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

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

Fenton said:
Yep, now CRA compliance has expanded and the DOJ has claimed enforcment rights as Holder continues to do what he did under Janet Reno.

Fleece the banks

Fleece the banks??? :shock: The Banks fleeced all of us.

OpportunityCost · Feb 22, 2013

Whipsnade said:
Fleece the banks?:lamo

Maybe they were trying to get some taxpayer money back from the banksters.

<So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?>

<Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.>

Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? - Bloomberg

I bet thats about what CRA compliance would cost. Just sayin.

OpportunityCost · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
If that makes you feel like you're somehow validated...I don't spend time with nonsense and I won't waste time rebutting your laundry list of talking points. Come back when you get over your faux outrage over your own nonsense. You draw your own conclusions and base them on garbage. You hold a baseless ideology which you can't defend because there is nothing underneath it and the public knows that. It's hot air. That's why you lost. It's why you'll continue to lose.

blah blah blah, rhetorical egomania at large.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Oh shut it. This is what you posted:

Which is a huge sense of denial about both sides being responsible for sequestration. Which I pointed out. It is decidedly NOT personal, its a comment on how you can deny culpability for your fellow political travelers. Both sides are holding the bag on this one.

The Democrats and Obama are willing to compromise. That's what they've been doing. As usual the Republicans refuse, because as they've always stated they won't support anything Obama wants. And we all know that. There is a $2 revenue to $3 cuts available and the Republicans would rather risk national security, cause higher unemployment, and another recession, and a whole lot of suffering on the backs of the American people over their principle. And these aren't even a raise in taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Their principles? Well Obama has his own principles and he won the election. In other words HIS principles are the principles that the American people agree with. You're free to hold your principles and if you win an election, you'll have the opportunity to apply them. That's how it works. By rejecting a $2 to $3 plan, you'll end up with a $1 to $1 sequestration. You'll opt for something much worse if you can't get your way? You'd risk national security, high unemployment, and recession because you refuse to close some tax loopholes? That's the actions of petulant childrend. And you lost the election. And the people want a balanced approach, and the people spoke in November. If it's a question over principles...the Repubs lost that vote. Obama doesn't have to govern by Republican principles. He has his own, and the people agree with them. Try to remember the FACT that you can't demonstrate principles as true. That's why you have yours, and others have theirs. If you lose an election, YOURS take a back seat to his in the final analysis. When you win, yours take the front seat. Until then...stop obstructing.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

Whipsnade said:
I don’t/haven’t condemned the banks .but I do think that when they get big enough that there called too big to fail, it’s time to chop them up into smaller morsels.eace

They aren't just too big to fail. Now their too big to jail. So they can't fail, and they're above the law. :bravo:

OpportunityCost · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
The Democrats and Obama are willing to compromise. That's what they've been doing. As usual the Republicans refuse, because as they've always stated they won't support anything Obama wants. And we all know that. There is a $2 revenue to $3 cuts available and the Republicans would rather risk national security, cause higher unemployment, and another recession, and a whole lot of suffering on the backs of the American people over their principle. And these aren't even a raise in taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Their principles? Well Obama has his own principles and he won the election. In other words HIS principles are the principles that the American people agree with. You're free to hold your principles and if you win an election, you'll have the opportunity to apply them. That's how it works. By rejecting a $2 to $3 plan, you'll end up with a $1 to $1 sequestration. You'll opt for something much worse if you can't get your way? You'd risk national security, high unemployment, and recession because you refuse to close some tax loopholes? That's the actions of petulant childrend. And you lost the election. And the people want a balanced approach, and the people spoke in November. If it's a question over principles...the Repubs lost that vote. Obama doesn't have to govern by Republican principles. He has his own, and the people agree with them. Try to remember the FACT that you can't demonstrate principles as true. That's why you have yours, and others have theirs. If you lose an election, YOURS take a back seat to his in the final analysis. When you win, yours take the front seat. Until then...stop obstructing.

Bolded is rhetorical horse crap, underlined is outright lies.

Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.
Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.

His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
blah blah blah, rhetorical egomania at large.

