take out loans to buy them! What do we do?
But when they did qualify, it was called subprime/predatory lending...
> Banks load up too much risk.
But risk is how banks make money, or did before the Republicrat TARP/TBTF all you can eat bailout plan.
> Approve anyone. Shitty credit? No problem! Already under mountains of debt? Hell, we don't mind! If you got a pulse, you can buy a house! This led to something like a housing boom. Except it was so artificial, built on a pack of lies, sold as the American dream and soon to fail. Empty houses were everywhere and buyers were everywhere. Money was being made by E
> Banks spread the risk around the world. Like HIV.
Again, banks can't win. Approve everyone=PREDATORY LENDING!!!!!1! Approve only people with good money and income=ZOMG BANKS HATE THE POOR/MINORITIES!!!!!1!
> Man, it's not good enough if we fuck ourselves. Lets take all these toxic shitty loans we've been handing out like candy, package them up, get them rated AAA good stuff by our buddies over in the rating offices and dump this shit. We can't carry all this risk by ourselves. So they did just that. The banks sold huge packages of shitty toxic loans to anyone buying.
Again, still NO MENTION of the Fed...
> The house of cards falls.
> Eventually there was a tipping point in the market. In some way or another a HUGE percentage of companies are tied to the housing market. Think about all the things that go into a new home, or a new neighborhood. New furniture, TVs, all kinds of stuff. It's a big network that depends entirely on a fragile ecosystem of homes/businesses being built. Between toxic shitty loans and predatory loans the banks had flood the markets so much with pure shit it couldn't sustain itself. Too many people were defaulting on their loans, there simply wasn't enough demand to keep up with the rate of available homes on the market. New home sales came to a screeching halt. This fucked EVERYTHING. As a result businesses that depended on the housing market started to fail, remember it's a lot of businesses, plumbers, electricians, you name it. The resulting shitstorm of job losses was fucking terrifying. IIRC we were losing jobs at a rate of over 100,000 a day at one point! Big banks were failing, all those toxic loan packages they sold were finally full blown AIDS. It was madness. And we still haven't recovered. Unemployment is still high, wages are still low. And prices of almost everything have continued to go up. A kid out of high school is lucky to get a job at Mcdonalds @ minimum wage now, and gas is gonna cost him half his paycheck if it isn't next door. Things aren't great. It's a depression. If not for modern social safety nets and the stimulus packages it would have been equal or worse than the great depression. Not that it is/was much better in many places.
>
> effectivethat kinda sums it up pretty okay.
It was all the eeevvvillll banks. The Fed is only here to help. It's all the banks' fault. We have always been at war with Eastasia
> Yeah, I don't think we're far apart on the whole thing. I just get upset about the conservatives trying to whitewash history - quite effectively I might add.
I don't think they've been able to whitewash that effectively. People judge the president by how they're doing financially and the Obama administration's been just dreadful. Again, this is not to say Romney would have done any different: lest we forget, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same in all meaningful ways, differing only in scale. Except if Romney had won, he would have called his plan the Bald Eagle 9/11 Memorial Capitalist Free Enterprise plan and Hannity and Rush would have creamed their pants to it.
>
> To give a historical perspective. Back in the mid to late 90's the economy was so fucking good you could be 18 fresh outta high school and land a $12 an hour job. Jobs. Were. Everywhere. The jobs section of any newspaper was easily 3-4 pages at least, constantly. On top of all that money and opportunity, a lot of shit was cheap! I'm talkin' $1 a gallon gas cheap. Life was good for almost everyone.
You've described either the Clinton '90s or the Reagan '80s
> The party continued into the early 2,000's. Then Bush and 9/11 happened. Around 2002 things started to get shaky in the economy. Previously laws had been repealed and current laws were being repealed, laws that made sure banks didn't fuck around with loans too much. Predatory lending, lending to unqualified people, and putting so much at high risk the whole house of cards would tumble if people didn't pay up. Well to no one's surprise the banks started doing all the things they couldn't previous do. Now that pesky oversight and prohibitive laws were out of the way, they were finally free to party.
What is "predatory lending", though? Why do you feel poor people should not be able to get credit?
>
> Predatory lending.
