Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009

This could have happened in 2009 had obama not shoved the waste of a $897 billion "stimulus" down our throats. The worst was already behind us at that time but he took a fire and poured gasoline on it. He just couldn't help himself and try to play savior.

And remember...obama told us the stimulus would prevent unemployment from going above 8%. Here we are, 44 months later...

Btw...as tiring as this can be, I'm having just as much fun in this thread as Romney did ripping obama on Wednesday night
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Dude, GTFO. Seriously. All you are spitting out is knee-jerk reactions with ZERO economic background. All your posts are comical and are getting ripped to shreds.

You NEED to read 'Eat the Rich' and 'Wealth of Nations'. Want those poor people to be better off? Give business owners and the 1% some freaking stability from the government and they'll put that money back into the economy to make more money!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Creating jobs). Jesus, the only thing this administration has done is create economic uncertainty and that is the reason the rich are hoarding money.

The stock markets have doubled in value since Obama took office. How much f**king stability do they need to create these jobs that you guys keep talking about. You can read all the books you want, my entire adulthood has been a long experiment with trickle-down economics and there is a mountain of evidence that it does not work. The 1% are the people who sent this economy into a tailspin, and you are suggesting that we need to cater to them even more. They have 50-year low tax rates, their bottom lines growing at a high rate. Where are the jobs? They don't put money back into the economy. They ship jobs overseas where they can take advantage of near slave labor. I'm glad you find that comical, but you don't know nearly as much about economics as you think you do.
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Still waiting on your response about all the mulit-millionaire Democrats...or do you really just demand the evil Republicans to pay more for what Democrats want?

Absolutely they should pay their fair share just like Republicans and I never even hinted at anything else. And, when any of them run for President, they should release their tax returns so that we don't just have to take their word for it that they are paying their fair share and not doing everything possible to avoid paying.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
The stock markets have doubled in value since Obama took office. How much f**king stability do they need to create these jobs that you guys keep talking about. You can read all the books you want, my entire adulthood has been a long experiment with trickle-down economics and there is a mountain of evidence that it does not work. The 1% are the people who sent this economy into a tailspin, and you are suggesting that we need to cater to them even more. They have 50-year low tax rates, their bottom lines growing at a high rate. Where are the jobs. They don't put money back into the economy. They ship jobs overseas where they can take advantage of near slave labor. I'm glad you find that comical, but you don't know nearly as much about economics as you think you do.

OBAMACARE. DODD-FRANK. 2 bills that will continue to hinder this economy.

No, what sent this country into a tailspin was government backed, government pushed agendas. Like putting people into house who had ZERO place in owning a house.

Don't like where you are at right now? DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THAT is the benefit of a free market system. Sorry but I have zero tolerance for people who think they are stuck in their situation. My grandfather had a wife and kids but still managed to work his whole life, pay for his children's university and start his own business when interest rates were a hell of a lot higher than they are now.

I don't know as much about economics as I think I do huh? You're right, it isn't like I study it everyday, take classes on it 5 days a week, or have fantastic professors who teach it. OH WAIT, I do. YOU don't know as much as YOU think you do.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The stock markets have doubled in value since Obama took office. How much f**king stability do they need to create these jobs that you guys keep talking about. You can read all the books you want, my entire adulthood has been a long experiment with trickle-down economics and there is a mountain of evidence that it does not work. The 1% are the people who sent this economy into a tailspin, and you are suggesting that we need to cater to them even more. They have 50-year low tax rates, their bottom lines growing at a high rate. Where are the jobs? They don't put money back into the economy. They ship jobs overseas where they can take advantage of near slave labor. I'm glad you find that comical, but you don't know nearly as much about economics as you think you do.

I'm still having fun.

1) Stock markets are more bipolar than a hollywood teenager on cocaine.

2) Do some homework on allllll the new tax hikes coming for everyone in January, 2013. That's why investors and businesses are holding back: uncertainty.

3) We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Give me a break.

4) The 1%...I thought you sounded like one of those guys at occupy wall street. I know it's a cute catch phrase among your crowd, but it's factually inaccurate. Why did eveything collapse in 2008? Didn't happen beacuse of rich guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It was mentioned a while back in this thread...sub prime mortage crisis. Why did that happen? Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Jimmy Carter), which basically means the federal government FORCED banks to give mortages and loans to people who could not afford to pay them. Get a cup of coffee and a bagel...this one is good. The whole objective of this was to defeat discrimination and racism in mortgage loans. So we gave them to people who couldn't afford them, didn't pay, and bam...everything bottoms out 30 years later. Weird, I know.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
The stock markets have doubled in value since Obama took office. How much f**king stability do they need to create these jobs that you guys keep talking about. You can read all the books you want, my entire adulthood has been a long experiment with trickle-down economics and there is a mountain of evidence that it does not work.

