Page 125 of 147 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127135 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1241
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Coming from someone who backs a Chicago pol, that doesnt mean a damn thing.
    I'm glad you call him a Kenyan pol.I guess that's progress in conservative circles.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  2. #1242
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    And they're still millionairs??? Wow! The way you hear them cry all the time, you'd think wouldn't be able to afford food on their table or a roof over their head.
    Interesting side note on income taxes.

    I tried to find some information about corporate income taxes for myself and uncovered a aspect of the methodology that surprised me.

    Did you know that the federal government credit corporate income taxes to the personal income tax statistics based on share of income. The idea is that if these people make these much of the income, they must own this much of the corporations, so we'll just add those dollars to the taxes paid by that income group.

    Of course the top 1% have a huge portion of the income, so they get a big chunk of the corporate income taxes credited to them.

    On that top 1% thing, I think it is a mistake to talk about the top 1%, the top 1% starts at $350k, barely enough to live well, and certainly not enough to considered in the group that makes Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions. Most of the actual people in the top 1% make under a million, almost 90% of them. the top 1/10 of the top 1% is where the money is. This group is about 135,000 people and they make 17% of all income, they pay 37% of federal income taxes, but federal income taxes is only about 58% of total federal taxes. So that 17% of all income taxes is less than 10% of total federal taxes, and their share of the taxes is tiny since they are mostly regressive taxes like payroll taxes. So the top 1/10 of 1% takes in 17% of the income, pays 10% of the taxes, and they are bitching, and a third of Americans who are flat out paupers relative to these guys, are bitching about "soaking the rich".

    It is flippin' brilliant how these folks have gotten people to argue their case for them, against their own interests.

    If it were not so tragic, it would be funny.

  3. #1243
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    You new liberal inductees are really getting old quick on the Boooooshhhhhh mantra. Speaking of which you must have missed all the hold ups with Bush appointees from 2000 to 2008. Political obstruction isnt anything new. Please stop pretending it is.



    You don't understand bi-partisan apointees as cover to partisan policy do you? You're pretty new to this whole political manuevering aren't you? Hagel is a republican apointee that doesn't agree with republican policy and his every agreement with Obama's policy decisions will be called "bi-partisan". Hagel will be used as a political tool. He's going to be used to screw over his own party. I wouldn't approve his nomination either.



    Sigh, I was saying Hagel is incompetent, not Obama.




    Nah its more like having a political maturity over the age of 12 and believing people act in their own self interest, because they DO. . Obama is not in full governing mode, hes in legacy mode. Dont play stupid with me, hes a Chicago political operative: they cement party political power, they act to enrich their supporters and then they act in the interest of those that elect them.



    Stop posting moronic ****, that quote was directly attribted to the surge.




    Yeah like there werent 10 other reasons for military action against Iraq. So how do you feel about action in Afghanistan? (hint: Its a TRAP!)





    Hagel wasnt a political asset in liberal eyes until he trashed republican policy, your comments are laughable, more hilarious is that you think anyone buys your bull****.
    Yep, Bush spending policies were dumb, so the solution was to triple that. Yup, seems to be working.
    Political obstruction isnt anything new. Please stop pretending it is.
    A record number of filibusters say's you're wrong.

    You don't understand bi-partisan apointees as cover to partisan policy do you?
    I understand you're a conspiracy theorist who's immersed in his own cynical view of people. It's a cover for partisan policy now. Couldn't be that maybe it's the best guy for the job? Nahhhh...it's all a cover.

    Hagel will be used as a political tool
    The only tool I see here is you.

    Nah its more like having a political maturity over the age of 12 and believing people act in their own self interest, because they DO.
    Nahhhh it's cynicism in full regalia. You think people always act in their own self-interest? My son is part of an A-Team with Special Forces ( Green Beret ) They don't act on their own self-interest. They work as a team. So making a blanket statement like that is simply false. Unless you think that our SF guys and SEALS are all self serving assholes?

    Stop posting moronic ****, that quote was directly attribted to the surge.
    Wrong. And McCain knows it because he knows Hagels position on the war as do the rest of the Republicans. Hey John..the war was a really stupid idea, but that surge thing, piece of art. McCain even said they didn't like Hagel for opposing Bush. So...do stop posting your bile on this.

    Yeah like there werent 10 other reasons for military action against Iraq. So how do you feel about action in Afghanistan? (hint: Its a TRAP!)
    No, there weren't. You don't go to war because you don't like the guy or he threatened you Dad. That's self interest. You look for the reasons NOT to go to war. It's a last resort, not the first. As for Afghanistan I was for it when it started. That's where bin Laden was with al Qaeda and the Talliban. If we hadn't shifted to Iraq, we'd be out of there by now. But no...Rummy wanted something sexier. He wanted Shock and Awe. We've got to show the people back home some **** blowing up other than a bunch of rocks.

