posted
In the 8 years I bitched and bitched and bitched about George W. Bush, I would like to apologize for voting for Barack Obama. I don't know who this man is, he is not the man I voted for, it is like Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle group killed the guy who ran for president and stuck in a clone to do their bidding.
He's not running for re-election in 2012, he's governing like he believes the world will end in 2012.
When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler. Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
Almost all of my economic predictions have come true.
We are headed for total disaster.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and the other satanic demons have took the bailout money and SPECULATED the meteoric rise in oil prices. All the banks that took bailout money? Their stocks are 3 times their low at the moment, where most companies stocks haven't even doubled from their low.
JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BOA and the rest just posted RECORD profits this quarter, 6 months from the bailout. How did they do it? TRADING.
Wake up, America. The evidence is in front of your eyes.
ALL our national politicians are EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.
posted
I have a sneaking suspicion the remedy will involve long, rambling, extremely critical Monday morning quarterbacking posts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capital letters will really enhance the rambling posts, though. They give the eye something to catch on.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted for Pres. Obama, not becuase I thought he was the messiah, but because the other choice was McCain.... I was raised in Arizona, am infatuated with his daughter Megan. But if McCain were in office for the N. Korea threats some country in South East Asia would not exist anymore. Politicians have degrees in law, business, and politics if not some hybrid of the three, and I have never trusted any businessman or lier- I mean lawyer. Its all about lesser evils, and McCain is wrinkly evil.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heavens, it's absolutely terrible that banks we gave money to have gotten back on their feet! I'd much rather they languish in putrid incompetency for several more decades like Chrysler and Harley Davidson, that way we can bail them out some more!
It would have been far more tactful for these banks to slow down their recovery time so at least it looks like they put alot of effort into it. Bless those patriotic banks like Bear Stearns, and little guy loving Lehman Brothers, who charitably collapsed before funds could be marshaled and wasted on their resuscitation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that banks like Goldman Sachs didnt need our money in the first place.
My question is this, when do we get our money back? theyre showing profits equal and greater than the money we loaned them, so why cant they give back the money when it would come out of thier profits?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The remedy I would suggest is illegal for me to even suggest.
Black -
Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs before he became Head of the Fed. Then at the end of his term, right after Goldman Sachs two biggest rivals fail, he bails out the entire banking industry? And six months after the 'Financial Crisis' Goldman Sachs posts record profits? And how did they do it? TRADING ON THE STOCK MARKET.
But, I guess if the banks needed to take the bailout money and pump it into Crude commodities and shorting the real estate market. That's ok. Because it is legal and it made them a lot of money.
All the banks that 'failed' and needed a bailout, failed on the SAME DAY and all had the highest Credit rating
Goldman Sachs was the first in line to payback their 'loan' and the first one who doesn't have to report its bonuses to our Government.
Bill O'Reilly did a long piece on how Goldman Sachs paid ZERO corporate taxes last year. It seems that 10,000 of the 52,000 pages of the Tax Code are written for Goldman and Sachs.
Hey. 8 more 'small banks' (2 billion and under) failed on Friday! The FDIC swooped in and picked up all the toxic assets and the good assets were quickly sold to JPMorgan.
Since 1980, there have been 21 major Bank Bailouts, each bailout was solver with cash infusions. Not once has anything been done to solve the problem.
But hey. With REAL unemployment at 12% to 15% and the economy contracting at a catastrophic rate, The Banks are raking in mass profits from short term Stock Trading. And that's ok, right?
Goldman Sachs DESERVES all those billions because it is damn hard work being an investment firm for Governments, Corporations and Earth's wealthiest families. Goldman Sachs needs that money so they can continue to revolutionize our economy with great inventions! They were the men of courage who brought us the monetization of Debt and then resold the debt into hedge funds and money markets where the working class was locked into their 401k's.
Where would our country be without great men like that?
So of course! When the stock market hits rock bottom, the best thing to do is give cash to those banks and investment firms, so they can re-invest in the stock market.
