Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='mykevermin']Violence and violent rhetoric is equal on both sides. :roll:[/QUOTE]

There's only so many times you can say something abhorrent and then react with righteous indignation when people take your words literally, Republicans. :D Sooner or later you're either a dangerous inciter of violence without the courage to own up to it... or an idiot. You can be both, but not neither.
 
he mentioned the fact that he's jewish as a reason for being targeted? dude, there's a gay jewish senator AND a gay jewish congressman...both of them are 0 for 2 iin bigoted eyes.
 
Alright, that one's actually in Richmond, my bad. Dunno why, as you can imagine his district picks up the suburbs and stays out of the city proper.

Anyway, looks like he either got really lucky or somebody's testing out their physics knowledge and arced that fucker.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Anyway, looks like he either got really lucky or somebody's testing out their physics knowledge and arced that fucker.[/QUOTE]
Holy fuck. I know who did it.

No, not those stupid fucks from Wanted.
worms-2-worms-2.jpg
 
I like how people still claim the medicare subsidy deal made with Ben Nelson (aka the cornhusker whatever) was in the final bill. if you can't be arsed to read the bill, then it can still be proven to you.

go look at ben nelson's final vote. go on, git. go search for it. I don't wanna spoil it here.
 
I'm amused that people still think this is a good bill even though specific quid pro quo may not be included. There are many reasons to oppose this legislation regardless of the amendments that may or may not have been inserted or deleted.
 
Most of the objections with it deal with cuts made in other areas in order to pay for it. If those parts are repealed, how will the GOP pay for it? How will they make the marketplace work if they remove the individual mandate, originally a GOP idea?

Why can't they just be honest and say that they don't want to pay for poor people or people who didn't 'earn' it? I got mine Jack, you can suck it.

On a side note, anyone ever watch Kirsten Powers when she appears on FOX? Other than Bob Beckel she's the only other liberal voice on the network who calls out bullshit when she sees it.
 
irhari, have you ever stopped to think that we can't afford anymore spending? 3 Years ago when Bush was in office all of you democrats were complaining about the deficit, but now suddenly it doesn't matter? Do not tell me that this program is paid for, because that is complete BS, you cannot offer coverage to 30 million people, and pin a number on how much that will cost. I guarentee it will be 10 times what they projected. Both parties need to quit the spending, and make real cuts to all these goodies we are handing out. We are overextending ourselves. I like to call the government our kid that got a hold of our credit card. Only in november will we get it back. Vote for candidates that are against spending!
 
[quote name='Knoell'] all of you democrats were complaining about the deficit [/QUOTE]

And none of you Republicans were, but that's mostly because you guys have no issue wasting billions blowing up brown people.
 
[quote name='Strell']And none of you Republicans were, but that's mostly because you guys have no issue wasting billions blowing up brown people.[/QUOTE]

im sorry? i believe we were, that is why the republican party was badly damaged, they weren't representing the mainstream like they used to. They cut taxes but didnt cut spending thus increasing the deficit. Obama is raising spending, and taxes, but the taxes wont cover the bill, thus raising the deficit.

Also I believe democrats voted for both wars before they found out how much it would benefit them to campaign against it.

Edit: one more thing, is that the lefts anwser to everything? "just call them racist, that will teach them"
 
It isn't that the deficit and debt aren't important, it just that they aren't the most important thing when our economy is still in shambles.

Besides, there is a distinction that eludes knoell. W inherited about as clean a slate deficit wise seen in the history of the US (and the con gameplan has been to try to force a fiscal crisis for decades), Obama inherited the worst economy in generations.

As much as "Tu Quoque" is a fallacy it doesn't even really apply here.
 
If you cut alot of goodies the government hands out, and lower taxes, and stop being pricks about job generators getting tax breaks, I guarentee that the economy will bounce back. Government spending does not help the economy, in fact it makes it stagnant.
and He may have inherited the worst economy in awhile but the housing crisis was building since the 90's with clinton not that I understand where that fits in with this argument.
Noone seems to be interested in the fact that the two states with the "best" social programs are utterly failing. California, and New York. Why is that? Then maybe you can anwser why Texas is creating jobs...
 
[quote name='Knoell']If you cut alot of goodies the government hands out, and lower taxes, and stop being pricks about job generators getting tax breaks, I guarentee that the economy will bounce back.[/quote]

That is the second time you guaranteed something.

sminigo1.jpg


Government spending does not help the economy, in fact it makes it stagnant.
Click to expand...

You say that, hell you may even believe it but that doesn't make it so.

