Goodbye, America! It Was Fun While It Lasted.

[quote name='Capitalizt']I don't care how insane she is most of the time...She nailed this one.[/quote]

The only thing she nailed was her head as a child.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Now, Obama + friends propose a bill that (for the most part) economists agree will contribute more to our economy than what the bill costs. Said stimulus act will increase our deficit by ~7%.[/QUOTE]

Lots of economists say lots of things on multiple sides of any given issue. The Congressional Budget Office (controlled by...Democrats, but supposedly nonpartisan) says the bill will SHRINK our economy over 10 years. They are economists. Oops.

And it increases our deficit a lot more than 7% (maybe you meant our debt by 7%?). You should also realize what kind of astronomical numbers we're talking about here (trillions of dollars versus tens of trillions).
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you comparing children to grown ups and believe you are making a point?

I am not drunk and I don't think I am misreading you.[/quote]

Grown ups don't change much actually.. They still respond to incentives that authority figures give them. Government and central planners can effect your life by changing the incentives for certain activity. If they abolished income taxes for the next 6 months, you might consider getting an extra job to enjoy the full benefits of your labor. If they raised taxes to 99%, you would go underground and find alternatives to working. Likewise, when the fed made money available for practically nothing and allowed banks to leverage it up for huge profits, they did so. Yes banks did stupid things, but they only did it because the teacher made it possible.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Compared to what, WBush era spending?

I'd agree there's a considerable amount of pork in the bill. But if you're saying it's no better than the deficit spending of the past 8 years, you are out of your mind.[/QUOTE]

I intensely disliked the government spending policies of the last eight years, but really, this is an even greater expansion of government mismanagement than the last eight years were.

This bill will not bring us out of recession.
This bill will make things worse.
And we'll be paying for it for a long time to come.
Get ready for much bigger, more inefficient government (you might think, how can it get more inefficient? But it can).

I think the word "rape" that has been mentioned in this thread is a good description of what this bill does to taxpayers, and to our country in general. "Taxpayers raped by politicians, states, health care firms, teachers' unions, other unions, ACORN and more! News at 8."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Lots of economists say lots of things on multiple sides of any given issue. The Congressional Budget Office (controlled by...Democrats, but supposedly nonpartisan) says the bill will SHRINK our economy over 10 years. They are economists. Oops.[/quote]

Give me a list of notable economists that have this same opinion. Go.


And it increases our deficit a lot more than 7% (maybe you meant our debt by 7%?). You should also realize what kind of astronomical numbers we're talking about here (trillions of dollars versus tens of trillions).
Click to expand...

Astronomical compared to what? Compared to 10B a week into Iraq for the next 20 years, as some would have it?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
This bill will not bring us out of recession.
This bill will make things worse.
And we'll be paying for it for a long time to come.
Get ready for much bigger, more inefficient government (you might think, how can it get more inefficient? But it can).
[/quote]

I can make wild claims that aren't based in reality as well.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Give me a list of notable economists that have this same opinion. Go.




Astronomical compared to what? Compared to 10B a week into Iraq for the next 20 years, as some would have it?[/QUOTE]

1. Did you even read my post? CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. Jesus.

2. Not sure if your numbers are right (I'd wager they aren't) but you'll have to give me something on that. It's probably much less than this bullshit "stimulus" bill. Note I'm not agreeing with our Iraq policy in the last five years; I think it's criminal how much we've spent on it.
 
[quote name='nathansu']I can make wild claims that aren't based in reality as well.[/QUOTE]

We pursued the same kind of policies in the early 1930s. The Depression didn't end. Japan implemented eight "stimulus" packages in eight years, and all failed to stimulate their economy. Just who is ignoring reality and history here?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']1. Did you even read my post? CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. Jesus.
[/quote]

Quoting one source in an argument is as about as intelligent as posting an Ann Coulter piece on a CAG forum. Even if it's the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']CRE was one factor and lack of regulation was one factor..but the major contributing factor was easy money and ridiculously loose fractional reserve standards by the fed that allowed the banks to create so much damn money and leverage out of thin air. This was the main cause of the crisis.. I liken it to a kindergarten teacher entering the classroom with a large basket of candy, putting it on the desk, then leaving the room for a while. Question: When the kids get a sugar high and tear shit apart do you blame them entirely?...or do you blame the teacher for making the mess possible? Both are at fault..but one more than the other. Yes, greedy investors and banks are partially responsible for this mess..but the fed/government (based on Keynesian philosophy) laid the groundwork.[/QUOTE]

Nice analogy.
---
Here is some more fuel for the fire.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']We pursued the same kind of policies in the early 1930s. The Depression didn't end. Japan implemented eight "stimulus" packages in eight years, and all failed to stimulate their economy. Just who is ignoring reality and history here?[/quote]

Are you comparing items line for line? Because certainly, the Japanese stimuli and this bill are exactly the same. Point taken, but horse of a different color (and pork of a different color, I'd bet).