Great news! Not only did Goldman Sachs report $3.4 billion in profit from trading this quarter, but their stock is now at $148! Wow, and to think, that only 6 months ago it was at $45 dollars.
Hmmm. I remember when Warren Buffett got on the TV and said that he was investing $8 billion in Goldman Sachs to help the economy. Wow! He made $16 billion in 6 months!
Have no fear kids! Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank. Goldman Sachs. JPMorgan. The Carlyle Group. And OPEC. Are good Christian people who care about the children. They are going to do everything they can to make sure that America is #1 forever and always!
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company that engages in investment banking, securities services and investment management. The firm has offices in all global financial centers and acts as a financial advisor and money manager for corporations, governments, and wealthy families around the world.
Goldman offers its clients mergers & acquisitions advice, underwriting services, asset management, and engages in proprietary trading, and private equity deals. It is a primary dealer in the U.S. Treasury securities market.
The firm is also heavily involved in energy trading, including the oil speculation market, on both a principal and agent basis. Its sizable profits made during the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis led the New York Times to proclaim that Goldman Sachs is without peer in the world of finance.
Today, the company ranks #1 in Annual Net Income when compared with 86 peers in the Investment Services sector. Blankfein earned a $67.9 million bonus in his first year. He chose to receive "some" cash unlike former United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, his predecessor who chose to take his bonus entirely in company stock.
Recently Goldman Sachs has been increasingly involved in both advising and brokering deals to privatize major highways by selling them off to foreign investors. In addition to advising Indiana on the Toll Road deal, Goldman Sachs has worked with Texas governor Rick Perry's administration on privatization projects, and according to John Schmidt, the former adviser to the Chicago mayor's office, it was a Goldman Sachs representative who first pitched the city on the idea of leasing out the Skyway. Goldman Sachs has played a major role in advising states on how to structure privatization deals—even while positioning itself to invest in the toll road market. Conflicts of interest in such transactions are difficult to quantify.
In May 2006, Henry Paulson left the firm to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary.
On September 21, 2008, Goldman Sachs received Federal Reserve approval to transition from an investment bank to a bank holding company
In March 2009 it was reported that in 2008, Goldman Sachs, alongside other major US and international financial institutions, had received billions of dollars during the unwind of insurance arrangements purchased from AIG, including $12.9 billion from funds provided by the US Federal Reserve to bail out AIG.
And although Goldman was among ten large financial institutions that the Treasury allowed to pay back their TARP emergency capital infusions, the firm still has benefits from $28 billion in subsidization from the government in form of cheap debt backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Their Investment Banking is divided into two divisions and includes Financial Advisory (mergers and acquisitions, investitures, corporate defense activities, restructurings and spin-offs) and Underwriting (public offerings and private placements of equity, equity-related and debt instruments)
On November 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Goldman Sachs, which earned $25 M from underwriting California bonds, had advised other clients to "short" those bonds. Shorting is essentially betting that the state will default on the bonds, which serves to drive up the cost of the issue to the state.
During 2008 Goldman Sachs came under criticism for an apparent revolving-door relationship in which its employees and consultants have moved in and out of powerful US Government positions, where there may exist the potential for a conflict of interest. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current chief economic adviser to President Obama, Lawrence Summers, was noted for receiving $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw in 2008 and speaking fees (ranging from $45 thousand to $135 thousand per event) from banks including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch at a time when he was expected to become the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government. Former bank regulator William K. Black, appearing on Bill Moyers Journal on April 3, 2009, accused the financial industry of massive fraud, citing the role Tim Geithner played before being promoted to Treasury Secretary as well as the successful efforts of Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner's mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block regulation of the financial derivatives market. According to Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Summers, Rubin and Greenspan blocked her efforts to regulate the derivatives market, on the grounds that the financial industry were objecting.
Additional controversy attended the selection of former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Geithner, despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.
In July 2009, Rolling Stone contributer Matt Taibbi published an article on Goldman Sachs titled, 'The Great American Bubble Machine', where he condemns the company as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," and going on to assert that Goldman Sachs and similar companies have come out ahead in every economic recession and bubble since The Great Depression.