The fed brought rates down to basically zero at the beginning of the crisis, shot its wad so to speak and leaving no other real option since I don't feel like arguing with Hoover's ghost.

and He may have inherited the worst economy in awhile but the housing crisis was building since the 90's with clinton not that I understand where that fits in with this argument.
Click to expand...

I bet.
 
Ok it was not clintons administration that forced banks to give out all of those loans because everyone be able to have a house?

You arent very good at debating.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You arent very good at debating.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really debating you. There isn't much to debate among the self serving silliness.

Ok it was not clintons administration that forced banks to give out all of those loans because everyone be able to have a house?
Click to expand...

Ok...

Do you happen to have confused the Glass-Steagall act with something else?
 
you can do your own research, but I'm sure you will be surprised that there was a boom in lending to low to middle income holders in the 90s, because Clinton made it practically illegal for banks to turn down sub-prime mortgage applications.

I make a measly 20 some K a year, and you are telling me I am self serving? haha thats pretty funny, keep using your "silly" arguement that all people who oppose spending are too rich to care. Ridiculous
 
[quote name='Knoell']you can do your own research[/quote]

I did my "research" a long time ago, unlike you who apparently scampered off to google some stuff so you could pretend you know what you are talking about.

but I'm sure you will be surprised that there was a boom in lending to low to middle income holders in the 90s, because Clinton made it practically illegal for banks to turn down sub-prime mortgage applications.
Click to expand...

What you were technically going after Clinton for is repealing Glass-Steagall Act in '99 (not really the 90's but who is quibbling?). This deregulation (go markets, go) let financial institutions act as neither fish nor fowl.

Government institutions and regulation had comparatively little to do with the sub prime mess or the meltdown. Private companies were over leveraged thousands of times over and the collapse of their scams caused the crisis.

I make a measly 20 some K a year, and you are telling me I am self serving? haha thats pretty funny, keep using your "silly" arguement that all people who oppose spending are too rich to care. Ridiculous
Click to expand...

By self serving I meant how you use silliness to make excuses for Republicans and your failed ideology.

There also seems to be a correlation among CAG posts between how little they make and how much they pimp free market fundamentalism
Bob
, meaning elprincipe probably hustles spare change somewhere.
 
[quote name='Knoell']im sorry? i believe we were, that is why the republican party was badly damaged, they weren't representing the mainstream like they used to. They cut taxes but didnt cut spending thus increasing the deficit. Obama is raising spending, and taxes, but the taxes wont cover the bill, thus raising the deficit.
[/QUOTE]

I should write this down and find an open mic comedy night. I'd fuckin' kill, man.
 
He is *partially* correct. A lot of "independent" voters who trend (R) with their votes were fed up with Republican spending (and so many other Republican policies) that they stayed home or voted for hope and change in 2008. Was it enough to push Obama over the top? That's debatable... but it's obvious that current Republican policies (including spending) has upset a lot of voters and driven them away from the party.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']And into the open bosom of the tea baggers. The fact that they feel that is a better alternative is the scary part.[/QUOTE]

I love when you people bash the tea party. You see on the news that they are protesting, and I'm willing to bet you made your decision about them right there. Again can anyone anwser why less government spending is a bad thing?

Do you all really trust the government to do what is best for you? I feel bad for the future of this country then. Government is needed in some areas, but we are abusing it now. We cannot call on the government to fix every problem our country has. Obama has taken control of the banking industry, the auto industry, student loans, health care, amongst other things in his FIRST year. How can you possibly say this is for the good of the country? What is next? Do I have to pay for someones defaulted credit card bill too because they were too irresponsible to pay it?
 
[quote name='Strell']I should write this down and find an open mic comedy night. I'd fuckin' kill, man.[/QUOTE]

point out where im wrong instead of insults, maybe you will learn something.
 
I've heard enough and seen enough of them to see what they're about. I don't have to attend a rally to see that. Their actions are shameful and the underlying tone of the movement isn't something i want to be associated with.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I did my "research" a long time ago, unlike you who apparently scampered off to google some stuff so you could pretend you know what you are talking about.



What you were technically going after Clinton for is repealing Glass-Steagall Act in '99 (not really the 90's but who is quibbling?). This deregulation (go markets, go) let financial institutions act as neither fish nor fowl.

Government institutions and regulation had comparatively little to do with the sub prime mess or the meltdown. Private companies were over leveraged thousands of times over and the collapse of their scams caused the crisis.



By self serving I meant how you use silliness to make excuses for Republicans and your failed ideology.