> Commercials ran non-stop on TV about how grandma could take out a loan against the value of her home for vacations and such, grandma liked the sound of that but didn't read the fine print! Holy shit read the fine print grandma! Grandma thought she could pay this shit back, in fact she was assured so by trusty ACME lending company that just moved into town last week and set up shop. For awhile grandma did make her payments, but all of the sudden her payments fucking BALLOONED and exploded in her face. Grandma just lost her home and likely most of her retirement funds. Sorry grandma, welcome to capitalism. Enjoy being broke as fuck on medicare in a retirement home for the rest of your days. Thanks for playing.
So granny taking out a reverse mortgage caused the financial collapse?
> Now the banks and markets are being flooded with empty homes. Shit, we got all these houses, but no one qualified to take out loans to buy them! What do we do?
But when they did qualify, it was called subprime/predatory lending...
> Banks load up too much risk.
But risk is how banks make money, or did before the Republicrat TARP/TBTF all you can eat bailout plan.
> Approve anyone. Shitty credit? No problem! Already under mountains of debt? Hell, we don't mind! If you got a pulse, you can buy a house! This led to something like a housing boom. Except it was so artificial, built on a pack of lies, sold as the American dream and soon to fail. Empty houses were everywhere and buyers were everywhere. Money was being made by E
> Banks spread the risk around the world. Like HIV.
Again, banks can't win. Approve everyone=PREDATORY LENDING!!!!!1! Approve only people with good money and income=ZOMG BANKS HATE THE POOR/MINORITIES!!!!!1!
> Man, it's not good enough if we fuck ourselves. Lets take all these toxic shitty loans we've been handing out like candy, package them up, get them rated AAA good stuff by our buddies over in the rating offices and dump this shit. We can't carry all this risk by ourselves. So they did just that. The banks sold huge packages of shitty toxic loans to anyone buying.
Again, still NO MENTION of the Fed...
> The house of cards falls.
> Eventually there was a tipping point in the market. In some way or another a HUGE percentage of companies are tied to the housing market. Think about all the things that go into a new home, or a new neighborhood. New furniture, TVs, all kinds of stuff. It's a big network that depends entirely on a fragile ecosystem of homes/businesses being built. Between toxic shitty loans and predatory loans the banks had flood the markets so much with pure shit it couldn't sustain itself. Too many people were defaulting on their loans, there simply wasn't enough demand to keep up with the rate of available homes on the market. New home sales came to a screeching halt. This fucked EVERYTHING. As a result businesses that depended on the housing market started to fail, remember it's a lot of businesses, plumbers, electricians, you name it. The resulting shitstorm of job losses was fucking terrifying. IIRC we were losing jobs at a rate of over 100,000 a day at one point! Big banks were failing, all those toxic loan packages they sold were finally full blown AIDS. It was madness. And we still haven't recovered. Unemployment is still high, wages are still low. And prices of almost everything have continued to go up. A kid out of high school is lucky to get a job at Mcdonalds @ minimum wage now, and gas is gonna cost him half his paycheck if it isn't next door. Things aren't great. It's a depression. If not for modern social safety nets and the stimulus packages it would have been equal or worse than the great depression. Not that it is/was much better in many places.
>
> effectivethat kinda sums it up pretty okay.
It was all the eeevvvillll banks. The Fed is only here to help. It's all the banks' fault. We have always been at war with Eastasia
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 28 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,832
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I left out the FED,interest rates, two wars, housing market prices and probably a bunch of other details because I'm a lazy, shitty writer and I don't have the attention span to include every detail. I just tried to write something like a tl;dr half entertaining summary.
> Except if Romney had won, he would have called his plan the Bald Eagle 9/11 Memorial Capitalist Free Enterprise plan and Hannity and Rush would have creamed their pants to it.
LOL, nailed it.
> You've described either the Clinton '90s or the Reagan '80s
I dunno, look at unemployment rates in the late 90's early 2000's. I was there, ha. It was a good time. The way I remember it my description isn't even a slight exaggeration. Maybe Kansas had it exceptionally good though.
> Why do you feel poor people should not be able to get credit?
Getting credit is great, but just handing out loans to unqualified people is bound to fail.