No. It's me telling somebody else I don't have time to waste on his talking points. Over the last decade the Republican Party almost destroyed the country. Now we hear the justificationist BS trying to blame ( drum roll please ) Bill Clinton. You had your chance and you blew it. You hate government because you insist that it doesn't work and steals your money. And when you get into office...you do everything possible to make that come true. You want power, but you can't govern. So get out of the way already! I have no time or interest in waiding through the meta-arguments and minutia made by a bunch of conspiracy theorists. As Occam said, the simplest answers are usually the right ones. There is never a need to add unnecessary contingincies.

This thread is about the SOTU address. You didn't like it. We did. We won. This is where we are going. Want to come along, or get left behind?:2wave:

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Bolded is rhetorical horse crap, underlined is outright lies.

Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.
Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.

His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.

Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.

YOUR taxes have been cut. These are now loopholes. The top 1% had their taxes raised. I doubt if that had any effect on you since your taxes have been kept at the same rates as the Bush Cuts.

Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.

Yeah. so what? When you cut spending you are taking money out of the economy. When you do that you lose jobs. We want it put into the economy. We have a disagreement on what grows the economy. And we won that argument. Get over it.

His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.

That's right, but he can't very well represent YOUR side of that equation and ignore the side that elected him based on what he proposed. And he's not going to, because elections do have consequences. So there will always be a divided electorate. His first responsibility is to those that elected him to do what he said he'd do. He's not going to govern based on your conservative ideas. Your conservative ideas
There is no lie in the post. And you aren't having your taxes raised. And you are objecting to the closing of loopholes. And just bolding the text and underlining what YOU view as lies or crap doesn't in fact make it either. Opinion and Fact. Remember??:doh

He doesn't govern as a conservative. Did you think that he would? :shock:

Do you even know why you're a conservative??

obvious Child · Feb 22, 2013

APACHERAT said:
But talking about sea skimming nuclear tipped missiles and Russian bombers dropping nukes, even though today's bombers are used to deliver low yield nuclear cruise missiles shows you don't know what your talking about.

Do you even know what a sea skimmer is?

China, Russia and the United States are very unlikely to ever use nuclear weapons. That's the whole idea of having a nuclear arsenal, the threat of nuclear annihilation. It's been the nuclear arsenal that has prevented another major world war. Instead we have small proxy wars.

*sigh*

"We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first."

Oh wait. I said that. You agree with me and then call me wrong. Doesn't that mean you just called yourself wrong?

Capabilities wise, China can block access. Political willingness is another story as we both agree on but you decided to still call something you argued as wrong. I'll chalk that up to your tiredness for calling your own argument wrong.

Israel is very likely use nukes for it's survival.

More likely MAD. The use of German Built Dolphin submarines and their nuclear tipped Harpoons is far more of MAD strategy then actual usage. Iran likely knows where Israel's silos are. Its Dolphins however, are another story entirely.

South Africa got rid of their nukes when they saw that the communist / socialist terrorist were going to gain control of their country.

That's one take on it:

IPS – Abandoning Nuclear Weapons

And the ANC is hardly Communist or Socialist.

The big threat is North Korea, Pakistan and soon Iran and their nukes and they seem not to be to worried being incinerated by our nukes if they were to use their nukes. That's the problem.

Why do you think that North Korea and Iran are not worried about nuclear war?
What in their histories suggests that they are willing to sacrifice their power structures?

Fenton · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
If that makes you feel like you're somehow validated...I don't spend time with
nonsense and I won't waste time rebutting your laundry list of talking points. Come back when you get over your faux outrage over your own nonsense. You draw your own conclusions and base them on garbage. You hold a baseless ideology which you can't defend because there is nothing underneath it and the public knows that. It's hot air. That's why you lost. It's why you'll continue to lose.

Said the pot to the kettle....

You still haven't rebutted one of those "talking points" ....it should be easy, theyr'e just "baseless hot air" right ?

I think your chicken, scared, defeated, ....wait this one word sums all of those adjectives.

Liberal.

Fenton · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
blah blah blah, rhetorical egomania at large.

I know, he's runnin' scared .

He didn't reply to one of those talking points of mine.

You think it would be easy too. Theyr'e just "talking points".

Fenton · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
Fleece the banks??? :shock: The Banks fleeced all of us.

This post explains it all doesn't it.

