RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change

RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You didn't blame just one side, Jeff. You didn't play it right. Your attempt at being the villain sucked. [:D] LOL, well I've always said I suck at "dark & dangerous". Carol always laughs at that and says, "Sure. Your just dangerous". More seriously, to the charts you pulled up, I attribute the increasing decline just to accumulation of injury upon injury done to our economy by Wall Street and, as you say, allowed and even actively encouraged by both parties. In other words, I don't think it indicates much about dem/rep. I think it just shows a hastening trend. If we got a Rep govt next I'd expect it to still plunge downwards at an ever-increasing rate. How do you interpret it?

Yachtie -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:17:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL.. a rate that has been dropping for 10 years... and he has been in office how long? Yeah.. all Obama. [;)] See, that smacks as ostensibly giving Obama a pass. No, it's not all Obama! But he sure is in his second term now, isn't he? Dems blame Bush for being, well, Bush. Isn't it time to give Obama equal consideration?

tazzygirl -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:22:35 AM)
LOL.. selectively reading again. You missed an important word there.. can you guess what it is?

JeffBC -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Dems blame Bush for being, well, Bush. Isn't it time to give Obama equal consideration? Well damnit, I tried to throw DS a bone and failed so let me give it another go. I voted for Obama first election and I've been a solid democrat since lewinsky. Before then a moderate. But yeah, i'm perfectly willing to let the buck stop exactly where it ought to. Obama's in the chair. It stops at his desk. That was true from minute one of his tenure in the oval office in my opinion. I don't really give a rat's ass what Bush may have contributed. I care about our current glorious leader and I want the buck to stop in exactly one place.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Dems blame Bush for being, well, Bush. Isn't it time to give Obama equal consideration? Well damnit, I tried to throw DS a bone and failed so let me give it another go. I voted for Obama first election and I've been a solid democrat since lewinsky. Before then a moderate. But yeah, i'm perfectly willing to let the buck stop exactly where it ought to. Obama's in the chair. It stops at his desk. That was true from minute one of his tenure in the oval office in my opinion. I don't really give a rat's ass what Bush may have contributed. I care about our current glorious leader and I want the buck to stop in exactly one place. Yeah, you do suck at dark and dangerous. LMAO!! [:D] As to my interpretation... [image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2013_all_period_M07_data.gif[/image] If we start with Ford in the early 70's, participation has generally increased, only having plateaus or short retreats during recessions. Here's a list of recessions in the US. 1973-1975 plateau 1980, 1981-1982 - plateau early '90's - slight retreat early '00's - fair retreat that plateaued and barely started to pick back up, until the bottom fell out. You can't place all blame on Obama (yeah, I said it) for everything that has happened since 2009, even though he's the one in the Oval Office. You can't even blame Bush and Obama for all that's happened since 2002. A lot of this shit was years in the making. That housing bubble was huge and had started in the 70's. Bush 43 and Obama have wielded an awful lot of power, but even I don't think either one is devious or evil enough to have caused shit to happen when they were still in their teens/20's. Both parties have owned power and the political capital to have righted the ship of state. Neither has done so, working to improve the party standing, hurt the other party's standing, and/or worked towards getting re-elected instead. Both parties are at fault. The end of my analysis is: unless we find a way to stop our Government from helping us all the way to ruin, we're fucked.

tazzygirl -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 6:49:57 AM)
quote: You can't place all blame on Obama (yeah, I said it) for everything that has happened since 2009, even though he's the one in the Oval Office. You can't even blame Bush and Obama for all that's happened since 2002. A lot of this shit was years in the making. That housing bubble was huge and had started in the 70's. Bush 43 and Obama have wielded an awful lot of power, but even I don't think either one is devious or evil enough to have caused shit to happen when they were still in their teens/20's. Both parties have owned power and the political capital to have righted the ship of state. Neither has done so, working to improve the party standing, hurt the other party's standing, and/or worked towards getting re-elected instead. Both parties are at fault. Thank you!

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 7:00:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You can't place all blame on Obama (yeah, I said it) for everything that has happened since 2009, even though he's the one in the Oval Office. You can't even blame Bush and Obama for all that's happened since 2002. A lot of this shit was years in the making. That housing bubble was huge and had started in the 70's. Bush 43 and Obama have wielded an awful lot of power, but even I don't think either one is devious or evil enough to have caused shit to happen when they were still in their teens/20's. Both parties have owned power and the political capital to have righted the ship of state. Neither has done so, working to improve the party standing, hurt the other party's standing, and/or worked towards getting re-elected instead. Both parties are at fault. Thank you! This has been my analysis since 2009 (initially, much less blame was on Obama, but that has simply grown as his policies haven't really done much to help, imo).

tazzygirl -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 7:07:04 AM)
I never implied they have. I went through on one of these threads about the housing bubble and how, as you noted, way back when politicians were screwing up.. leaving no one out. But, then, I come back to threads like this.. with more finger pointing.. and its really funny how I am ALWAYS considered blinded when it comes to these issues. Im headed out the door. I will try and find the posts when I return. Missed my ride. Here is the link to that thread. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4355655 To be more specific.... The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate). The Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (allowing Adjustable-rate mortgages). The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (allowing commercial and investment banks to merge). At least 20 years of nonsense legislation was passed long before Bush 2 or Obama took office. These acts started the downward spiral we saw in the economy... conveniently for those who wish to point fingers at either Obama or Bush 2.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 7:45:03 AM)
Maybe companies outsourcing jobs to various nations in Asia is also a factor in the declining labor rate?