As of June 22, 2009, the company was on track to complete its "most profitable year ever".
In May 2009, it was reported that the Chairman of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was a former-director at, and shareholder of Goldman Sachs, having retired from the firm in 1994 and retained substantial stock. The controversy and criticism caused by what was seen as a conflict of interest between Friedman's new role as supervisor and regulator to Goldman Sachs (due to its conversion from securities firm to a bank holding company), and in particular, his purchase of shares in the firm when it traded at historical lows in Q4 2008, forced him to resign on May 7 2009.
On May 10, 2009 the Goldman Sachs Group agreed to pay up to $60 million to end an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state. Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman said it was “pleased to have resolved this matter,” and declined to comment further.
Despite the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by selling subprime mortgage-backed securities short. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, who are part of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by "betting" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.
In 2006, Goldmans Sachs' mortgage-bonds division, Alternative Mortgage Products (known as GSAMP for short), issued 83 home-loan-backed bonds, valued at $44.5 billion. In the subprime sector, it grew its business by 59% from 2005, offloading some $12.9 billion on to fund managers.
According to Inside Mortgage Finance, that made GSAMP the 15th biggest issuer of subprime-backed bonds in 2006. According to the website ABAlert.com (Asset-backed Alert), Goldman Sachs was one of the top 10 sellers of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO's) and may have sold about $100 billion in CMO's over the last two and a half years.
Allan Sloane in The Washington Post stated that one of Goldman's 2006 crop - the GSAMP Trust 2006- S3 - may actually be "the worst deal…floated by a top-tier firm." One in every six of the 8,274 mortgages bundled together in GSAMP Trust 2006-S3 was already in default 18 months later. Whoever bought the S3 bonds will have either taken a 100% loss, or are waiting to sell it off at a heavy discount.
Ian Welsh:
Zero Hedge has made the case that Goldman could be using their program trading to move the markets in the direction they prefer, as the largest program trader in the market, twice as large as the next biggest. The case was reasonably strong, but was made stronger when the New York Stock Exchange suddenly decided to stop releasing the data on program trading which made it possible to track what Goldman was doing.
Goldman's profits only count as "profit" if you consider a pass-through federal subsidy to AIG, quick and easy loans and multiple bailout programs made available to them by the FDIC and the Fed after converting themselves into a bank holding company, the forced collapse of much of its competition and fees from stock issuance from other banks having to repay TARP to be something based on hard work and ingenuity and not political connections and corporate welfare.
Les Leopold:
I'm starting to wonder about the mental health of our nation when I read stuff like, "Analysts estimate that [Goldman Sachs] will set aside enough money to pay a total of $18 billion in compensation and benefits this year.
Robert Reich:
Goldman's resurgence should send shivers down the backs of every hardworking American who has lost a large chunk of retirement savings in this economic debacle, as well as the millions who have lost their jobs. Why? Because Goldman's high-risk business model hasn't changed one bit from what it was before the implosion of Wall Street. Goldman is still wagering its capital and fueling giant bets with lots of borrowed money. While its rivals have pared back risks, Goldman has increased them. And its renewed success at this old game will only encourage other big banks to go back into it.
The New York Times adds:
On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase became the latest big bank to announce stellar second-quarter earnings. Its $2.7 billion profit, after record gains for Goldman Sachs, underscores how the government's effort to halt a collapse has also set the stage for a narrowing concentration of financial power. Both banks now stand astride post-bailout Wall Street, having benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer support and cheap government financing to climb over banks that continue to struggle. They are capitalizing on the turmoil in financial markets and their rivals' weakness to pull in billions in trading profits.
Paul Krugman weighs in:
Goldman made profits by playing the rest of us for suckers. And Wall Streeters have every incentive to keep playing that kind of game. The huge bonuses Goldman will soon hand out show that financial-industry highfliers are still operating under a system of heads they win, tails other people lose. ... The bottom line is that Goldman's blowout quarter is good news for Goldman and the people who work there. It's good news for financial superstars in general, whose paychecks are rapidly climbing back to precrisis levels. But it's bad news for almost everyone else.