The stock market measures the success of the huge multi-national corporations, the very same huge multi-national corporations that I said do not trickle down. Can you read? I stated this clearly recently on this thread.

The 1% are the people who sent this economy into a tailspin,

Largely false.

and you are suggesting that we need to cater to them even more.

Romney isn't saying that, actually. Not at all. He is saying that we need to limit the loopholes that corporatism has given us, and that the 1% will be fine regardless of who is President. He has stated time and again that we need to empower small businesses, because their trickle-down does work.

They have 50-year low tax rates, their bottom lines growing at a high rate. Where are the jobs? They don't put money back into the economy. They ship jobs overseas where they can take advantage of near slave labor. I'm glad you find that comical, but you don't know nearly as much about economics as you think you do.

I find this very comical, actually.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
OBAMACARE. DODD-FRANK. 2 bills that will continue to hinder this economy.

No, what sent this country into a tailspin was government backed, government pushed agendas. Like putting people into house who had ZERO place in owning a house.

Don't like where you are at right now? DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THAT is the benefit of a free market system. Sorry but I have zero tolerance for people who think they are stuck in their situation. My grandfather had a wife and kids but still managed to work his whole life, pay for his children's university and start his own business when interest rates were a hell of a lot higher than they are now.

I don't know as much about economics as I think I do huh? You're right, it isn't like I study it everyday, take classes on it 5 days a week, or have fantastic professors who teach it. OH WAIT, I do. YOU don't know as much as YOU think you do.

The government didn't put people in houses they couldn't afford, banks did in the absence of adequate regulation to ensure that they didn't put profits over people. Who runs the banks? The 1%.

Speaking of government programs, I haven't heard you complain about the expensive government education loan program or pell grants. Or are those programs of that are good, because you or your classmates use them?

Now that I understand that everything you are arguing is coming out of a book, I kinda want to giggle. I have a daughter your age who things she knows how the world works, too. You are far too young to have zero tolerance for anybody, because you don't have the experience or the wisdom to understand what it is like to be in someone else's shoes. Come back and talk to me when you have a little life experience, sonny.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
bluth been mening to ask you...how do we reply to multiple posts on one reply like your sabove. i can never figure it out.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I'm still having fun.

1) Stock markets are more bipolar than a hollywood teenager on cocaine.

2) Do some homework on allllll the new tax hikes coming for everyone in January, 2013. That's why investors and businesses are holding back: uncertainty.

3) We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Give me a break.

4) The 1%...I thought you sounded like one of those guys at occupy wall street. I know it's a cute catch phrase among your crowd, but it's factually inaccurate. Why did eveything collapse in 2008? Didn't happen beacuse of rich guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It was mentioned a while back in this thread...sub prime mortage crisis. Why did that happen? Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Jimmy Carter), which basically means the federal government FORCED banks to give mortages and loans to people who could not afford to pay them. Get a cup of coffee and a bagel...this one is good. The whole objective of this was to defeat discrimination and racism in mortgage loans. So we gave them to people who couldn't afford them, didn't pay, and bam...everything bottoms out 30 years later. Weird, I know.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

5) According to every reasonable analysis I have seen the sub prime collapse was caused by unregulated derivatives trading. Saying it was the community reinvestment act in and of it's self is pretty disingenuous and misleading. If you want to blame a Democrat for their part in the sub prime mess look no further than Bill Clinton. His administration failed to jump on this even when presented with clear evidence of the impending disaster.

Here is a link to a great series on the whole thing from Frontline

The Warning | FRONTLINE | PBS
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I'm still having fun.

1) Stock markets are more bipolar than a hollywood teenager on cocaine.

2) Do some homework on allllll the new tax hikes coming for everyone in January, 2013. That's why investors and businesses are holding back: uncertainty.

3) We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Give me a break.