JeffBC -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:01:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Maybe companies outsourcing jobs to various nations in Asia is also a factor in the declining labor rate? You think? But that goes directly back to Wall Street & Govt.. as does handing out work visas like they are popcorn to get cheaper labor rates, etc.

Phydeaux -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 11:31:56 AM)
Taz, Your desire to point the finger equally at both parties is a fine egalitarian principle. But it is wrong. It is impossible to argue with completeness in this venue. However, the fundamental cause of this recession was a housing bubble exacerbated by foreign competition, exacerbated by government debt. The community redevelopment acts which required the issuance of sub-prime loans were done at the behest of democrat constituencies. The banks that benefited have primarily supported democratic candidates. The mortgaged backed industries - fannie mae and freddie mac primarily backed democratic candidates. Its only when this blew up that it became - "bipartisan". I was one of the people that wrote my congressman against allowing/requiring the issuance of sub-prime loans. I wrote my congressman opposed to the repeal of seagal. When the bill came up in congress trying to tighten mortgage standards in the early 2000's I wrote in favor of it. So as someone with a long history of paying attention to this issue - if you want to see truly who was at fault here, don't accept blindly the idea of "all the parties are the same". Follow the money. And, for the record, this scandal is so large that it will be possible to find many egregious examples of republican malfeasance as well - from firms that marketed CDO's to attempts to obtain favorable treatement for constitutents. Finally, while you may not agree that Obama is the cause of the problem, one thing is clear from the graph: 5 years of Obama rule have done nothing to stop the decline.

mnottertail -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 11:49:42 AM)
5 years of Obama rule has done nothing to stop the nutsuckers is the actual problem.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 11:51:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Taz, Your desire to point the finger equally at both parties is a fine egalitarian principle. But it is wrong. It is impossible to argue with completeness in this venue. However, the fundamental cause of this recession was a housing bubble exacerbated by foreign competition, exacerbated by government debt. The community redevelopment acts which required the issuance of sub-prime loans were done at the behest of democrat constituencies. The banks that benefited have primarily supported democratic candidates. The mortgaged backed industries - fannie mae and freddie mac primarily backed democratic candidates. Its only when this blew up that it became - "bipartisan". I was one of the people that wrote my congressman against allowing/requiring the issuance of sub-prime loans. I wrote my congressman opposed to the repeal of seagal. When the bill came up in congress trying to tighten mortgage standards in the early 2000's I wrote in favor of it. So as someone with a long history of paying attention to this issue - if you want to see truly who was at fault here, don't accept blindly the idea of "all the parties are the same". Follow the money. And, for the record, this scandal is so large that it will be possible to find many egregious examples of republican malfeasance as well - from firms that marketed CDO's to attempts to obtain favorable treatement for constitutents. Finally, while you may not agree that Obama is the cause of the problem, one thing is clear from the graph: 5 years of Obama rule have done nothing to stop the decline. Decades of financial meddling by the Federal Reserve by Volcker, Greenspan, and Bern-yank-me, are also to blame for the shitstorm, too. The ease of getting loans, printing of money, etc. are all part of it. All 3 of those guys could have been stopped by a Republican President. None of them were. In fact, Greenspan and Bernanke were both first time appointees of Republicans (Volcker was initially appointed by Carter in '79). The machinations of the Federal Reserve can not be dismissed in any blame game for the Great Recession.

JeffBC -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 1:29:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux It is impossible to argue with completeness in this venue. However, the fundamental cause of this recession was a housing bubble exacerbated by foreign competition, exacerbated by government debt. Which is a fine assertion but sadly many very credible economists disagree. Happily you missed the #1 scape goat... poor people did it. quote: The community redevelopment acts which required the issuance of sub-prime loans were done at the behest of democrat constituencies. The banks that benefited have primarily supported democratic candidates. The mortgaged backed industries - fannie mae and freddie mac primarily backed democratic candidates. Oh no wait... no you didn't. The absolute mystery here is how you think poor people got enough money to tank wall street. There is a serious David & Goliath problem going on there. It's also a mystery why you are totally ignoring the goings on of wall street, specifically all the crap like CDS and the scam ratings and the bogus insurance that they all knew HAD to blow up. Were you planning on mentioning the Fed at any point? Oh no wait... it's those poor people and their Democratic stooges giving them handouts. Right. edited to point out that your fellow 'conservative' just above is mentioning similar things To be fair though, "libertarian" is hardly the same as "republican".