As of June 22, 2009, the company was on track to complete its "most profitable year ever".
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: In the 8 years I bitched and bitched and bitched about George W. Bush, I would like to apologize for voting for Barack Obama.
As someone who always thought W did the best he could with a lousy situation, I appreciate that.
I don't know who this man is, he is not the man I voted for, it is like Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle group killed the guy who ran for president and stuck in a clone to do their bidding.
My biggest argument against Obama was that he didn't have enough experience for us to know how he'd go about doing all the spiffy things he said he would. I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself. The idea was good, but devil and details and all.
When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler.
Unfortunately, it was bailout the biggest banks or rewrite the laws that made them essential to business. When utilities have to borrow tens of millions to get anything done, there has to be someone with tens of millions to lend them. Smaller banks just don't have the assests for it. Bailing out the banks was easier than actually looking at the laws and improving them.
Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
This is the one that really confuses me. I don't get the new insurance proposal. It seems like it'll help people with pre-existing conditions and the insurance companies. I don't see where it helps the working poor, unemployed, or homeless. Aren't these the people that are supposedly destroying the system with their lack of access to preventative care who run up emergency room bills that can't be paid?
The unemployed and homeless can't afford anything, fine or no fine, so they can't buy insurance. Without access to free preventative care, their situation doesn't change. And the working poor have enough problems to worry about, they're going to have to pick the cheapest plans. Assuming that's the government plan, it'll probably be like Medicare where it underpays doctors and they won't take it. So now they'll be paying for the privilege of having no access to a regular doctor.
I'm still praying the Democrats have the sense to see that this doesn't help the people it's supposed to. It's one thing to help the insurance companies out, but I don't like the government conning us about what it's up to.
We are headed for total disaster.
Well, we're not headed for anything good, anyway.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
also, that group isn't so much a group of people who are upset with the difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the president, but a mean spirited attack on the pres.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself.
:yawn:
ooo Rivka, that's contagious!
Avid, how 'bouts you let the people who voted for him tell you why they voted for him, rather than infer what you want to believe. Since I know you've been told plenty of times why people voted for him, and I'm fairly sure that your answer was either never expressed, or was a tiny minority, maybe you should, you know, listen to those people and maybe take them at their word- it would help everyone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler. Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
OK, I give up. Which four-letter censor-worthy profanity starts with a Y?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself.
:yawn:
ooo Rivka, that's contagious!
Avid, how 'bouts you let the people who voted for him tell you why they voted for him, rather than infer what you want to believe. Since I know you've been told plenty of times why people voted for him, and I'm fairly sure that your answer was either never expressed, or was a tiny minority, maybe you should, you know, listen to those people and maybe take them at their word- it would help everyone.
Ok, let me ask you then. Do you feel you knew enough about Obama when you voted for him to anticipate his current actions?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not. Why would I need to be able to anticipate someone's actions in order to vote for him? The President is privy to a great deal more information than the voters- we vote for a leader, not just a representative to carry out our will.
That said, it so happens that nothing Obama has done so far surprises me. He himself has warned the public, repeatedly and explicitly, that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. I voted for him because I believed he had the judgment, the temperament, and the skills to do his job well- not because I believed he could do more than was possible. So far I haven't been disappointed by him at all. Is that not good enough for you? Would you prefer that I would wish toa substitute my own judgment for the President's? You see, it was never that I thought I knew more than Bush did about the situation he was in, but with Bush I was convinced that he was not the best person to do his job. I wasn't old enough to have voted against him in 2000, but it didn't take only 6 months for me to decide I would not vote to re-elect him- he had ample opportunity, much more than Barack has yet been afforded, to prove that he was a disaster as President.
So what do you want? A President who acts according to a rigid set of predictable behaviors that you can rely upon no matter the changing situation? Sounds like you were pretty happy with Bush! God knows why...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
The very first line of the group's little rant/purpose statement:
quote:This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I repeat: Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Your analogy doesn't hold. homeless people can't build their own shelters. Why do you assume that disgruntled Obama supporters can't start their own facebook group? Why have you nominated yourself as the facilitator of this Buyer's Remorse group?