> So granny taking out a reverse mortgage caused the financial collapse?
It was pretty rampant at the time. Definitely a factor. That shit went on for yeaars.
> But when they did qualify, it was called subprime/predatory lending...
Well there wasn't suddenly a larger percentage of qualified people, but there were more people overall given loans. Truly qualified people were still buying homes, but so were a large number of people that were never gonna make it. Stack enough shitty loans up and it doesn't matter how many good loans you have.
> Again, still NO MENTION of the Fed...
The fed handout out money to banks with super low interest rates like it was going out of style! Everybody was rolling in shitty dough for awhile.
> was all the eeevvvillll banks. The Fed is only here to help. It's all the banks' fault. We have always been at war with Eastasia
Absolute collusion between the government, the fed, and the banks. But I didn't set out to write a novel, what I wrote is 10x more than I usually write. :s
I left out the FED,interest rates, two wars, housing market prices and probably a bunch of other details because I'm a lazy, shitty writer and I don't have the attention span to include every detail. I just tried to write something like a tl;dr half entertaining summary.
> Except if Romney had won, he would have called his plan the Bald Eagle 9/11 Memorial Capitalist Free Enterprise plan and Hannity and Rush would have creamed their pants to it.
LOL, nailed it.
> You've described either the Clinton '90s or the Reagan '80s
I dunno, look at unemployment rates in the late 90's early 2000's. I was there, ha. It was a good time. The way I remember it my description isn't even a slight exaggeration. Maybe Kansas had it exceptionally good though.
> Why do you feel poor people should not be able to get credit?
Getting credit is great, but just handing out loans to unqualified people is bound to fail.
> So granny taking out a reverse mortgage caused the financial collapse?
It was pretty rampant at the time. Definitely a factor. That shit went on for yeaars.
> But when they did qualify, it was called subprime/predatory lending...
Well there wasn't suddenly a larger percentage of qualified people, but there were more people overall given loans. Truly qualified people were still buying homes, but so were a large number of people that were never gonna make it. Stack enough shitty loans up and it doesn't matter how many good loans you have.
> Again, still NO MENTION of the Fed...
The fed handout out money to banks with super low interest rates like it was going out of style! Everybody was rolling in shitty dough for awhile.
> was all the eeevvvillll banks. The Fed is only here to help. It's all the banks' fault. We have always been at war with Eastasia
Absolute collusion between the government, the fed, and the banks. But I didn't set out to write a novel, what I wrote is 10x more than I usually write. :s
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,833
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Ks
You also left out how in the bank scandal crash - Bankers on top came out smelling like roses with wallets beyond full.
Bankers seem to have built in Teflon protection.
Ks
You also left out how in the bank scandal crash - Bankers on top came out smelling like roses with wallets beyond full.
Bankers seem to have built in Teflon protection.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,834
@previous (Syntax)
The Banksters. I'm half convinced the mob/mafia just went legit and became bankers. Totally sick how that all worked out. "Too big to fail", recipe for disaster that we pay for. Again.
The Banksters. I'm half convinced the mob/mafia just went legit and became bankers. Totally sick how that all worked out. "Too big to fail", recipe for disaster that we pay for. Again.
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,835
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Total agree. How will this b explained in history books of the period in future.
Total agree. How will this b explained in history books of the period in future.
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 55 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,836
@previous (Syntax)
> How will this b explained in history books
Probably as an example of how capitalism collapses without some controls. :/
> How will this b explained in history books
Probably as an example of how capitalism collapses without some controls. :/
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,843
'mericaMeta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,849
@449,834 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
@449,836 (M)
Best solution would have been for the bad companies go bankrupt and be sold off/liquidated.
Now the banksters have their position cemented. Again, this is a bipartisan thing. Had McCain or Romney won, you can be sure nothing would have been significantly different. Different rhetoric and branding, but not actions.
Also I loved watching the 2012 election and seeing Romney try to take credit for Romneycare while savaging Obamacare even though they're the same fucking plan. The individual mandate, the taxes, the exchanges, everything. But Romney's not a Kenyan radical Marxist death panel socialist or anything.
@449,836 (M)
Best solution would have been for the bad companies go bankrupt and be sold off/liquidated.