All the economists who claim ~1.5$ is pumped back into the economy for every 1$ of infrastructure spending are for sure out of their minds.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Quoting one source in an argument is as about as intelligent as posting an Ann Coulter piece on a CAG forum. Even if it's the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.[/QUOTE]

It's a group of economists, not one source. There are plenty of people who feel the same way, and I'm not wasting my time looking up people to please the likes of you.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']If they abolished income taxes for the next 6 months, you might consider getting an extra job to enjoy the full benefits of your labor.[/quote]

I might also consider working less because I would have all of my money instead of 85% of it.

Then, I could spend more time with my kids. If I spent enough time with my kids, I could stop spending $800 a month on daycare.

Then, I could work even less because I wasn't spending the $800 per month.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']85%?! How did you pull that off?

I guess marriage and kids pays off more than I thought.[/quote]

Kids? Yes. Marriage? No. Well, OK, it would, but she makes far more money than a standard deduction.

Of course, I'm not including the 6% sales tax I'll pay when I buy anything other than unprepared food.

Oh, wait. I took home about 77% of my gross pay on this paycheck.

That just means I could cut down to 30-31 hours a week before having to cut back on spending.
 
She's ridiculously hot for a crazy lady.
ann_coulter_2007_cut_image.jpg
 
:roll: Care to post pictures of your significant other?
[quote name='VipFREAK']She looks old and like a badly proportioned Barbie doll...[/quote]
 
Always though her body was decent, but face never did it for me and I'm generally not into blondes. But she's still doable, especially for her age. But only if she doesn't say anything.
 
[quote name='Kayden']She's ridiculously hot for a crazy lady.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? She looks like a guy. Plus you'd have to stuff a dick down her mouth just to get the dumb slut to shut up for a few minutes.
 
Wheres the problem? I can't see her face with my nuts on her forehead.
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Are you kidding me? She looks like a guy. Plus you'd have to stuff a dick down her mouth just to get the dumb slut to shut up for a few minutes.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Wheres the problem? I can't see her face with my nuts on her forehead.[/QUOTE]

Some of us have what we call standards and don't settle for butterfaces.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Are you kidding me? She looks like a guy. Plus you'd have to stuff a dick down her mouth just to get the dumb slut to shut up for a few minutes.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on, don't deny that letting her run her mouth during sex might not lead to some really good angry humping.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']CRE was one factor and lack of regulation was one factor..but the major contributing factor was easy money and ridiculously loose fractional reserve standards by the fed that allowed the banks to create so much damn money and leverage out of thin air. This was the main cause of the crisis.. I liken it to a kindergarten teacher entering the classroom with a large basket of candy, putting it on the desk, then leaving the room for a while. Question: When the kids get a sugar high and tear shit apart do you blame them entirely?...or do you blame the teacher for making the mess possible? Both are at fault..but one more than the other. Yes, greedy investors and banks are partially responsible for this mess..but the fed/government (based on Keynesian philosophy) laid the groundwork.[/QUOTE]

This is like saying that a rape victim dressed like she wanted it, so both parties are equally guilty.

Lousy analogy. And what in the world happened to this thread? We're talking about whether or not Ann Coulter is hot? Jaysis Christ.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Lousy analogy. And what in the world happened to this thread? We're talking about whether or not Ann Coulter is hot? Jaysis Christ.[/QUOTE]

True.

But sadly that's a step up from the usual level of discourse in the vs. forum.
 
Yea... but in this case the rape victim (banks) did want it (money from the average tax payer.)

I never thought I'd see Myke make a bad analogy.

It's not like government forced the money upon them with violence. If you want to continue the rape analogy, they dropped their panties and jumped on the counter spread eagle.

What the fuck else would a rapist bank do?

On top of that, playing the rape game implies one of those mother fuckers is an innocent party, and we all know how not true that is.

[quote name='mykevermin']This is like saying that a rape victim dressed like she wanted it, so both parties are equally guilty.

Lousy analogy. And what in the world happened to this thread? We're talking about whether or not Ann Coulter is hot? Jaysis Christ.[/quote]
 
You're looking at it the wrong way. Capital...whatever it's spelled...well, they're analogy implied that the banks were the out of control kids who had a bowl of candy they had set in front of them. They weren't responsible for their actions, because they were tempted, irrational, uncontrollable beings who saw...CANDY!

In this case, it's the government that's tempting the banks as (in this case the victim of a rape) having money available for lending (though we assume, of course, that the banks would not have offered ARMs otherwise - which is absurd if you think about it - they'll offer anything they believe will provide them with financial returns). It's the government who's wearing the short skirt and low-cut blouse, tempting, financially, the insatiable and controllable sexual (financial) interests of banks. The banks couldn't help themselves! It was dangled in front of their faces! How could they resist?