There also seems to be a correlation among CAG posts between how little they make and how much they pimp free market fundamentalism
Bob
, meaning elprincipe probably hustles spare change somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Wow, so banks weren't pressured by the government to hand out sub prime loans so poor people could have houses too? If you disagree with this you will confirm my suspicion that you honestly don't know what you are talking about.
But Ok so if this is how you say it is, then explain to me what exactly bush did to instigate this housing crises? You seem to blame him but then you say "it was the corporations during clintons term not clinton" then in the bush term you say "it was bush and the corporations they were in cohoots!"

Well if my idealogy is failed then I would like you to explain to me what the end result of your idealogy would include? Don't forget to include the butterflies and rainbows!
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I've heard enough and seen enough of them to see what they're about. I don't have to attend a rally to see that. Their actions are shameful and the underlying tone of the movement isn't something i want to be associated with.[/QUOTE]

what actions exactly? isolated incidents in which the bias media conveniently left out that republicans are being attacked as well? I could easily blame "crazy liberals" for those attacks, and discount an entire party as well, but that isn't the way I do things, because I know people who do that stuff are a small minority.

So why do you not like them again? Maybe you can tell me what they are about as well? Don't worry I'll wait until you look it up.
 
I figured you wouldn't have an anwser, just jokes, it is the liberal way after all. If you can't argue something, either make fun of it to derail it, or call it racist. Works every time.
 
More than 2/3 of subprime loans offered during the 90's and 2000's were outside of the purview of the Community Reinvestment Act - in short, they were offered by banks with outside of any force or persuasion of the federal government. They were given out because they banks thought they would be able to make money off of them.

So, yeah, as you say, "banks weren't pressured by the government to hand out sub prime loans so poor people could have houses too." That happens to be demonstrably true.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I figured you wouldn't have an anwser, just jokes, it is the liberal way after all. If you can't argue something, either make fun of it to derail it, or call it racist. Works every time.[/QUOTE]

I don't like repeating myself but you don't offer much to argue against. As for the racism cons attempt to assign blame for a financial crisis caused by mega-corporations and their wild bets or blatant scams on poor brown people.

Doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Now please continue to rant about how you have to pay for everyone else Mr. Nine Dollars an Hour.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I don't like repeating myself but you don't offer much to argue against. As for the racism cons attempt to assign blame for a financial crisis caused by mega-corporations and their wild bets or blatant scams on poor brown people.

Doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Now please continue to rant about how you have to pay for everyone else Mr. Nine Dollars an Hour.[/QUOTE]

Blatent scams on poor brown people? There was quite a few white folks in the category but anyways last I checked people weren't forced to overextend themselves and buy a house they couldn't afford. Sure the banks had no business handing out the loans, but people had no business taking the loans. So lets nail the one side, but let the other side off scott free? Evil corporations, and those poor "poor" people, same line everytime man. Let people keep some personal responsibility, sometimes things are peoples faults too.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So lets nail the one side, but let the other side off scott free? [/QUOTE]

Right. Because no one has lost their house because of all of that. Scott free, if you indeed include losing a basic need.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']More than 2/3 of subprime loans offered during the 90's and 2000's were outside of the purview of the Community Reinvestment Act - in short, they were offered by banks with outside of any force or persuasion of the federal government. They were given out because they banks thought they would be able to make money off of them.

So, yeah, as you say, "banks weren't pressured by the government to hand out sub prime loans so poor people could have houses too." That happens to be demonstrably true.[/QUOTE]

There has been research done that community organizations threatened banks that they HAD to give out risky loans that they would not have otherwise given out. Those loans were part of the problem, and the banks themselves handed out less risky but still risky loans on their own. Everyone had a hand in the mess, not just "evil" corporations.
 
[quote name='Strell']Right. Because no one has lost their house because of all of that.[/QUOTE]

they also didn't have to pay the 200,000 dollars they borrowed.
 
[quote name='knoell']what actions exactly? Isolated incidents in which the bias media conveniently left out that republicans are being attacked as well? I could easily blame "crazy liberals" for those attacks, and discount an entire party as well, but that isn't the way i do things, because i know people who do that stuff are a small minority.

So why do you not like them again? Maybe you can tell me what they are about as well? Don't worry i'll wait until you look it up.[/quote]
The liberal media is ruining the country!!!!!!!!

Yeah.
 
[quote name='Knoell']they also didn't have to pay the 200,000 dollars they borrowed.[/QUOTE]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly here. Sorry.
 