Now the banksters have their position cemented. Again, this is a bipartisan thing. Had McCain or Romney won, you can be sure nothing would have been significantly different. Different rhetoric and branding, but not actions.
Also I loved watching the 2012 election and seeing Romney try to take credit for Romneycare while savaging Obamacare even though they're the same fucking plan. The individual mandate, the taxes, the exchanges, everything. But Romney's not a Kenyan radical Marxist death panel socialist or anything.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,850
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,852
really all this is about obama being black. that is all.
If i had known that congress was going to not work with a black president, i never would have voted for him. but i really had no idea that a black president would inspire so much vitriol and hatred that the government literally shuts down because of it. I think that nothing scares old white men like successful minorities, and a successful obama would be way too dangerous a proposition for them to let him have even the slightest victory. a victory for the president would risk the white man's role as leader. if obama can do it, then maybe shenaynay would make a good treasury secretary.
of course the republican's strategy for the last 6 years is a policy of obstruction. we can't let that happen.
just everyone vote for a white man next time for president so congress can function properly again.
give it 50 years, and maybe try again and see if we have a more tolerant congress in the future.
If i had known that congress was going to not work with a black president, i never would have voted for him. but i really had no idea that a black president would inspire so much vitriol and hatred that the government literally shuts down because of it. I think that nothing scares old white men like successful minorities, and a successful obama would be way too dangerous a proposition for them to let him have even the slightest victory. a victory for the president would risk the white man's role as leader. if obama can do it, then maybe shenaynay would make a good treasury secretary.
of course the republican's strategy for the last 6 years is a policy of obstruction. we can't let that happen.
just everyone vote for a white man next time for president so congress can function properly again.
give it 50 years, and maybe try again and see if we have a more tolerant congress in the future.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #449,853
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
What if the pendulum has swung the other way by then?
What if the pendulum has swung the other way by then?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,854
@449,852 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
id be interested in voting in a female president, if for no other reason than to watch the butthurt
id be interested in voting in a female president, if for no other reason than to watch the butthurt
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,855
@previous (R)
If in fact Hillary decides to...Republicans will end up cumming up with a female as well.
Otherwise They end up with a few Republican woman voting for Hillary. Just enough to achieve double digit win margins.
If in fact Hillary decides to...Republicans will end up cumming up with a female as well.
Otherwise They end up with a few Republican woman voting for Hillary. Just enough to achieve double digit win margins.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,856
Does the Tea Party even like tea?
@449,824 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Why are you being so nice and polite? You're scaring me, Walter
@449,824 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Why are you being so nice and polite? You're scaring me, Walter
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,857
@previous (H)
> Does the Tea Party even like tea?
No one has said those who drank the suicidal punch liked the taste of it.
> Does the Tea Party even like tea?
No one has said those who drank the suicidal punch liked the taste of it.
Anonymous N replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,858
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,859
@449,850 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
@449,852 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I was being facetious about the radical Kenyan Muslim nonsense. Obama's color or alleged birthplace or whether he liked Jeremiah Wright's sermons matter very little. What does matter, to me, is how he acts and that seems to be the same as Romney and Bush and McCain. Statism and crony capitalism.
@449,852 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I was being facetious about the radical Kenyan Muslim nonsense. Obama's color or alleged birthplace or whether he liked Jeremiah Wright's sermons matter very little. What does matter, to me, is how he acts and that seems to be the same as Romney and Bush and McCain. Statism and crony capitalism.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,860
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
well that's you, i'm really more talking about, like, john cornyn. he really hates blacks.
he won't work with obama, not because of policy, but because he's black
well that's you, i'm really more talking about, like, john cornyn. he really hates blacks.
he won't work with obama, not because of policy, but because he's black
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,861
@449,852 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> really all this is about obama being black. that is all.
> If i had known that congress was going to not work with a black president, i never would have voted for him. but i really had no idea that a black president would inspire so much vitriol and hatred that the government literally shuts down because of it.
There was a government shutdown under Clinton, with an all-white Congress and President.
> I think that nothing scares old white men like successful minorities, and a successful obama would be way too dangerous a proposition for them to let him have even the slightest victory. a victory for the president would risk the white man's role as leader. if obama can do it, then maybe shenaynay would make a good treasury secretary.