Now, someone may have many legitimate reasons for being disappointed with Obama's presidency. I'm not arguing that. But when you include lines like this:
quote:Feel free to list your own reasons for regretting having elected this buffoon.
it doesn't seem like your focus is to point out legitimate reasons why President Obama did not hold up to the promise of candidate Obama, but to use that page as a vessel to air the same negative feelings and ideas you had before the election.
I'll also mention, that while i was, and still am, a strong supporter of Obama, he has done things in office that I've been extremely disappointed with. But the idea of buyer's remorse is silly. He's got a long long way to go before he can disappoint me as much as simply having McCain in office, and i've been incredibly pleased with most of his actions thus far.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, it's not a valid point, so I don't know why you're taking it.
Nor is the question, "Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?"
Lisa, the title of the group you recommended to THOR was 'Official Presidential Buyers' Remorse Group'. The description of the group is as follows:
quote: This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama, either in the primaries or the presidential election, and who has the creeping suspicion that they may have made a really, really bad mistake.
So by the group's own name and description, unless you voted for President Obama, you shouldn't be in the group. Your recommendation to THOR, on the other hand, is valid as he at least meets the group's membership requirements.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The remedy I would suggest is illegal for me to even suggest.
Even as a joke, the fact that you thought it was worth typing makes it very difficult for me to consider anything else you've written.
Also not sure why the buyer's remorse about TARP, which started long before Obama took office. Most of the dates in your history lesson above are 2008 and earlier. You're saying Obama should not have carried out legislation created before his term?
If there's a specific change Obama made or requested to be made to TARP, maybe that's what you should talk about?
I'd also be interested in hearing what you have done differently. (Seriously, no sarcasm, I'd like to know. Personally I'd have overhauled the regulatory agencies and given them teeth while the bailout was getting settled so that there'd be actual oversight in place before dollar one was handed over. And I would have stuck to tougher restrictions on bonuses and existing management. Don't like it, you can let your company die.)
quote:Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
Not for not having health insurance. For refusing to get health insurance, which is supposed to become cheaper with restrictions against premium rates for existing conditions. And the bill states that there will be exemptions for hardship cases. It's based on the existing system already in place in Massachusetts. At no point was it suggested that everyone without insurance would be fined, although that's how the blowhards are spinning it.
The analogy given is that of car insurance for drivers, which isn't quite accurate since you can always choose not to drive.
I think before I can pass judgment I'll want a detailed breakdown of what the proposed insurance will cost an uninsured family or single person, and what exactly is considered a hardship case. Still too many unanswered questions for me.
However, I can't say I have a problem with putting the cost of health care on the people who incur it. From USA Today: "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers." Granted, that's from an advocacy group so take it with several pounds of salt.
If you're uninsured because you can't afford it or because you had a pre-existing condition, hopefully the new reduced costs will now fit in your budget. If you still can't afford it, you should meet the "hardship" requirements (still waiting to hear about that). But if you're uninsured because you just don't want to, and I'm the one paying to cover your medical bills, then hell yes I think you should be fined for it. Why should I pay for you?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course not. Why would I need to be able to anticipate someone's actions in order to vote for him? The President is privy to a great deal more information than the voters- we vote for a leader, not just a representative to carry out our will.
That said, it so happens that nothing Obama has done so far surprises me. He himself has warned the public, repeatedly and explicitly, that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. I voted for him because I believed he had the judgment, the temperament, and the skills to do his job well- not because I believed he could do more than was possible. So far I haven't been disappointed by him at all. Is that not good enough for you? Would you prefer that I would wish toa substitute my own judgment for the President's? You see, it was never that I thought I knew more than Bush did about the situation he was in, but with Bush I was convinced that he was not the best person to do his job. I wasn't old enough to have voted against him in 2000, but it didn't take only 6 months for me to decide I would not vote to re-elect him- he had ample opportunity, much more than Barack has yet been afforded, to prove that he was a disaster as President.