Never mind that under HUD mandates, the GSEs were put under quota sytem to buy up bad loans from banks who under a Clinton executive order were forces to lower their lending standards.

Never mind that the GSEs bough trillions in low quality mortgages, under HUD authority, and then mixed them with junk loans and pushed them out into the investment market with a AAA score.

Nah, it was...the banks.

Always suspect tthe simplest of answers when debating with Libs.

Sure 99% of the time they're just uneducated about the subject, but the other 1% just making **** up.

obvious Child · Feb 22, 2013

Fenton said:
This post explains it all doesn't it.

Never mind that under HUD mandates, the GSEs were put under quota sytem to buy up bad loans from banks who under a Clinton executive order were forces to lower their lending standards.

Never mind that the GSEs bough trillions in low quality mortgages, under HUD authority, and then mixed them with junk loans and pushed them out into the investment market with a AAA score.

Nah, it was...the banks.

Yes, it was. You are deliberately ignoring that the vast majority of NPLs were from non-covered banks. While it can be argued that banks not within the framework adopted poor lending standards, that is STILL the banks' fault for doing so. While it can also be argued that the GSEs created incentives by buying up mortgages and securtizing them, many banks themselves securitized bad loans as well. You are ignoring the simple fact that non-covered bank originated loans make up the vast majority of NPLs. Not the covered banks that fell under HUD and the CRA. No one made non-covered banks to make NINJA loans. They freely did it themselves. Sure, the GSEs created a moral hazard, but they never forced non-covered banks to originate the vast majority of NPLs that exist today.

Sure 99% of the time they're just uneducated about the subject, but the other 1% just making **** up.

Amusing coming from you.

APACHERAT · Feb 22, 2013

obvious Child said:
And the ANC is hardly Communist or Socialist. QUOTE]

Have you ever been to South Africa ? I have.

The ANC is a socialist political party, a terrorist organization during the 70's and 80's.

I'm kind of lazy today so I apologize for using Wikipedia, Wiki should never really be used as a source but as a starting point for further research.

>" The African National Congress (ANC) is South Africa's governing political party, supported by its Tripartite Alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), "< African National Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terrorist war that the ANC waged back in 60's, 70's and 80's was just one battle of the Cold War. We lost that one depending on whos side you were supporting, the western allies or the Soviets. It was the Soviet Union who were supporting the ANC back during the Cold War.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

Fenton said:
Said the pot to the kettle....

You still haven't rebutted one of those "talking points" ....it should be easy, theyr'e just "baseless hot air" right ?

I think your chicken, scared, defeated, ....wait this one word sums all of those adjectives.

Liberal.

And I think you're delusional. Look at this statement: "You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies."

Your concern is over the future. Our concern is over the now, and for a good reason. You can't accurately predict the future. In fact you have a miserable record at doing that very thing. It isn't that the deficit isn't important to address. But it's not the most important issue since the goal of debt reduction is a long range issue. Jobs are a real, right now, immediate condition to address. A person without a job doesn't care about your long range projections of theoretical ideas that can't demonstrate why they're true. He cares about his immediate survival. He doesn't have the luxury of entertaining your theories. He has immediate concerns.

And this: "You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks."

That's a ridiculous cop out to your own conservative history. The unemployment rate for blacks is nothing new. It didn't start in 08. The very idea that it took a Civil Rights Act of Congress and a Voting Rights Act to insure that conservatives would be blocked from discriminating against blacks tells us what we need to know. If racism wasn't so embedded into conservatism, it wouldn't have taken an Act of Congress to deal with it. And you want to try and use "unemployment" as evidence of racism? It's the very thing that conservatives have practiced forever. So you toss this out as "evidence" of something that Obama is a racist or that Democrats are the racists.

Your ideology of conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. And you fought it all the way. Conservatives resisted this change. They continue to resist the change that is taking place in the country. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

And this: "Your States are bankrupt," My state is not bankrupt. It's actually one of the top ten states in the country in it's management. In fact my states support your states. We send more money to the Federal government than we receive. With you it's taking more than you put in. States like New York and Jersey actually support Mississippi and Alabama and never think twice about helping when disaster hits, unlike the red states.