[quote name='Knoell']There has been research done that community organizations threatened banks that they HAD to give out risky loans that they would not have otherwise given out. Those loans were part of the problem, and the banks themselves handed out less risky but still risky loans on their own. Everyone had a hand in the mess, not just "evil" corporations.[/QUOTE]

1) Cite your source.
2) You're changing the subject. Stay on topic - you were just vilifying the government for the subprime loan problem, and now you're trying to retain your general framework while also changing your argument. Bad form.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']More than 2/3 of subprime loans offered during the 90's and 2000's were outside of the purview of the Community Reinvestment Act - in short, they were offered by banks with outside of any force or persuasion of the federal government. They were given out because they banks thought they would be able to make money off of them.

So, yeah, as you say, "banks weren't pressured by the government to hand out sub prime loans so poor people could have houses too." That happens to be demonstrably true.[/QUOTE]

This is ignoring the real argument. The real argument is banks were given a way to make a profit from subprime loans -- a way facilitated by the federal government. As soon as they made these loans, Fannie and Freddie would buy them up, and the companies that made them would make money. Why do you think Fannie and Freddie have been taken over by the government and continue to hemorrhage money? They are sitting on tons of bad loans, encouraged by the federal government (not just the act you cited, but that is part of it).

Both parties are responsible here, but Democrats perhaps a bit more than Republicans. Democrats pushed this stuff the most in Congress, but Republicans held the majority during the time the bubble developed and could easily have stopped this from happening. The Clinton administration did push this stuff. However, the Bush administration pushed it just as much. Given some of what I see written around here, I'm not sure if many remember, but Bush crowed time and time again about the U.S. becoming an "Ownership Society" where everyone owned their own house, and bragged about high rates of homeownership (he liked to point out also for minorities).

So there are plenty of people to point fingers at. Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush are two of them, but perhaps the biggest culprit is, not surprisingly, Barney Frank, who made every conceivable effort to have the government push subprime loans and let Fannie and Freddie do their bubble thing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Cite your source.
2) You're changing the subject. Stay on topic - you were just vilifying the government for the subprime loan problem, and now you're trying to retain your general framework while also changing your argument. Bad form.[/QUOTE]

these community organizations are funded by the government. But that is ok keep nitpicking at my argument instead of anwsering it.

you can research it yourself, I do not have time to educate you on the subprime mortgage crises. just google it if you have to, it is all over the place.
 
Knoell even if what you say is true (it isn't) it still wouldn't be the reason for the crisis meaning the almost total meltdown.

What caused the meltdown was crap financial innovation like credit default swaps, not only were these way, way over leveraged (and based on garbage to begin with) they were then passed off (with an assist by supposed raters of such investments) and bundled again and again.
 
^ Ahhh, stormfront. Always reliable.

[quote name='elprincipe']This is ignoring the real argument. The real argument is banks were given a way to make a profit from subprime loans -- a way facilitated by the federal government. As soon as they made these loans, Fannie and Freddie would buy them up, and the companies that made them would make money. Why do you think Fannie and Freddie have been taken over by the government and continue to hemorrhage money? They are sitting on tons of bad loans, encouraged by the federal government (not just the act you cited, but that is part of it).

Both parties are responsible here, but Democrats perhaps a bit more than Republicans. Democrats pushed this stuff the most in Congress, but Republicans held the majority during the time the bubble developed and could easily have stopped this from happening. The Clinton administration did push this stuff. However, the Bush administration pushed it just as much. Given some of what I see written around here, I'm not sure if many remember, but Bush crowed time and time again about the U.S. becoming an "Ownership Society" where everyone owned their own house, and bragged about high rates of homeownership (he liked to point out also for minorities).

So there are plenty of people to point fingers at. Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush are two of them, but perhaps the biggest culprit is, not surprisingly, Barney Frank, who made every conceivable effort to have the government push subprime loans and let Fannie and Freddie do their bubble thing.[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand what "outside the purview of the CRA" means. Unless, of course, you think that banks were able to predict that they would be engaging in long-term money losing propositions for over a decade and a half via subprime loans *and* that those losses would be covered by the federal government. Which is quite a stretch in terms of predictions, but also kinda what actually happened as well - because the housing market is not the entirety of the problematic securities swapping that underlies our great recession.

[quote name='Knoell']these community organizations are funded by the government. But that is ok keep nitpicking at my argument instead of anwsering it.

you can research it yourself, I do not have time to educate you on the subprime mortgage crises. just google it if you have to, it is all over the place.[/QUOTE]

Your argument, your proof. That's how it works around here, kiddo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top