So what do you want? A President who acts according to a rigid set of predictable behaviors that you can rely upon no matter the changing situation? Sounds like you were pretty happy with Bush! God knows why...
Fair enough. A lot of what I've been hearing from people is that Obama is not what they expected and they're disappointed with him. For them, they probably voted more for who they thought he was than who he is.
And yes, I like predictability. I like it when people say they believe in a set of principles and then act accordingly. I think W did that for the most part. I didn't always agree with him, but I did always believe he was doing what he thought he needed to protect America.
Obama has me a bit more confused. I'm not sure I understand yet how some of his plans match his ideals. I'm waiting to see how it unfolds. I'm not ready to say he's a Goldman Sach's clone, but I can see how people besides just Thor might feel let down.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
If there were zero cost and marginal effort required to build them? Yeah, that would probably be who builds them.
One might even look a bit askance at any non-homeless people who were making of point of making shelters for people that are able to make them themselves for pretty much the effort required to wish them into existence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BlackBlade, it's not a valid point, so I don't know why you're taking it.
Nor is the question, "Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?"
Lisa, the title of the group you recommended to THOR was 'Official Presidential Buyers' Remorse Group'. The description of the group is as follows:
quote: This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama, either in the primaries or the presidential election, and who has the creeping suspicion that they may have made a really, really bad mistake.
So by the group's own name and description, unless you voted for President Obama, you shouldn't be in the group. Your recommendation to THOR, on the other hand, is valid as he at least meets the group's membership requirements.
If I were to find out the head of a major SSM advocacy group was a heterosexual man or woman, I wouldn't think it mars their message. Nor does the abolition movement having been lead by white non slave owners render their efforts hypocritical.
If Lisa wants to benevolently restrain herself from saying "I told you so" to a group of remorseful Obama voters, it seems her papers are still in order so to speak.
But beyond that, Lisa has been strongly suspicious of Obama's character from the moment she learned he even existed. I think she is a bit excessively critical of him, but I doubt I have the wherewithal to change her mind, so I'd rather accept her point about the homeless, rather than head in the inevitable direction of arguing about Obama's character.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:* Almost every one of his cabinet appointments has been either withdrawn because of tax evasion or approved despite tax evasion.
I count 5.
Tom Daschle withdrew after it was revealed he didn't pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate. Nancy Killefer withdrew because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help. Hilda Solis was confirmed despite outstanding liens being paid the day before. Timothy Geithner was confirmed despite $34,000 in self-employment taxes still owed. Ron Kirk was confirmed despite owing $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years and other tax issues.
Several others dropped out for various reasons, some because of scandal or investigation (Richardson) and some for unspecified reasons (Jane Garvey, Caroline Atkinson, Annette Nazareth, Dr. Sanjay Gupta). And 5 nominees guilty of tax evasion is certainly something that should shame Obama, his fact-checkers, and his supporters.
But out of 18 cabinet posts, 5 is hardly "almost all."
quote: * He has demonstrated a habit of withdrawing ideas once people object (such as mandatory public service), and then reintroducing them on the down low so that no one will notice.
When did he call for mandatory public service? He has called for voluntary public service many times, during the campaign and as president. And he signed a national service bill that tripled the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and provided students and seniors with ways to earn money for college through volunteer work. Please cite precisely where he has ever called for mandatory public service.
quote:* He proposed (and will eventually push through) that veterans should have to pay for their own health insurance.
No, he didn't. There was an idea floated to have veterans' existing insurance companies cover war-related injuries, but it was made clear at the time that veterans themselves would not pay an extra dime, even if those companies ordinarily had deductibles, and they would not have to get insurance if they didn't already have it. Veterans' organizations pointed out that the administration's plan might indeed cost the veterans more and Obama dropped it immediately. Done. Where is your evidence that he plans to push it through anyway?
Lisa, when you start talking about Obama I just shut it out because of exaggerations and hyperbole such as this, and that's a shame because when he does screw up I want to know about it. But when you cry wolf so many times, no one's going to hear you when you're right.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were to find out the head of a major SSM advocacy group was a heterosexual man or woman, I wouldn't think it mars their message. Nor does the abolition movement having been lead by white non slave owners render their efforts hypocritical.