And this: "your politicians are pathological"

That's garbage. Your politicians refuse to accept science. They deny climate change, they deny evolution which they think comes straight from the pits of Hell. They think that rape can't cause a pregnancy. They think the earth is 6,000 years old for Gods sake. They claim that congress is made up of 78 to 81 members of the Communist party. They claim that Obamacare is Armegeddon. They filibuster their own bills. McConnel filibustered his own proposal. Your politicians conspired to destroy Obama's presidency on the very day of his innauguration in 09, and thats not some theory. It's documented with exactly who they were and they don't deny it. You claim the president was born in ****ing Kenya despite all the evidence to render this into the trash can.

The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order.

And this: "and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda."

You cry over the gun violence in the cities, but you resist any efforts to control that violence with common sense gun regulations that a majority of Americans want. Even after 20 babies are gunned down, you hold your guns in higher regard than the lives of 6 year olds. You have a right to a gun. But they have a right to go to school and live to be seven. And that right carries more weight than your infatuation with being a cowboy.

As for this: "I think your chicken, scared, defeated, ....wait this one word sums all of those adjectives.
Liberal." Get ready for a surprise. Nobody cares what you think. :shock: We can all see what you think, and it's boring and baseless ad hominem attacks. That's not a recipe for winning anything. It's a prescription for losing.

You attack. Look at every comment you make. It's an attack. You offer nothing as to what makes your ideas viable, or imaginitive. You have no solutions to any problem. You're an empty suit. If you want a debate then make YOUR case. Attacking the other guy doesn't tell anybody about what you'd do. And that's because what you offer doesn't work. We've seen it. Who should we all believe? You or our lyin eyes? What do you base your ideas on?? Supprt them, or you have nothing to offer. Are you suggesting that you're ideas are infallibly correct? How can they be? They all come from a fallible source. And that's something you have yet to come to grips with. If they are wrong, can you accept that possibility and change? I can. Can you say as much or is your idealogy more important to you than the truth that maybe theres'a a fly in the ointment?

OpportunityCost · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
YOUR taxes have been cut. These are now loopholes. The top 1% had their taxes raised. I doubt if that had any effect on you since your taxes have been kept at the same rates as the Bush Cuts.

Actually SS taxes went up on everyone. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...ready to expire.

Adagio said:
Yeah. so what? When you cut spending you are taking money out of the economy. When you do that you lose jobs. We want it put into the economy. We have a disagreement on what grows the economy. And we won that argument. Get over it.

Really. So where does the money come from? Does it come from taxpayers? Who can stimulate the economy better with it in THEIR pocket? Winning an election doesnt win an argument. So did republicans win the argument in 2010?

Adagio said:
That's right, but he can't very well represent YOUR side of that equation and ignore the side that elected him based on what he proposed. And he's not going to, because elections do have consequences. So there will always be a divided electorate. His first responsibility is to those that elected him to do what he said he'd do. He's not going to govern based on your conservative ideas. Your conservative ideas

His first responsibility is to govern capably and not play politics first and govern second. Ask anyone but you die hard liberals which way hes governing and its politician first, country second.

Adagio said:
There is no lie in the post. And you aren't having your taxes raised. And you are objecting to the closing of loopholes. And just bolding the text and underlining what YOU view as lies or crap doesn't in fact make it either. Opinion and Fact. Remember??:doh

Democrats object to even slowing the rate of spending. They sure arent making any cuts. I find it hilarious that Romney ran on closing loopholes and now democrats are suddenly embracing that as a way of raising revenue. I thought you werent going for any GOP ideas? As for taxes, the AHCA is a big tax, the attempts to raise gas taxes, changing SS taxes, etc etc.

Do you even know why you're a conservative??

You are the alternative? Id rather be able to think for myself.

OpportunityCost · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
And I think you're delusional. Look at this statement: "You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies."

Your concern is over the future. Our concern is over the now, and for a good reason. You can't accurately predict the future. In fact you have a miserable record at doing that very thing. It isn't that the deficit isn't important to address. But it's not the most important issue since the goal of debt reduction is a long range issue. Jobs are a real, right now, immediate condition to address. A person without a job doesn't care about your long range projections of theoretical ideas that can't demonstrate why they're true. He cares about his immediate survival. He doesn't have the luxury of entertaining your theories. He has immediate concerns.

And this: "You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks."