4) The 1%...I thought you sounded like one of those guys at occupy wall street. I know it's a cute catch phrase among your crowd, but it's factually inaccurate. Why did eveything collapse in 2008? Didn't happen beacuse of rich guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It was mentioned a while back in this thread...sub prime mortage crisis. Why did that happen? Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Jimmy Carter), which basically means the federal government FORCED banks to give mortages and loans to people who could not afford to pay them. Get a cup of coffee and a bagel...this one is good. The whole objective of this was to defeat discrimination and racism in mortgage loans. So we gave them to people who couldn't afford them, didn't pay, and bam...everything bottoms out 30 years later. Weird, I know.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

It is kinda weird that it took 30 years to bottom out though. I wonder if it is because banks got a little too cute with the types of mortgages that they were offering? I mean, you would think the bottom would have fallen out years before if the community reinvestment act of 1977 was the sole culprit. Seems like I've read from a lot of different sources how banks got very creative with how they approved people for houses that were way out of their price ranges -- sometimes not even requiring them to show income on the application. I also seem to remember reading that they packaged these bad mortgages into securities that they knew weren't worth the paper they were written on and sold them down the line getting them as far away from their banks as possible. The buyers, in turn, (I'm sure I heard this somewhere) sought out insurance to back these crummy investments so that, even if they did fail, they'd get their money. I'm posiitive I heard that is why AIG, the world's largest insurance provider almost failed with the banks who started this whole mess in the first place. Seems like I heard more than once that THIS scheme was in fact the cause of the nation's worst financial collapse since the great depression.

But, hey. I could be wrong. If you say it was Jimmy Carter's fault, I guess I'll just take you at your word.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
The stock market measures the success of the huge multi-national corporations, the very same huge multi-national corporations that I said do not trickle down. Can you read? I stated this clearly recently on this thread.

Oh, I'm sorry Buster. I don't cling to the internet waiting to see what you say. I actually find your posts a bit rude and self-righteous and tend to skip over them. So, maybe I missed that.

Largely false.
Actually, it is not.


Romney isn't saying that, actually. Not at all. He is saying that we need to limit the loopholes that corporatism has given us, and that the 1% will be fine regardless of who is President. He has stated time and again that we need to empower small businesses, because their trickle-down does work.

I have never heard him say that trickle down does not work. Not saying he didn't, and I don't doubt he did. He has said nearly everything that everyone might want to hear. In fact, what he is proposing is trickle down. That's the point of the 20% rate cut -- so the "job creators" can create jobs. That, I've heard him say many, many times.

I find this very comical, actually.

And, this is why I skip over your posts.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
The stock market measures the success of the huge multi-national corporations, the very same huge multi-national corporations that I said do not trickle down. Can you read? I stated this clearly recently on this thread.



Largely false.


Romney isn't saying that, actually. Not at all. He is saying that we need to limit the loopholes that corporatism has given us, and that the 1% will be fine regardless of who is President. He has stated time and again that we need to empower small businesses, because their trickle-down does work.



I find this very comical, actually.

Fully true, all though not all the 1% did, the CEO's of the banks running careless credit default swaps sent the global economies into a tailspin, certainly belong to the 1%
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
in regads to "what caused the financial crisis of 2008" summary of inquiry: enough blame to go around for ALL.
my opinion is that such high (40-1) leverage was straw that broke the camels back. you can be against Dodd Frank but know that it prevents a 40-1 leverage from happening at banks large and small. if for nothing else this makes that legislation at least palatable to me.


Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds
By SEWELL CHAN
WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

The commission that investigated the crisis casts a wide net of blame, faulting two administrations, the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors and risky bets on securities backed by the loans.

“The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done,” the panel wrote in the report’s conclusions, which were read by The New York Times. “If we accept this notion, it will happen again.”

While the panel, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, accuses several financial institutions of greed, ineptitude or both, some of its gravest conclusions concern government failings, with embarrassing implications for both parties. But the panel was itself divided along partisan lines, which could blunt the impact of its findings.

Many of the conclusions have been widely described, but the synthesis of interviews, documents and testimony, along with its government imprimatur, give the report — to be released on Thursday as a 576-page book — a conclusive sweep and authority.

The commission held 19 days of hearings and interviews with more than 700 witnesses; it has pledged to release a trove of transcripts and other raw material online.

Of the 10 commission members, the six appointed by Democrats endorsed the final report. Three Republican members have prepared a dissent focusing on a narrower set of causes; a fourth Republican, Peter J. Wallison, has his own dissent, calling policies to promote homeownership the major culprit. The panel was hobbled repeatedly by internal divisions and staff turnover.