tazzygirl -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 4:00:19 PM)
quote: Your desire to point the finger equally at both parties is a fine egalitarian principle. But it is wrong. It is impossible to argue with completeness in this venue. However, the fundamental cause of this recession was a housing bubble exacerbated by foreign competition, exacerbated by government debt. None of which would have been possible had those three acts not went into effect. This was all decades in the making. Made worse by the greed of the last 15 years. Oddly enough, Pittsburgh has a long, long history of being a union town... Considered the birthplace of the national Republican Party. Since 1934, this city has been Democrat run. And we weathered the housing bubble bust and unemployment drops pretty damn well. http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/best-housing-prices-personal-finance-real-estate-affordable-homes.html So the notion that the Democrats cant run a successful city is bunk. A republican state, yet a liberal city. Our saving grace, my opinion, are the colleges, hospitals and banks (at least 4 are headquartered here) helped the city survive while cities like Detroit went bust. Your problem is, you want to pin a blame on Obama for all this. Its just not working the way you had hoped. You have both liberals and conservatives telling you the same thing, and you still want to finger point. Fine. You want to point a finger? Stand up.. walk to a mirror.. and point at your own reflection. So should everyone else. WE (the people) have the ability to toss out every congressman, senator, mayor, governor, ect ect ect.. and we dont. And THAT is the root cause of all this.

MrRodgers -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail How to fix it? 1. Stop putting oposing cheap energy for political reasons- keystone, fracking, coal. nobody is opposing cheap energy, we are a net exporter.why? cuz that is where the money is, energy is not ever going to be cheap. 2. End the back log at the patent office. What will that do, why is there a backlog, and what will be gained? And how are you going to do that under smaller government and sequestration? 3. End the disastrous obamacare, which is forcing small businesses to cut hours and employees. This of course has been repeatedly shown to be nutsuckerism and felching. 4. Force big banks and big businesses to divest. That will require removing the nutsuckers from the government, Hank Paulson and the republican congress made them too big to fail. 5. End TARP and all similar programs. Perhaps a bill such as this could be introduced in the house, ONCE, instead of a dogshit bill having nothing to do with anything introduced over 40 times. That would be a nutsucker problem all the way there, it is their constitutional responsibility. 6. Start paying down the national debt. We dont collect revenue to fund what we do, even at sequestered levels, or even with a massive reform. 7. Quit playing with China. Declare them to be currency manipulators. Why? There are far worse manipulators than they, and look, what you are doing is, by doing that, weakening the dollar, if you want to weaken the dollar, why not just--------------weaken the dollar? we can do that you know takes one statement from the fed, along the lines of.........we want to weaken the dollar, and then we can let inflation fly. Explain to me how the dollar is weakening. Does that mean it won't stand up to washing my floors with it ? Can't start a fire with it ? Rips up into pieces too easy ?

MrRodgers -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:14:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL.. a rate that has been dropping for 10 years... and he has been in office how long? Yeah.. all Obama. [;)] See, that smacks as ostensibly giving Obama a pass. No, it's not all Obama! But he sure is in his second term now, isn't he? Dems blame Bush for being, well, Bush. Isn't it time to give Obama equal consideration? Why don't you give us some specific policies of Obama's that have been effect for these 1 1/2 terms that has caused what you seem to think is less than satisfactory numbers ? I don't want any generalities or suppositions. I want part & parcel specifics of just exactly Obama's policies currently in place and in effect that we are to blame him and not the economy Bush left him and...I want what is your assessment of what should have been done instead of those polices that have actually been at work I don't want any comparisons, I want actual policy and law that should be different, why and how they would have been better.

MrRodgers -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Your desire to point the finger equally at both parties is a fine egalitarian principle. But it is wrong. It is impossible to argue with completeness in this venue. However, the fundamental cause of this recession was a housing bubble exacerbated by foreign competition, exacerbated by government debt. None of which would have been possible had those three acts not went into effect. This was all decades in the making. Made worse by the greed of the last 15 years. Oddly enough, Pittsburgh has a long, long history of being a union town... Considered the birthplace of the national Republican Party. Since 1934, this city has been Democrat run. And we weathered the housing bubble bust and unemployment drops pretty damn well. http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/best-housing-prices-personal-finance-real-estate-affordable-homes.html So the notion that the Democrats cant run a successful city is bunk. A republican state, yet a liberal city. Our saving grace, my opinion, are the colleges, hospitals and banks (at least 4 are headquartered here) helped the city survive while cities like Detroit went bust. Your problem is, you want to pin a blame on Obama for all this. Its just not working the way you had hoped. You have both liberals and conservatives telling you the same thing, and you still want to finger point. Fine. You want to point a finger? Stand up.. walk to a mirror.. and point at your own reflection. So should everyone else. WE (the people) have the ability to toss out every congressman, senator, mayor, governor, ect ect ect.. and we dont. And THAT is the root cause of all this. I agree with all of this except the last. I've been voting people out of office for 20-30 years...hasn't worked.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I've been voting people out of office for 20-30 years...hasn't worked. I know your pain.

tazzygirl -> RE: Hope & (Pocket) Change (8/30/2013 8:52:15 PM)
quote: I agree with all of this except the last. I've been voting people out of office for 20-30 years...hasn't worked. It wont until it becomes common practice among the majority of voters. For now, people are used to voting back in the devil they know, and politicians bank on that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875