That's a ridiculous cop out to your own conservative history. The unemployment rate for blacks is nothing new. It didn't start in 08. The very idea that it took a Civil Rights Act of Congress and a Voting Rights Act to insure that conservatives would be blocked from discriminating against blacks tells us what we need to know. If racism wasn't so embedded into conservatism, it wouldn't have taken an Act of Congress to deal with it. And you want to try and use "unemployment" as evidence of racism? It's the very thing that conservatives have practiced forever. So you toss this out as "evidence" of something that Obama is a racist or that Democrats are the racists.

Your ideology of conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. And you fought it all the way. Conservatives resisted this change. They continue to resist the change that is taking place in the country. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

And this: "Your States are bankrupt," My state is not bankrupt. It's actually one of the top ten states in the country in it's management. In fact my states support your states. We send more money to the Federal government than we receive. With you it's taking more than you put in. States like New York and Jersey actually support Mississippi and Alabama and never think twice about helping when disaster hits, unlike the red states.

And this: "your politicians are pathological"

That's garbage. Your politicians refuse to accept science. They deny climate change, they deny evolution which they think comes straight from the pits of Hell. They think that rape can't cause a pregnancy. They think the earth is 6,000 years old for Gods sake. They claim that congress is made up of 78 to 81 members of the Communist party. They claim that Obamacare is Armegeddon. They filibuster their own bills. McConnel filibustered his own proposal. Your politicians conspired to destroy Obama's presidency on the very day of his innauguration in 09, and thats not some theory. It's documented with exactly who they were and they don't deny it. You claim the president was born in ****ing Kenya despite all the evidence to render this into the trash can.

The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order.

And this: "and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda."

You cry over the gun violence in the cities, but you resist any efforts to control that violence with common sense gun regulations that a majority of Americans want. Even after 20 babies are gunned down, you hold your guns in higher regard than the lives of 6 year olds. You have a right to a gun. But they have a right to go to school and live to be seven. And that right carries more weight than your infatuation with being a cowboy.

As for this: "I think your chicken, scared, defeated, ....wait this one word sums all of those adjectives.
Liberal." Get ready for a surprise. Nobody cares what you think. :shock: We can all see what you think, and it's boring and baseless ad hominem attacks. That's not a recipe for winning anything. It's a prescription for losing.

You attack. Look at every comment you make. It's an attack. You offer nothing as to what makes your ideas viable, or imaginitive. You have no solutions to any problem. You're an empty suit. If you want a debate then make YOUR case. Attacking the other guy doesn't tell anybody about what you'd do. And that's because what you offer doesn't work. We've seen it. Who should we all believe? You or our lyin eyes? What do you base your ideas on?? Supprt them, or you have nothing to offer. Are you suggesting that you're ideas are infallibly correct? How can they be? They all come from a fallible source. And that's something you have yet to come to grips with. If they are wrong, can you accept that possibility and change? I can. Can you say as much or is your idealogy more important to you than the truth that maybe theres'a a fly in the ointment?

I might read this if it were a Xyphlin post. But you?

This is a tactic known as the kitchen sink. Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies. If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that. Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology. God, I wish we could thumbs down posts.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

Fenton said:
I know, he's runnin' scared .

He didn't reply to one of those talking points of mine.

You think it would be easy too. Theyr'e just "talking points".

That's the whole problem. They're talking points. You have none of your own. If this is simply a vehicle for you to post talking points that were handed to you, you've exposed yourself as a mindless fool. You're entire argument is based on the authority of whoever issued the talking points. But what is their authority based on? Is this an exercise in dragging out talking points? I have access to tons of talking points but that's not what this is about. At least for me. I can't speak for you. Somebody is already doing that. They tell you what to think. Congratulations. You can't think for yourself, and we all know that. :applaud

Look through this thread and aside from your insults, you have nothing to say. I don't care about your talking points. I'm more interested in why you'd want to be a conservative which is a question you won't touch. And I know why. The argument in this country is over philosophy vs ideology, and philosophy won. Maybe it's time you reexamine the ideology. It could have a fatal flaw in it. In fact, I know it does, but I suspect you haven't found it yet.