The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence. It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”

Like Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., predicted in 2007 — wrongly, it turned out — that the subprime collapse would be contained, the report notes. Democrats also come under fire. The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.” Timothy F. Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the crisis and is now the Treasury secretary, was not unscathed; the report finds that the New York Fed missed signs of trouble at Citigroup and Lehman, though it did not have the main responsibility for overseeing them.

Former and current officials named in the report, as well as financial institutions, declined Tuesday to comment before the report was released.

The report could reignite debate over the influence of Wall Street; it says regulators “lacked the political will” to scrutinize and hold accountable the institutions they were supposed to oversee. The financial industry spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with it made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

On the other hand, the report is harsh on regulators. It finds that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

It says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates some banks, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans, blocked states from curbing abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.”

“The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” the report states. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.”

The report’s implications may be felt more in the political realm than in public policy. The Dodd-Frank law overhauling the regulation of Wall Street, signed in July, took as its premise the same regulatory deficiencies cited by the commission. But the report is sure to be a factor in the debate over the future of Fannie and Freddie, which have been run by the government since 2008.

Though the report documents questionable practices by mortgage lenders and careless betting by banks, one striking finding is its portrayal of incompetence.

It quotes Citigroup executives conceding that they paid little attention to mortgage-related risks. Executives at the American International Group were found to have been blind to its $79 billion exposure to credit-default swaps, a kind of insurance that was sold to investors seeking protection against a drop in the value of securities backed by home loans. At Merrill Lynch, managers were surprised when seemingly secure mortgage investments suddenly suffered huge losses.

By one measure, for about every $40 in assets, the nation’s five largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses, meaning that a 3 percent drop in asset values could have wiped out the firm. The banks hid their excessive leverage using derivatives, off-balance-sheet entities and other devices, the report found. The speculative binge was abetted by a giant “shadow banking system” in which the banks relied heavily on short-term debt.

“When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans and the risky assets all came home to roost,” the report found. “What resulted was panic. We had reaped what we had sown.”

The report, which was heavily shaped by the commission’s chairman, Phil Angelides, is dotted with literary flourishes. It calls credit-rating agencies “cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.” Paraphrasing Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” it states, “The fault lies not in the stars, but in us.”

Of the banks that bought, created, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in mortgage-related securities, it says: “Like Icarus, they never feared flying ever closer to the sun.”
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
The government didn't put people in houses they couldn't afford, banks did in the absence of adequate regulation to ensure that they didn't put profits over people. Who runs the banks? The 1%.

Speaking of government programs, I haven't heard you complain about the expensive government education loan program or pell grants. Or are those programs of that are good, because you or your classmates use them?

Now that I understand that everything you are arguing is coming out of a book, I kinda want to giggle. I have a daughter your age who things she knows how the world works, too. You are far too young to have zero tolerance for anybody, because you don't have the experience or the wisdom to understand what it is like to be in someone else's shoes. Come back and talk to me when you have a little life experience, sonny.

The 1% run the large, multi-national banks, not the community banks. So if you are all pissy about that then support your local community based bank. I love that people like you think that all these bankers got into a room and thought of a way to screw everybody. Guess what, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Everybody felt the recession and the snails pace our economy is growing at.

I haven't complained about that because it hadn't been brought up. But I'll tell you this, NO ONE at my school has federal student aid. My university does not take any state or federal aid. My parents worked their asses off to put my sister and I through the school of our choice. And guess what, I'll be doing the same for my kids one day.

Nothing of what I am arguing is coming out of a book. It is coming from my professors, my father and grandfather and straigh COMMON SENSE.

And yeah I can have zero toleranace because I know where my family comes from. I visited my grandparents as often as possible in the tiny town my father came from. My grandparents (other side) stay true to their roots as well, and live far below their means to donate ridiculous amounts of money because they remember where they came from.

Sorry it took me a bit to respond, I was in one of those classes on a subject I apparently know nothing about.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
And, this is why I skip over your posts.

Are you aware of how stupid you look when you quote something and then say you don't actually read it?

Succinct rebuttal. I tip my hat to you.

Fully true, all though not all the 1% did, the CEO's of the banks running careless credit default swaps sent the global economies into a tailspin, certainly belong to the 1%

That's like blaming the Germans for starting World War II. Nazis are to blame. Don't blame rich people altogether when it was a very select group of people. "Ahhh the 1% did this!" GTFO that is childish.