You're looking at it the wrong way.
 
Have we forgotten that the people that run the banks take turns being 'appointed' to run and be in the government committees "overseeing" their industry? Just like every other industry with government oversight, it's the same.

While we are having analogy parties, isn't that a little like letting the children take turns at being the babysitter?

I would say that's the root of the problem.
 
The problem with analogies is that they start out with, "it kinda like..." It' may be like something, but its not the same. Again, comparing it to rape is saying the government was an innocent abused party. The government didn't get a gussied up in tax incentives and loopholes for a fun night on the town with her girlfriends. Theses policies were put in place by politicians that were bought off by the companies seeking the benefits.

The only innocent party being raped is the tax payers grabbing their collective ankles.

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
 
Some of you are drawing too much of a distinction between the government and big banks. What makes you think they're not on the same side?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And what in the world happened to this thread? We're talking about whether or not Ann Coulter is hot? Jaysis Christ.[/quote]
Think, Myke. Have you ever seen an Ann Coulter thread not turn into a discussion of her attractiveness?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Some of you are drawing too much of a distinction between the government and big banks. What makes you think they're not on the same side?[/QUOTE]

Of course they are. That's basically what I just said.
 
Big banks are also the ones pushing the hardest for nationalized (socialized) health care so they don't have to pay for it anymore.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course they are. That's basically what I just said.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='rickonker']Some of you are drawing too much of a distinction between the government and big banks. What makes you think they're not on the same side?[/QUOTE]




I disagree with you on this, though:

[quote name='thrustbucket']I would say that's the root of the problem.[/QUOTE]

It's a symptom, not the root.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What do you think the Root is then?[/QUOTE]
The system of government and banking itself. In other words, if we took away what you mentioned even by preventing, say, anyone who's ever worked at a bank from "serving" in the government, the problem would still exist.

The banks are backed 100% by the government. As long as that's true, as long as they can, for example, leverage to the hilt while handing off risk to taxpayers, it doesn't really matter which individuals are in which positions.
 
[quote name='Kayden']9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.[/QUOTE]

Come on Kayden, you know full well polls show support of the bank bailout and porkfest "stimulus" bill are nowhere near 90%.
 
[quote name='rickonker']The banks are backed 100% by the government. As long as that's true, as long as they can, for example, leverage to the hilt while handing off risk to taxpayers, it doesn't really matter which individuals are in which positions.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the idiots in Congress who voted to bail out the fuckers!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Thanks for that George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the idiots in Congress who voted to bail out the fuckers![/QUOTE]
I'm with you there, but my point is that the problem existed long before we ever heard about any of those fuckers. Everything in my post was already true before some village in Texas lost an idiot.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I'm with you there, but my point is that the problem existed long before we ever heard about any of those fuckers. Everything in my post was already true before some village in Texas lost an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about the FDIC? That is funded by the banks themselves.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you talking about the FDIC? That is funded by the banks themselves.[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Banks are charged insurance premiums, but the amount the FDIC actually has is puny compared to the amount they'll need. Remember that the insurance isn't limited to what they have. As the FDIC says, "FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. This means that the resources of the United States government stand behind FDIC-insured depositors."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48T7F920081001

Assuming that stayed in when the bailout passed, the FDIC now has unlimited borrowing authority from the Treasury Department.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're looking at it the wrong way. Capital...whatever it's spelled...well, they're analogy implied that the banks were the out of control kids who had a bowl of candy they had set in front of them. They weren't responsible for their actions, because they were tempted, irrational, uncontrollable beings who saw...CANDY!

In this case, it's the government that's tempting the banks as (in this case the victim of a rape) having money available for lending (though we assume, of course, that the banks would not have offered ARMs otherwise - which is absurd if you think about it - they'll offer anything they believe will provide them with financial returns). It's the government who's wearing the short skirt and low-cut blouse, tempting, financially, the insatiable and controllable sexual (financial) interests of banks. The banks couldn't help themselves! It was dangled in front of their faces! How could they resist?

You're looking at it the wrong way.[/quote]

Are we? Increasingly wall street is a game of three card monty, the executive class are hustling and all of us are the marks. The government is the rube who shows up with a wallet full of c-notes.

In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay at large companies to that of the president of the United States was about 2 to 1. In 2007, it was more than 20 to 1. In 1980, executives at large companies made about 40 times what the average worker made. Last year, CEOs made about 360 times more than the average worker. During the golden age of U.S. economic power, business schools taught future executives to see themselves as trustees of their companies and stewards of our economic resources.
But today, to the people who run them and the investors who own their stock (mostly very temporarily), public companies have become largely personal ATMs, machines from which to extract as much personal wealth as quickly as possible, within the boundaries of the law (usually). The distinction between creating something of enduring value and merely extracting as much value as possible has dissolved.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../02/06/AR2009020602794.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top