Jack Hays · Feb 22, 2013

Adagio said:
That's the whole problem. They're talking points. You have none of your own. If this is simply a vehicle for you to post talking points that were handed to you, you've exposed yourself as a mindless fool. You're entire argument is based on the authority of whoever issued the talking points. But what is their authority based on? Is this an exercise in dragging out talking points? I have access to tons of talking points but that's not what this is about. At least for me. I can't speak for you. Somebody is already doing that. They tell you what to think. Congratulations. You can't think for yourself, and we all know that. :applaud

Look through this thread and aside from your insults, you have nothing to say. I don't care about your talking points. I'm more interested in why you'd want to be a conservative which is a question you won't touch. And I know why. The argument in this country is over philosophy vs ideology, and philosophy won. Maybe it's time you reexamine the ideology. It could have a fatal flaw in it. In fact, I know it does, but I suspect you haven't found it yet.

The top 1% of earners already pay 38% of all federal income taxes.

Donc · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
I bet thats about what CRA compliance would cost. Just sayin.

Your wrong.Just sayin.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Actually SS taxes went up on everyone. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...ready to expire.

Click to expand...

Really. So where does the money come from? Does it come from taxpayers? Who can stimulate the economy better with it in THEIR pocket? Winning an election doesnt win an argument. So did republicans win the argument in 2010?

His first responsibility is to govern capably and not play politics first and govern second. Ask anyone but you die hard liberals which way hes governing and its politician first, country second.

Democrats object to even slowing the rate of spending. They sure arent making any cuts. I find it hilarious that Romney ran on closing loopholes and now democrats are suddenly embracing that as a way of raising revenue. I thought you werent going for any GOP ideas? As for taxes, the AHCA is a big tax, the attempts to raise gas taxes, changing SS taxes, etc etc.

You are the alternative? Id rather be able to think for myself.

Actually SS taxes went up on everyone. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...ready to expire.

Not for me. But then I'm retired. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...have been kept for 98% of the people. They'v been extended.

Really. So where does the money come from? Does it come from taxpayers? Who can stimulate the economy better with it in THEIR pocket? Winning an election doesnt win an argument. So did republicans win the argument in 2010?

We're coming out of recession. The more money injected into the economy, the more jobs are created. We have jobs bills that don't get voted on. And yes it comes from taxpayers. And in these circumstances that money put back into the economy is needed. We could invest in our infrastructure and rebuild the entire country and put millions to work, who will spend the money they are making on TV's or computers, or cloths or food, or a new car, get them off food stamps, have them paying taxes. An economy requires spending to move goods and services. That demand opens the doors for more jobs. And jobs are the most important issue rigth now. And yes, the Republicans did win in 2010. Your problem was that the people that got elected were set against governing, and the people lost their infatuation with what you offered in 2010. So you lost in 2012. When Repubs won in 2010, Obama had to make concessions to that decision. Now that table has turned.

His first responsibility is to govern capably and not play politics first and govern second. Ask anyone but you die hard liberals which way hes governing and its politician first, country second.

Which he does. That's why he got reelected. Who am I going to ask about this? A Conservative?? :roll: What you may think about his governing is a minority viewpoint. His approval ratings are in the upper 50% range. The GOP?? in the tank. And Congress is about 10%. The majority of the country agrees with him. He's not going to worry about appeasing a minority in this country that wants to block everything he does.

Democrats object to even slowing the rate of spending.

No they don't. In fact Obama has slowed the rate of spending more than anyone in the past 60 years.

I find it hilarious that Romney ran on closing loopholes and now democrats are suddenly embracing that as a way of raising revenue.

Then you have a short memory. Obama was calling for closing the loopholes and deductions on Corporat jets, and yachts back in 2011. It was never just raising taxes on the top 2%. The loopholes were part of it. Romney capitulated on that because he knew he didn't have a winning hand.

I thought you werent going for any GOP ideas?

It wasn't a GOP idea. It goes back to 2011.

Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:00 PM PDT.
Obama calls for White House debt meeting on Thursday; Boehner opens door on loopholes?

Obama: GOP tax breaks for corporate jets, closing loopholes hold up debt ceiling talks
Washington : DC : USA | Jun 30, 2011 at 6:54 AM PDT

Obama said; "It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we've got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we've got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we've got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make."