BlackBlade,
It's all good that Lisa wants to hate on President Obama-American right and all. But your likening it to a heterosexual heading a SSM advocacy group doesn't really wash, because it's not really the same situation as Lisa's here unless the advocacy group was named 'Gays for Gay Rights' and the leader and founder was a straight guy.
It's not hypocritical for Lisa to belong to a group expressing discontent with Pres. Obama. It's hypocritical for Lisa to belong to a group purporting to express discontent with Pres. Obama after voting for him, which unless I'm mistaken she never did.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... One might even look a bit askance at any non-homeless people who were making of point of making shelters for people that are able to make them themselves for pretty much the effort required to wish them into existence.
posted
I believe there is little difference between the government and the tabacco industry. So many brands to choose from, all owned by the same company. There is little difference between the parties other than ultralight, light, menthol and full flavor. I only wonder what percentage of the American economy the government will control before the next presidential election. Health Care-16% of the US economy. How about banking, auto production, energy, oil, insurance and housing (latest great idea, govt owns and rents forclosures to people). By the time the next elections comes, the Fed will be in control of at least half the US economy. Maybe they'll let us run diners -- or maybe not --- they'll regulate trans fats and put the diners out of business before it's over. Both parties are on the same cancerous path. The only difference is, one is filterless. It's all marketing and lies. They stand there and tell you the government doesn't plan to take over the entire industry and Obama promises, "You like what you have keep it". Problem is, the bill outlaws all new private sector policies. In other words, you change jobs, you're forced on the government policy. You can never change policies. Outlaws the establishment of new policies in the private sector. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/16/bozell-media-read-health-care-bill-reporting-it
Do you want to buy a slap-chop. Our politicians are dime store pitchmen, both sides. Obama is trying to appear fiscally conservative by calling for 100 Million in cuts. The sheep will see these cuts and he'll make a television appearance as being fiscally conservative and you'll fall in line. Forgetting the fact he made a 1.5 Trillion dollar one year deficit. The same people who fall for the 90% sale at the jewelry store. (one week after they marked up the price 300%)
Lets do the math....he'll be out bragging about being such a fiscal conservative for saving .001% of the biggest one year deficit in the history of mankind. Half of this country can't point out Montana on a map thanks to their "free" government education and will vote for him again. 100 million vs 1 trillion, may as well say infinity times infinity to the average voter (and the politicians know it). The same people who buy the line that he "saved or created 150,000 jobs" in the month we lost a million. Marketing....there is no measure of "jobs saved or created" but the poparazzi culture will buy that line. Keep paying attention to the death of Michael Jackson, that's more important than Iran's nuclear capability.
posted
I believe there is little difference between the government and the tabacco industry. So many brands to choose from, all owned by the same company. There is little difference between the parties other than ultralight, light, menthol and full flavor. I only wonder what percentage of the American economy the government will control before the next presidential election. Health Care-16% of the US economy. How about banking, auto production, energy, oil, insurance and housing (latest great idea, govt owns and rents forclosures to people). By the time the next elections comes, the Fed will be in control of at least half the US economy. Maybe they'll let us run diners -- or maybe not --- they'll regulate trans fats and put the diners out of business before it's over. Both parties are on the same cancerous path. The only difference is, one is filterless. It's all marketing and lies. They stand there and tell you the government doesn't plan to take over the entire industry and Obama promises, "You like your health care, keep it". Problem is, the bill outlaws all new private sector policies. In other words, you change jobs, you're forced on the government policy. You can never change policies. Outlaws the establishment of new policies in the private sector. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/16/bozell-media-read-health-care-bill-reporting-it
Do you want to buy a slap-chop. Our politicians are dime store pitchmen, both sides. Obama is trying to appear fiscally conservative by calling for 100 Million in cuts. The sheep will see these cuts and he'll make a television appearance as being fiscally conservative and you'll fall in line. Forgetting the fact he made a 1.5 Trillion dollar one year deficit. The same people who fall for the 90% sale at the jewelry store. (one week after they marked up the price 300%)