I have what I feel is a very liberal opinion on this matter. If I were omnipotent I would have chopped the banks up Teddy Roosevelt-style. In my opinion, if you're "too big to fail," then you're also too big to exist.

There is only one thing you can blame here, and that is the disgusting amount of corporatism in this country. The federal government is in bed with Wall Street and that's what did this.

But let's not pretend we didn't have the federal government proclaiming that the "American Dream" was spreading like never before.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iW5qKYfqALE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
By the way...didn't see it mentioned but the broader U6 unemployment number remained unchanged at 14.7%

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
The 1% run the large, multi-national banks, not the community banks. So if you are all pissy about that then support your local community based bank. I love that people like you think that all these bankers got into a room and thought of a way to screw everybody. Guess what, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Everybody felt the recession and the snails pace our economy is growing at.

I haven't complained about that because it hadn't been brought up. But I'll tell you this, NO ONE at my school has federal student aid. My university does not take any state or federal aid. My parents worked their asses off to put my sister and I through the school of our choice. And guess what, I'll be doing the same for my kids one day.

Nothing of what I am arguing is coming out of a book. It is coming from my professors, my father and grandfather and straigh COMMON SENSE.

And yeah I can have zero toleranace because I know where my family comes from. I visited my grandparents as often as possible in the tiny town my father came from. My grandparents (other side) stay true to their roots as well, and live far below their means to donate ridiculous amounts of money because they remember where they came from.

Sorry it took me a bit to respond, I was in one of those classes on a subject I apparently know nothing about.

if you had any experience to go on, you'd remember that as early as 2005 or so banks all over the country were aggressively marketing through television, mail, telemarketing and any other means they could loans with unbelievably high ceilings, no proof of income required, and low, low interest rates (for the time) to everyone -- not just those who could afford these loans, but everyone. I already owned a house, and I got hounded day and night by these greedy bastards. And, they weren't just casting a wide net either. They were giving loans to anyone who asked for them. It was almost unheard of between 2006 and 2007 for anyone to be turned down for a mortgage. The recession didn't begin until December 2007. Banks weren't reacting to it, they were causing it. Perhaps you will learn about that next semester and then we can have a real two-way conversation about it instead of you putting words in in the mouths of "people like me."

Here is a bit of advice ... other people's perspective is nowhere near a substitute for your own. i hope that elite university of yours that does not accept state or federal aid (actually, this is somewhat unbelivable) will one day teach you to think for yourself. i admire the fact that you have great respect for your grandparents and your professors, but you grew up in a different world than they did. Life experience comes from experiencing life. You will be wasting the amazing gift your partents have given you by providing you an education if you are there just to find evidence to reinforce what you already "know." you aren't going to like hearing this, but you don't know sh**. It's not your fault, you haven't lived long enough to gain wisdom. Real knowledge isn't just facts and figures, but all of that and wisdom. Ask anyone who has lived into their 30s or 40s and they will tell you this: When I was a teenager and in my early 20s, nobody could tell me anything I didn't already know. You might be pissed off right now because I'm saying all of this to you, but one day you will remember that I told you how little you know and you will agree with me. It happened to me and, I'd venture to say, most people on this board regardless of political affiliation. It's part of being young.

So, the moral of this story is this: Don't be so aggressive when you are talking to someone who has more experience than you. You can learn only so much in your classes and from talking to your grandpa. Real education comes from experience, which you do not have yet. perhaps that more experienced person understands things in a deeper, more personal way than you are capable of right now.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
i think the following quote illustrates Go Irish central point above:

"When i was 17 i could hardly stand to have my old man around....but when i was 27 i was amazed to see how much he had learned in 10 years"
-Mark Twain
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
i think the following quote illustrates Go Irish central point above:

"When i was 17 i could hardly stand to have my old man around....but when i was 27 i was amazed to see how much he had learned in 10 years"
-Mark Twain

That is the quote I had in mind when I was writing this ND NYC.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Putting aside the uncanny timing, and questionable accounting, this number is what it is because the BLS decided to count 600,000 more part time jobs.

Good news for the BLS is that this number can't be revised until after the election. After all, it'd be a shame if their campaign contributions went toward the losing candidate.

Yeah, and those polls are made up too.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
Putting aside the uncanny timing, and questionable accounting, this number is what it is because the BLS decided to count 600,000 more part time jobs.

Good news for the BLS is that this number can't be revised until after the election. After all, it'd be a shame if their campaign contributions went toward the losing candidate.

re: "uncanny timing":
are you saying for this jobs report that it was not given when it usually is and has always been?

re: "questionable accounting"
are you saying that they have changed the way they "count" jobs for just this one report?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
re: "uncanny timing":
are you saying for this jobs report that it was not given when it usually is and has always been?

re: "questionable accounting"
are you saying that they have changed the way they "count" jobs for just this one report?

I'm "saying" that even if you take these numbers as accurate, there still aren't a whole lot more fully-employed folk in the workplace.
 
P

PraetorianND

Guest
I'm "saying" that even if you take these numbers as accurate, there still aren't a whole lot more fully-employed folk in the workplace.

I think we all understand that these figures are not a perfectly accurate indication of the unemployment rate. However, both candidates use the figures in their arguments so at least it gives some basis for comparison. They may not be "accurate" but they are relatively accurate when a voter is considering a candidate.
 
P

PraetorianND

Guest
Fair enough. Part-time work is better than no work.

That's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying if both candidates use this data as a basis for their arguments then the data is relatively accurate because it offers a basis for comparison.

If at the debate Romney says, unemployment is too high, look at the numbers! And then today a job report comes out saying that unemployment has dropped, it doesn't make sense to then say, well those numbers aren't accurate. If they aren't accurate he shouldn't be using them as a basis for his argument in the first place. Same thing goes for Obama.

So for the basis of deciding who you are voting for, the numbers are accurate.

Unless you're saying that this jobs report itself is fraudulent, then that's a whole other issue.
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
if you had any experience to go on, you'd remember that as early as 2005 or so banks all over the country were aggressively marketing through television, mail, telemarketing and any other means they could loans with unbelievably high ceilings, no proof of income required, and low, low interest rates (for the time) to everyone -- not just those who could afford these loans, but everyone. I already owned a house, and I got hounded day and night by these greedy bastards. And, they weren't just casting a wide net either. They were giving loans to anyone who asked for them. It was almost unheard of between 2006 and 2007 for anyone to be turned down for a mortgage. The recession didn't begin until December 2007. Banks weren't reacting to it, they were causing it. Perhaps you will learn about that next semester and then we can have a real two-way conversation about it instead of you putting words in in the mouths of "people like me."

Here is a bit of advice ... other people's perspective is nowhere near a substitute for your own. i hope that elite university of yours that does not accept state or federal aid (actually, this is somewhat unbelivable) will one day teach you to think for yourself. i admire the fact that you have great respect for your grandparents and your professors, but you grew up in a different world than they did. Life experience comes from experiencing life. You will be wasting the amazing gift your partents have given you by providing you an education if you are there just to find evidence to reinforce what you already "know." you aren't going to like hearing this, but you don't know sh**. It's not your fault, you haven't lived long enough to gain wisdom. Real knowledge isn't just facts and figures, but all of that and wisdom. Ask anyone who has lived into their 30s or 40s and they will tell you this: When I was a teenager and in my early 20s, nobody could tell me anything I didn't already know. You might be pissed off right now because I'm saying all of this to you, but one day you will remember that I told you how little you know and you will agree with me. It happened to me and, I'd venture to say, most people on this board regardless of political affiliation. It's part of being young.

So, the moral of this story is this: Don't be so aggressive when you are talking to someone who has more experience than you. You can learn only so much in your classes and from talking to your grandpa. Real education comes from experience, which you do not have yet. perhaps that more experienced person understands things in a deeper, more personal way than you are capable of right now.


Therefore, vote Romney because he is older than Obama.

Experience can also turn someone into a blind, inflexible turd. Just sayin'.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Adding 114,000 jobs is nothing to brag about. Look at the market today, up barely to start based on the headline and trickling down as the numbers are digested (giving people indigestion). Headline below 8% unemployment gets some people excited in Obama's camp but I think you are hard pressed to find any economists that find this report to be anything encouraging.
 

jason_h537

The King is Back
Messages
6,945
Reaction score
581
Putting aside the uncanny timing, and questionable accounting, this number is what it is because the BLS decided to count 600,000 more part time jobs.

Good news for the BLS is that this number can't be revised until after the election. After all, it'd be a shame if their campaign contributions went toward the losing candidate.

Don't tell me you are buying into the "Job Truthism" conspiracy?
 
Top