Republicans hadn't even considered this at that point.

You are the alternative? Id rather be able to think for myself.

But you don't. We already know that other guy doesn't. He needs talking points. So you would be a conservative because it's better than being a person that question conservatism? Sounds like you're an ideologue to the bone. Do you even question your beliefs? I mean...there is no justification for being a conservative, not that they don't try with appeals to authority like the other guy, or appeals to tradition. But those are not logically valid ideas for a justification for an ideology. So what is it based on? Do you even know? How can I take somebody seriously when they don't even know why they believe what they believe?

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
I might read this if it were a Xyphlin post. But you?

This is a tactic known as the kitchen sink. Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies. If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that. Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology. God, I wish we could thumbs down posts.

Of course it is. Which is exactly how I'm going to respond to a battery of talking points. The only difference is that these are MY thoughts. Not something given to me.

Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies.

That's what talking points do. I responded to several of his. But mine aren't talking points. They're my own and they're my view of the psychology and tactics of conservatives. I told our friend that I'm not going to engage in a back and forth over who can gather the most talking points riddled with distorted data to try and prove a point. Would you accept a series of those from me? I highly doubt it. The part you underlined came from a book that I wrote. If you have something to say that's an original thought, then skip the provided talking points and make your case. Otherwise, it's amateur hour. Use some reason and logic and historical reference to make your case.

If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that.

I didn't ask you to read it. It wasn't addressed to you. But since you picked up on it, you should know by now that I don't concern myself with your opinion or anybody's for that matter. That guy decided to post a bunch of crap. He claimed I wouldn't engage him. Well, there you have it. Consider yourselves engaged. If you can't handle what the response is then find a thread where people like short quips and insults. I don't. I learned how to express my views a long time ago.

Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology.

Your reading comprehension is weak. It's not an ideology. It's a critique of one. Know the difference. I never offered any ideology nor defended one in that paragraph. I don't subscribe to them. They're all false. Including yours.

obvious Child · Feb 22, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Have you ever been to South Africa ? I have.

The ANC is a socialist political party, a terrorist organization during the 70's and 80's.

Socialism is not defined as anything you dislike. Furthermore, my parents have been there and it's HARDLY a Socialist country. It's questionable if the government even works in parts of the country.

I'm kind of lazy today so I apologize for using Wikipedia, Wiki should never really be used as a source but as a starting point for further research.

>" The African National Congress (ANC) is South Africa's governing political party, supported by its Tripartite Alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), "< African National Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terrorist war that the ANC waged back in 60's, 70's and 80's was just one battle of the Cold War. We lost that one depending on whos side you were supporting, the western allies or the Soviets. It was the Soviet Union who were supporting the ANC back during the Cold War.

The Cold War is not the best tool in which to define political ideologies. The US and Russia switched sides in Mozambique purely because the other side started to support one faction. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.

What did the ANC do as a government that was Socialist? And don't go about defining Socialism as anything you don't like.

Fenton · Feb 22, 2013

obvious Child said:
Yes, it was. You are deliberately ignoring that the vast majority of NPLs were from non-covered banks. While it can be argued that banks not within the framework adopted poor lending standards, that is STILL the banks' fault for doing so. While it can also be argued that the GSEs created incentives by buying up mortgages and securtizing them, many banks themselves securitized bad loans as well. You are ignoring the simple fact that non-covered bank originated loans make up the vast majority of NPLs. Not the covered banks that fell under HUD and the CRA. No one made non-covered banks to make NINJA loans. They freely did it themselves. Sure, the GSEs created a moral hazard, but they never forced non-covered banks to originate the vast majority of NPLs that exist today.

Amusing coming from you.

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.

Adagio · Feb 22, 2013

Jack Hays said:
The top 1% of earners already pay 38% of all federal income taxes.

And they're still millionairs???:shock: 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.

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

Adagio

Well-known member

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

Adagio

Well-known member

Adagio

Well-known member

OpportunityCost

Adagio

Well-known member

Adagio

Well-known member

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Fenton

Fenton

Fenton

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

APACHERAT

Adagio

Well-known member

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

Adagio

Well-known member

Jack Hays

Traveler

Donc

Adagio

Well-known member

Adagio

Well-known member

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Fenton

Adagio

Well-known member