Lets do the math....he'll be out bragging about being such a fiscal conservative for saving .001% of the biggest one year deficit in the history of mankind. Half of this country can't point out Montana on a map thanks to their "free" government education and will vote for him again. 100 million vs 1 trillion, may as well say infinity times infinity to the average voter (and the politicians know it). The same people who buy the line that he "saved or created 150,000 jobs" in the month we lost a million. Marketing....there is no measure of "jobs saved or created" but the poparazzi culture will buy that line. Keep paying attention to the death of Michael Jackson, that's more important than Iran's nuclear capability.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
See, there are very few people who could go from equating the government to tobacco companies (spelling is key here, btw), to a doomsday scenario about fascism, or Leninism, or whatever the hell you think you're describing, then jump off to a little riff on those ugly politicians and "slap chops" (wtf?), then a little hackneyed jab at "half the country" and it's inability to do x simple task (allegedly), then send it home with a bowl of sour grapes about the paparazzi, mistakenly equating them with the actual media (can you imagine paparazzi covering Korea? Because I'm fascinated by the prospect), and serving that up as an example of why America sucks.
It's not that your rambling, incoherent, verbal diarrhea is all rather silly and simplistic and sort of laughable, even as it remains almost utterly unreadable, it's that you write as if you truly believe that your piss is perfume. That's what really impresses me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you catch Barack on the ESPI's last night.....? Isn't it great?? I'm sure it guaranteed votes from the people who only care about sports sector of the voting population.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: When did he call for mandatory public service? He has called for voluntary public service many times, during the campaign and as president. And he signed a national service bill that tripled the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and provided students and seniors with ways to earn money for college through volunteer work. Please cite precisely where he has ever called for mandatory public service.
quote: Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
Which could be interperted as all students in MS, HS, and college had a mandatory community service requirement. After some outrage the website was changed to
quote: Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
posted
Who the hell is Thor? Oh, wait....I guess Thor=Beleaured=Shinob=Malanthrop. Not the first time I've been accused of being someone else. No possible way more than one person in the world could have an opinion other than yours.
You didn't answer...wasn't Obama great on ESPI's? Maybe he'll be on Jon Stewart next week.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
mal, seriously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion. It's entirely about how you present yourself.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not for not having health insurance. For refusing to get health insurance, which is supposed to become cheaper with restrictions against premium rates for existing conditions.
The bill also states that employers must provide insurance or face a fine of 8% of their payroll so this sort of goes after both groups. The employers and employees. I don't know if a small business who doesn't provide coverage to minimum wage employees will be fined if the employees get health care on their own. My guess is that the business would be fined since the business didn't provide health insurance.
quote: It's based on the existing system already in place in Massachusetts.
[URL=http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.3ef8fb03b7fa1ae4a7ca7738e6468a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_ws_MX&j avax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_viewID=content&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_docName=affordability tool&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_folderPath=/FindInsurance/Individual/Affordability Calculator/&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken]Payment scales according to the Massachusetts system FYI[/URL]
Uhuh. That's the reason. Tell yourself that- it has *nothing* to do with the generic nature of your "opinions," which are not so much opinions as they are a collection of postcards strewn with magazine clippings bearing cryptic messages in the words of other people, or of no one in particular. It's not that your personality is big or looming or simply contrary, it's that it is insubstantial, and always trite.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll swear on my daughter who is named after my dead sister, I don't know who Thor is. I completely understand how it can never be proven online that I don't have alternate logins. In the short time I've visited this site I've been accused of being three other people thus far. I can only say accept that I am an individual poster (not perpetrating as multiples for backup) or not.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
My biggest argument against Obama was that he didn't have enough experience for us to know how he'd go about doing all the spiffy things he said he would. I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself. The idea was good, but devil and details and all.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Not the first time I've been accused of being someone else. No possible way more than one person in the world could have an opinion other than yours. 