    Hagel wasnt a political asset in liberal eyes until he trashed republican policy, your comments are laughable, more hilarious is that you think anyone buys your bull****.
    That's when I realized he had a funtional brain. He's a prolife conservative Republican and I liked him. He wasn't an echo chamber for Bush. That made him independent. Let me know when you've engaged your brain.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1244
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    I don't know why Adagio is giving you a like. Your rebut was irrelevant and completely missed the point and wrong. Oh wait.....now I know why he gave you a like....lol....Wow.

    And before either of you two go into your pathetic generic Bush Blame let me add the following..

    2001 April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

    2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    January: 2003 Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

    February: 20030The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

    September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

    September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

    November: 20030Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.”

    February: 2004 The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator

    February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.”

    April: 2005 Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”

    February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities perform their public mission successfully.”

    ......and on and on. The documented evidence of the Bush administration trying to get the GSEs under control is extensive so enough with the retarded Bush Blame. I can post more if you need me too.

    And exactly why Child would a bank lower their lending Standards on their own with out being forced to by a corrupt Clinton administration ? What's in it for them ? Bankruptcy ? Because prior to the HUD mandates the GSE's wouldn't touch that kind of loan with a 10 foot pole.

    Next, from 1993 to 1998 Clinton replaced the GSEs CEO's, and their second in charge and over half of their board of directors..Franklin Raines anyone ? Oh he made millions.

    1995 President Clinton introduced his National Homeownership Strategy, which included the expansion of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and changed CRA compliance from a "process" oriented law to a law that focused on results.....for you two that means they HAD TO MAKE LOANS to comply to expanded and enforced CRA regulations.

    Oh wait, a Fantastic quote from Clinton...“Our home ownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation" LOL !!! One extra cent huh ? He was off a few trillion wasn't he ?

    Two more since I'm posting actual quotes....documented History unrevised by corrupt Liberals.

    “I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

    “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL), September 30, 2008

    In 1989, only 1 in 230 homebuyers made a down payment of 3 percent or less by 2007, it was 1 in 3. By 2008 74% of sub-prime and low quality loans were on the books of Govt backed or regulated government agencies. That's the GSE's, FHA etc.

    The regulations that forced the GSEs to buy up trillions in bad debt were in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (the “GSE Act”). Under Clinton.

    The quotas spelled out that INITIALLY 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases had to be loans that were made to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. During the Clinton administration, HUD increased this quota to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. HUD mandated quotas increased to 55% under Bush with sub quotas added that mandated the buying of mortgages from borrowers who were at or below the median income by 80%, Andrew Cuomo was the HUD secretary when he committed and extra 2 trillion to the buying up of "affordable housing" debt.

    Here you two, learn something...This is a HUD dispatch from 2000

    "Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market."....ouch.


    One of CRA's decrees was that banks had a "affirmative obligation" to make loans to the people in its community. Groups like ACORN and other radical inner cities activist argued for an expansion of CRA mandates and Clinton was all too happy to comply. " Affirmative Obligations "????

    ACORN Housing had a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York. Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America had a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America. The New Jersey Citizen Action had a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance" "CRA is the backbone of everything we do "

    After Clintons 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER that basically put CRA on steroids he moved to force those mandated lax ending standards on the GSE's. From the NYT..

    “In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of [subprime] lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.”

    Its actually right on the money isn't it. For the NYT that's unusual. Usually they just unleash Paul Krugman, the old fat cat lady trapped in a frumpy bearded mans body.

    Clinton with the Community Development Act of 1992 shifted the moral hazard to the tax payer of ALL low quality, sub-prime, alt-a loans, etc. From that day, anybody could originate a crap loan and pawn it off to a all to willing Government Service Enterprise and use the "loose under writing standards " mandated and enforced by Clinton to qualify any borrower.

    The 1994 HUD ACT called for "“financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.”

    "A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards."
    The Banks that wouldn't play ball like Wells FARGO were extorted by the DOJ's eric holder.

    So it's clear now to the both of you. That the 2008 Sub-Prime collapse was the brain child of your dear President CLINTON and his cronies that he put into place as the CEO's of the GSEs from 1993 to 1998. Those Cronies ? Got millions in bonus's by running our Country into the ground. Democrats, Liberals....as corrupt as they come. But you guys......blame the banks.

    And Child if your going to attempt to rebut ANY of my post, have the decency to at least be prepared with relevant points and honest data. Now slink away defeated and marginalized and go blame the banks and Bush where you can get away with it. Like at the Democrat Under Ground or the Disney Channel's WebSite.
    I don't know why Adagio is giving you a like.
    I have no idea what you're talking about. When did I do that? Don't just re-post the comment, include the comment number. If I did, it was surely by mistake. I haven't knowingly agreed with anything he's said.

    Your post is exactly what your friend was talking about. The "Kitchen Sink" Approach to debate. Fill your comment with so many things from your talking points, that it's ridiculous. You haven't an original thought in your head, have you?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #1245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    .
    Your trying to defend a leftist political ideology that has murdered over 100 million people.

  6. #1246
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Enough that his primary method of argumentation is personal attacks.
    I thought so.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  7. #1247
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Except they match up almost exactly with liberal talking points I have seen over and over. Do you believe in coincidence?