Maybe she would. I'm not very familiar with Shenaynay though, so I can't offer an opinion on her.
> of course the republican's strategy for the last 6 years is a policy of obstruction. we can't let that happen.
There were seven government shutdowns during the Reagan years due to Team Blue doing what Team Red is doing now.
> just everyone vote for a white man next time for president so congress can function properly again.
Congress' dysfunction has nothing to do with race. It's been broken for quite some time.
> give it 50 years, and maybe try again and see if we have a more tolerant congress in the future.
Hopefully it will have collapsed under its own sclerotic corpusculence by then.
> really all this is about obama being black. that is all.
> If i had known that congress was going to not work with a black president, i never would have voted for him. but i really had no idea that a black president would inspire so much vitriol and hatred that the government literally shuts down because of it.
There was a government shutdown under Clinton, with an all-white Congress and President.
> I think that nothing scares old white men like successful minorities, and a successful obama would be way too dangerous a proposition for them to let him have even the slightest victory. a victory for the president would risk the white man's role as leader. if obama can do it, then maybe shenaynay would make a good treasury secretary.
Maybe she would. I'm not very familiar with Shenaynay though, so I can't offer an opinion on her.
> of course the republican's strategy for the last 6 years is a policy of obstruction. we can't let that happen.
There were seven government shutdowns during the Reagan years due to Team Blue doing what Team Red is doing now.
> just everyone vote for a white man next time for president so congress can function properly again.
Congress' dysfunction has nothing to do with race. It's been broken for quite some time.
> give it 50 years, and maybe try again and see if we have a more tolerant congress in the future.
Hopefully it will have collapsed under its own sclerotic corpusculence by then.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,862
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,863
@449,860 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> well that's you, i'm really more talking about, like, john cornyn. he really hates blacks.
Maybe, but I think he's behaving the way he is to score political points with his base.
> he won't work with obama, not because of policy, but because he's black
I have no idea what's in Cornyn's mind. Maybe he wants to go back to Jim Crow and calling all black men "boy" and remembers fondly when colored folk weren't so damned uppity. Or maybe he's just in it for John Cornyn and fuck everyone else.
And yes, the Tea Party is a laughingstock. It's a bunch of old, scared, mostly white people who desperately want as many benefits as possible. They weren't complaining when Bush passed Medicare Part D (SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!1) but they fear Obamacare will cut into their fat Medicare benefits. The Tea Party ethos is: I got mine, you're on your own sonny!
> well that's you, i'm really more talking about, like, john cornyn. he really hates blacks.
Maybe, but I think he's behaving the way he is to score political points with his base.
> he won't work with obama, not because of policy, but because he's black
I have no idea what's in Cornyn's mind. Maybe he wants to go back to Jim Crow and calling all black men "boy" and remembers fondly when colored folk weren't so damned uppity. Or maybe he's just in it for John Cornyn and fuck everyone else.
And yes, the Tea Party is a laughingstock. It's a bunch of old, scared, mostly white people who desperately want as many benefits as possible. They weren't complaining when Bush passed Medicare Part D (SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!1) but they fear Obamacare will cut into their fat Medicare benefits. The Tea Party ethos is: I got mine, you're on your own sonny!
Anonymous R replied with this 13 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,910
@449,855 (Syntax)
they also came up with a darkie to challenge obama -herman cain methinks- anyway once it looked like he might win they had darkie "endorse" shitlube or mittens(i forgot which one) and drop out. no doubt theyll do the same thing to theyre woman candidate
they also came up with a darkie to challenge obama -herman cain methinks- anyway once it looked like he might win they had darkie "endorse" shitlube or mittens(i forgot which one) and drop out. no doubt theyll do the same thing to theyre woman candidate
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #450,112
Well they are well organized so I doubt they can be called the 'dumbest'.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #450,114
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #450,120
Me thinks this image fitsAnonymous Q replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #450,123
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #450,127
@previous (Q)
Hell no...Not true at all. And if she chooses to run. Hillary that is...Well nuff said.
Hell no...Not true at all. And if she chooses to run. Hillary that is...Well nuff said.