    Amateur hour? Use some reason and logic? And you accused me of personal attacks. Again your responses match liberal ideas exactly. They dont look very original.



    I will respond to whatever thread I wish and however I please within the rules of the forum. So far, you seem to parrot out the same things I've heard over and over. You are like one giant confirmation bias echo chamber.



    Oh you subscribe to one alright, you just dont have the temerity and honesty to admit it. Again, you arent providing anything new and you act as though your parroted lines are awe inspiring beacons of clear thought. Same discourse, slightly different words and nothing new.
    Except they match up almost exactly with liberal talking points I have seen over and over. Do you believe in coincidence?
    Since I don't use them, I wouldn't know. I don't bother with talking points. I look at that philosophical argument for conservatism and find it easy to critique. I don't get heavily involved in policy issues, and that's where the talking points come from. It's good to be informed on that, but I find conservatism itself the problem.

    "Amateur hour?"- yes Amateur hour.


    Use some reason and logic?
    Oh good! My two favorite things.

    And you accused me of personal attacks.
    Yeah..I could list them, but I don't want to go running through all the comments.

    Again your responses match liberal ideas exactly. They dont look very original.
    Well I am a liberal. But that's in the sense of being open to being wrong. That's a hard place for a conservative to be, but I find it the more rational way of being. But I'm not a member of any party. I'm not surprised that they echo my views. But mine come from a philosophical and historical framework. Those aren't part of any talking points I'm aware of. And I do use logic and reason, as do most liberals. Perhaps thats where you find the similarities.

    I will respond to whatever thread I wish and however I please within the rules of the forum. So far, you seem to parrot out the same things I've heard over and over. You are like one giant confirmation bias echo chamber.
    Fine and so will I. But if you're going to accuse me of throwing the Kitchen Sink...maybe you should take a look at post 1224 by your friend. Lets see if the criticism is really objective. I doubt that you've heard extended critiques of conservatism. What you've heard or read is I'm right, you're wrong talking points. I've posed this question to each conservative I run into... Why are you a conservative? And they never answer it. That's not a talking point. Thats a philosophical and ideological question. It has nothing to do with fiscal cliffs or sequesters, or debt ceilings. It has to do with the fundamental idea that your ideology rests on which I say is baseless.

    Oh you subscribe to one alright, you just dont have the temerity and honesty to admit it.
    Nope. Sorry. I gave those up for Lent. And I am being honest. I never stay in one place long enough to get married to an idea. The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. So...I have no position to justify irrationally. You on the other hand...do. I can't help it if reason, rationality, and logic have a liberal bias.

    I reject positive methodologies and that's what conservatism is. It's a man made system, which is flawed from the start. What makes it really nasty, is that it doesn't recognize its own fallibility. Like the song said, Knowing your right isn't easy, it takes all your energy stayin so strong, but God made you fallible down to the core, and God knows you just might be wrong.

    I'm a fallibalist. I already know that everyone is fallible including me. I could be wrong. Can you? This doesn't come from talking points. This comes from using your brain.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1248
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Citing material without a link avails you nothing. Either link it or dont post it at all. BTW, what was Romney's tax plan?
    And you think that is going to change the date of the report that is listed in both cases? What Tax 'Loopholes' Does Obama Want to Close? : NPR.


    What Tax 'Loopholes' Does Obama Want to Close?

    by Scott Horsley

    June 30, 2011 3:00 PM

    We're go take a closer look now at some of the tax loopholes that President Obama wants to close over the objection of congressional Republicans. There are plenty of loopholes to choose from in the tax code.

    But as NPR's Scott Horsley reports, the White House has focused on some fairly narrow provisions.

    SCOTT HORSLEY: Loopholes and tax breaks cost the federal government more than $1 trillion a year in loss revenue. In his White House news conference yesterday, President Obama went after only a tiny fraction of that.

    President BARACK OBAMA: The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.

    HORSLEY: Corporate jets were a favorite target. Mr. Obama mentioned them half a dozen times during his news conference. He might have thought he could balance the budget just by grounding a few high-flying Gulfstreams, but the president's actual proposal is not so lofty. It would make companies take two extra years to write off their jets.

    Dan Hubbard, of the National Business Aviation Association, says that would generate two or $3 billion over the next 10 years.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1249
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    Romney's tax-plan usually depended on his audience.Kinda like a weather vane.
    I think it was a "well oiled weathervane"
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #1250
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Coming from someone who backs a Chicago pol, that doesnt mean a damn thing.
    Ahhh let the stereotyping begin. Well, at least he's not some dufus that thinks Rape can't make you pregnant. It takes a special talent to come up with that. Or maybe, it's that God want's a pregnancy result from a rape. Yeah,,,lets put that guy on the science committee. Brilliant. That's called an insult dude. A Chicago pol?? Dicto Simpliciter. Stereotyping is really a big part of conservatism isn't it? I mean you do it with Chicago pols, race, liberals. just about everyone.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •