Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Wisconsin state politics LOL!

Wisconsin state politics LOL! (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But you generally aren't one of our resident conservatives who refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
OAW
Indeed.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You already know the answer to that. After all it was YOU who posted the following:



That part in blue is pretty explicit n'est-ce pas?
I agree. There's a pretty explicit loophole when you get to the word "unless."

That "unless" pretty much invalidates the "absolutely" part.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It must be sad to live in such irrational fear.
Yet he believes the Democrats are the cause of fear and paranoia.
Freaking amazing the thought processes involved in that belief.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Yet he believes the Democrats are the cause of fear and paranoia.
Freaking amazing the thought processes involved in that belief.
Who believes that? Your snide, snappy, unthought out replies, often make it hard to discern what you're saying.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Oh stop the lying. Gov. Walker did NOT campaign on eliminating collective bargaining for public worker unions. Just look at poll numbers dude. He wouldn't have been elected had he come out and said that.
It's easy to pop into WI politics out of the blue to claim what Walker was and was not known for or what he did or did not campaign on, but it seems the only ones who didn't know what Walker was going to do were Democrats TODAY. They certainly knew what he was going to do DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

Scott Walker's Views on Collective Bargaining No Surprise

And while the specific collective bargaining proposal in the budget repair bill was not a regular line in his stump speech, it was also no secret that he would make significant changes to Wisconsin’s collective bargaining rules.

The Politifact/Journal Sentinel rating suggests otherwise. “It seemed to us like the first public hint Walker gave that he was considering eliminating many union bargaining rights was at a Dec. 7, 2010 Milwaukee Press Club forum, some four weeks after the election.”

Really? That claim is undermined by the paper’s own reporting. On August 30, the Journal Sentinel ran an article on plans by Walker and Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, his Democratic opponent, to save the state money by revamping health insurance plans for public employees. The reporter spoke to Ryan Murray, a top policy adviser for the Walker campaign, who explained the candidate’s plan. “The way the proposal would work is we would take the choice out of the collective bargaining process," Murray said.

So does taking the choice out of the collective bargaining process mean ending it for health care? The reporter certainly seemed to think so. “[Murray] said school districts often have some of the most expensive health benefits in Wisconsin and could receive cheaper insurance through the state if they didn't have to negotiate with unions about who would insure their members.”

What was clear to the reporter was also clear to the teachers’ unions. “Our members oppose taking away their rights to collective bargaining, so they would definitely raise their voices against it,” said Christina Brey, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the union leading protests today. (Emphasis added.)

Although the Politifact/Journal Sentinel evaluation of Walker’s claims makes reference to this story, the paper failed to include this rather significant quote in its write up.

So a top Walker adviser made an on-the-record comment that both a reporter and a union representative understood as meaning an end to collective bargaining. And another teachers’ union, the American Federation of Teachers, found Murray’s comment so threatening that they included it in a flyer warning teachers to vote against Walker who, they claimed, wanted to “void parts of labor contracts.”

The paper followed up on September 13:

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democratic candidate, each have proposals to lower health benefit costs.

Walker wants to make it easier for school districts and local governments to buy insurance through a state-run health benefits program. Barrett would require local governments to insure their workers through a similar program, and he is interested in having schools eventually do the same.

How much money the proposals would save is a question. But both would require legislation. That's because current state law makes it difficult if not impossible to make any changes in health benefits without the approval of the unions that represent government workers. Under state law, health benefits that are part of an employee's total compensation are subject to collective bargaining.

So Walker’s campaign proposal to lower costs by changing the health care benefits of public employees would “require legislation” because the law “makes it difficult if not impossible to make any changes” outside of the collective bargaining process.

Sounds like precisely what Walker is doing now, no?

What’s more, as Milwaukee county executive, Walker used every legal means he could to circumvent collective bargaining procedures. In a Journal-Sentinel article that ran on October 29, 2010, just three days before the election, Richard Abelson, head of the local AFSCME chapter, accused Walker then of doing as county executive what he’s trying to do as governor. “The premise is still that they want to bypass collective bargaining and adopt wages and working conditions through the budget process.”
You and others can feign the confusion and shocked-outrage, I'm not buyin' it.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 10:45 AM
 
No one has ever said that Walker pulled this out of his ass. No one ever said the union leadership didn't get wind of his intentions. The charge is that he did not CAMPAIGN on it. You posted a single article where a single reporter discusses this with a single campaign official. Which pretty much supports my point. Walker himself did NOT go around on a regular basis campaigning on the extent and scope of his plans in this regard. It wasn't a part of his regular stump speech. It wasn't a part of his usual talking points. There's a reason why he failed to mention that he was going to push legislation that would require public unions to re-certify themselves each year and forbid the state from automatically deducting union dues from workers' paychecks (none of which has anything to do with healthcare coverage BTW). Because it's VERY UNPOPULAR!

As always, you are a formidable debater my friend. That response you gave was a really good body blow no doubt. Definitely not a knock out punch though. And a fair assessment would still have me ahead on points.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now when you examine the part of your statement that is in blue ... it's clear that the crux of your argument is centered around the supposed inability or impracticality of actually HAVING the hearing. But when you examine the actual text of the LAW that is in blue .... it's clear that the requirement actually says "unless for good cause such NOTICE is impossible or impractical". And again, there was nothing stopping the GOP Senators from providing 24 hours of public notice.
You're still missing the point OAW. A 2-hour NOTICE would allow a great many people to storm the State House. A 24-hour NOTICE would make it near IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A HEARING because this would allow the Unions to bus their shouting, angry mobs in from virtually anywhere in the country.

I can't. As I said earlier I don't know if they did or didn't give 2 hour notice.
But you allude to the ideal that they may not have in what seems little more than the default mentality of implied GUILT by virtue of the letter after their name. C'mon my friend, speaking of being reasonable here.

The real question is what was the "good cause" that 24 hour notice wasn't given? Was there something stopping them from posting a notice of the scheduled meeting on the Wisconsin state government website at a minimum?
I would say their safety for one and the ability to actually hold a HEARING over the shouting, angry Union mobs. Please don't bring up NOTICE again as if you don't understand that the NOTICE is for the HEARING. From the news accounts I read, they could barely hear enough as it was to have gotten the vote off to the Senate. Imagine another 22 hours NOTICE.

You're missing the point again my friend. The only way GOP Senators could utilize this maneuver and LEGALLY hold a vote without a quorum of 20 was to strip all the budget or fiscally related language out of the bill.
I'm sorry OAW, but you're still missing the point here. The only way GOP Senators would utilize this maneuver would be to work around the maneuver of the Democrats LEAVING THE STATE FOR WEEKS ON END. You act as if they'd wanted to pull this maneuver the entire time and that it had nothing to do with the fact that the legislative process had already been retarded by Dems unwillingness to RETURN TO THEIR OFFICES.

You know ... like the language requiring the public workers to kick in more out of their paycheck for their healthcare and pension plans. Everything! If anything financial was left in the bill then BY LAW the quorum of 20 would have been necessary. The fact that they could even do it like this proves that collective bargaining rights for public workers does not in and of itself impact the budget. Therefore ... Gov. Walker's insistence that this was a budget issue is patently false.
This is patently dishonest OAW. So you're saying that if a legislative measure can be manipulated in such a way as to strip monetary verbiage from it that it must have no monetary impact? Seriously? Again, I'm not buyin' it. Everyone and their grandmother acknowledges that collective bargaining has a monetary impact on State budgets. That's not what's being argued here if you've been following along. Unless you're saying the rights to collective bargaining granted in 2009 for more than 30,000 UW employees gives them the right to bargain for LESS MONEY, I'm not really sure where you think MORE MONEY is going to come from other than the WI budget.

What does requiring union members to re-certify the union every year have to do with the state budget? Nothing! What does eliminating the convenience of union members paying their union dues directly out of their own paychecks have to do with the state budget? Nothing! It's their money!! Please ... explain to me how that is any different than an employer automatically making contributions to the United Way for an employee out of their own paycheck?
Likewise, what does granting Unions DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS do for Workers' Rights? Nothing! By not having Unions and related Union dues, these folks can spend more in any one of a number of fine WI establishments generating greater tax revenue for the State. If the Union exists to serve the worker and the worker does not feel the Union is doing so while at the same time saddling the State with greater fiscal burden, why should the Union exist? This would be lose-lose and has a budgetary impact.

This was all about busting the union my friend. Come on now ... I can understand if in your view the union should be busted. That's fine ... we can agree to disagree on that point. But you generally aren't one of our resident conservatives who refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
Like I said, I don't buy off on the importance of the rhetoric swirling around this issue. If Walker cannot address the increasing obligations of the Union lobby on the WI taxpayer without it being deemed "busting" them, then they cannot collectively bargain for more union dues and unequal protections without "busting" WI. Either way is fine with me, but to deny what's really at stake here for the Union lobby is equally disingenuous.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Mar 13, 2011 at 07:58 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
As always, you are a formidable debater my friend. That response you gave was a really good body blow no doubt. Definitely not a knock out punch though. And a fair assessment would still have me ahead on points.

OAW
I admit to sweatin' you from time to time OAW, but I got this!
ebuddy
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Who believes that? Your snide, snappy, unthought out replies, often make it hard to discern what you're saying.
This was part of your response,
Originally Posted by OldManMac
It must be sad to live in such irrational fear.
to who?
Have you forgotten?
And he did say Democrats were in large part responsible for the fear and paranoia, in this very thread.

Some beliefs deserve snide comments, laughter, derision.
Don't like my comments, do a turtle and pull your head into your shell and ignore me.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2011, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I admit to sweatin' you from time to time OAW, but I got this!
Well lo and behold .....

MADISON, Wisconsin — A Wisconsin judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state's new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect.

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order Friday to temporarily block the law as District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, had requested.

Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure and Gov. Scott Walker signed it last week.

A spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald declined to comment, citing the legal fight. Messages left for comment with Walker's spokesmen, as well as Democratic legislative leaders, were not immediately returned.
Judge temporarily blocks Wis. union law - Politics - msnbc.com

Now you do recall me saying that this was going to happen right?*

OAW

* - And all they will do in response is to do the same maneuver again ... this time with 24 hours notice as I also predicted.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2011, 01:21 PM
 
No offense, but that's not a huge revelation. The country has descended into suing about every law they don't like anymore. In a way it's swung the balance of power to the judicial branch of the government.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2011, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now you do recall me saying that this was going to happen right?*

OAW

* - And all they will do in response is to do the same maneuver again ... this time with 24 hours notice as I also predicted.
Exactly. So why does this dumbass Democrat DA even bother ?

Waste of tax payers's money.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2011, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Exactly. So why does this dumbass Democrat DA even bother ?

Waste of tax payers's money.

-t
Well I suppose there's that whole "rule of law" thing to consider.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2011, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well I suppose there's that whole "rule of law" thing to consider.

OAW
Right and the rule of law included an exception. If that exception is not given hearing, all we're really doing is establishing how politics are destroying the judicial system. Of course it's not surprising as it is the only recourse they have for the failures of their party. Took 'em a long time to make the call didn't it. The law must be worded poorly.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well I suppose there's that whole "rule of law" thing to consider.
The rule of law is dead in this country. It's been for years.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The rule of law is dead in this country. It's been for years.

-t
You're right; corporations are the law now. They make the rules.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You're right; corporations are the law now. They make the rules.
Fact: no corporation wields this degree of power without the help of government.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You're right; corporations are the law now. They make the rules.
Meh. It's politicians that have systematically undermined the rule of law.
Activist judges did their part. Corporations surely put some pressure on politicians, but are hardly able to do so w/o their willing helpers in Washington.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Meh. It's politicians that have systematically undermined the rule of law.
Activist judges did their part. Corporations surely put some pressure on politicians, but are hardly able to do so w/o their willing helpers in Washington.
They're not "willing," they're paid off. And the corporations have fought hard to make that payment legal. Describing that as "some pressure" is a ridiculous error, or a deliberate lie.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Fact: no corporation wields this degree of power without the help of government.
Which is pretty easy when you can buy whatever government you want.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Which is pretty easy when you can buy whatever government you want.
Fact: you're exactly right.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 08:44 PM
 
Yes, corporations pay off politicians and get special favors and considerations…

…and the geniuses of the left respond by giving more control to the side of the corrupt relationship with the real power and even more money at their disposal. Absolutely ****ing brilliant.

Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 08:50 PM
 
Except for when they want to change corporate regulatory frameworks, in which case they are anti-business or else meddling?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
They're not "willing," they're paid off. And the corporations have fought hard to make that payment legal. Describing that as "some pressure" is a ridiculous error, or a deliberate lie.
"Pressure" can take on many forms - a blatant illegal payoff, campaign contributions, a seat on the board, threat of layoffs, painting a gloomy economic picture etc...

And yes, those politicians are willing; if they weren't, you'd say that they have no choice but to give in. I think they do have a choice, and they deliberately pick the wrong side.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Yes, corporations pay off politicians and get special favors and considerations…

…and the geniuses of the left respond by giving more control to the side of the corrupt relationship with the real power and even more money at their disposal. Absolutely ****ing brilliant.
The "geniuses of the left" have been demanding a curtailment of campaign contributions since, well, forever. Then the right calls corporate donations "free speech" and secures their largess for another generation. The President even called out the Supreme Court on this issue at the last State of the Union address.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The "geniuses of the left" have been demanding a curtailment of campaign contributions since, well, forever.
Every single effort to "curtail" campaign contributions has been an utter failure, because they are designed to be. They have done NOTHING to limit the actual amount of money being thrown about, only the perceived amount.

The real purpose of campaign finance restrictions are to protect the corrupt incumbents and make it harder on those who might challenge them, which has been successful in this regard and is certainly in the interest of the corporations who they do "business" with.

Then the right calls corporate donations "free speech" and secures their largess for another generation.
Ah yes, the myth that the right takes all the money and the left doesn't. The fact is that donations go to whomever the corporations believe will win, no matter which party.

The President even called out the Supreme Court on this issue at the last State of the Union address
Because he's an unprincipled, tactless tool.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2011, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The "geniuses of the left" have been demanding a curtailment of campaign contributions since, well, forever.
Just like world peace.

-t
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Ah yes, the myth that the right takes all the money and the left doesn't.
And then there is this,
An Advocate Who Scares Republicans
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/bu....html?_r=1&hp#
And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.

At the request of the states’ attorneys general, all 50 of whom have banded together to investigate the mortgage servicing industry in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, she has fed them ideas that have become part of a settlement proposal they are putting together. Recently, a 27-page outline of the settlement terms was given to banks — terms that included basic rules about how mortgage servicers must treat defaulting homeowners, as well as a requirement that banks look to modify mortgages before they begin foreclosure proceedings. The modifications would be paid for with $20 billion or so in penalties that would be levied on the big banks.

Naturally, the banks hate these ideas, too. So the Republican members of the subcommittee had another purpose as well: to use the hearing to serve as a rear-guard action against the proposed settlement.
Explain this please.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 06:34 AM
 
If true, this is why Obama will lose the next election, from the same link above,
It has been much noted in recent months that President Obama seems unwilling to start a fight with Republicans. Maybe that’s why he has shied away from nominating Ms. Warren to a job for which she is so clearly suited. But if protecting financial consumers — and helping the millions of Americans struggling to hold onto their homes — isn’t worth fighting for, then what is?
This is why I didn't think he had the balls to be president and it seems I was right.
Hillary has the stones and I hope she runs against him.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Who believes that? Your snide, snappy, unthought out replies, often make it hard to discern what you're saying.
You did a turtle didn't you.

C'mon Old Man, Man up.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
And then there is this,
An Advocate Who Scares Republicans
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/bu....html?_r=1&hp#

Explain this please.
Few points to be made here:
  • This has zero thread relevance. Explain this please.
  • Elizabeth Warren was a de facto appointment outside the necessary Congressional purview. For NY Times readers, this means it is a convenient maneuver to avoid Senate Hearings that would require her to explain her background, Obama Administration housing policies, and how she would act as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In short, she doesn't have legislative authority under the CFPB, but she's acting as head regardless from an appointed office in Washington which is neither open nor transparent.
  • She's authored a 27-page piece of legislation that includes a myriad of new reporting and administrative burdens; requires the reduction of borrowers’ principal amounts in certain instances; forces lenders to perform “duties to communities,” such as preventing urban blight; and is little more than a $20 billion block grant to delinquent borrowers.
  • The bill is extremely vague, provides vast oversight, and imposes destructive liabilities that will have them bailing out these failed institutions within 5 years. For example, included in this settlement is the language; "unfair and deceptive business practice clauses that would expose servicers to lawsuits for any "material" violation of the agreement." Really? What on earth does that mean and why would anyone sign such nonsense?
  • This also includes a clever means to pass what a Democratic Congress already voted against in 2009; a measure that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to force servicers to do principal write-downs. This was rejected on the grounds that it rewards delinquent borrowers at the expense of responsible borrowers and encourages bad behavior. THE VERY BEHAVIORS THAT LEAD TO THE CRISIS. It's no surprise Democrats don't want to hold a Senate vote to confirm her, they didn't in 2007, and they didn't want her ideals of "fixing" the problem in 2009 either.
  • There have already been Federal investigations that have uncovered only technical problems and that very few borrowers actually lost their homes.
  • Delaying foreclosures only prolongs the pain. HSBC and others have already begun freezing foreclosure activities and they are at a 36-month low. This creates uncertainty for consumers and lenders, retards new housing construction, and exacerbates neighborhood blight. It should also be noted that more than half of all mortgages adjusted during this housing crash have redefaulted within 12 months and continued government meddling into foreclosures has kept the housing market from finding a bottom allowing prices to recover.

I know it's much more fun to simply say Republicans are being a stick in the mud of progress and fairness, but the reality is they are opposing bad policy. Policy that is nothing more than feel-good legislation that does nothing for the actual problem, exacerbates the moral hazards that contributed to the problem, provides yet another angle for wealth redistribution, all the while subverting the congressional process' written mandate for making such an appointment.

i.e. you gotta read the settlement to know what's in it and why it's bad and you have to consider whether or not they have the right to even do it.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
If true, this is why Obama will lose the next election, from the same link above,

This is why I didn't think he had the balls to be president and it seems I was right.
Hillary has the stones and I hope she runs against him.
Naturally, because it's much more than that. Obama is nothing if not politically shrewd. His party had the opportunity of nominating Warren in 2007, but they didn't. They had the opportunity to pass measures similar to those authored by Warren in 2009 and they opposed them on the grounds that they exacerbate the problems they're trying to fix. Warren does not have a sound track record in this regard and her ideals have already been deemed bad policy by both parties.

When folks express disappointment in Obama for not taking it to Republicans, they're generally talking about his silence on the WI "Union-busting" measure that opposes "rights" his own employees don't have. i.e. He has to be silent otherwise it would be easy to rip him to shreds for being the worst kind of hypocrite and while his party had every opportunity to make it right for Federal employees, this was not a concern of theirs then, why should it be now?
ebuddy
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Few points to be made here: [LIST][*] This has zero thread relevance. Explain this please.
In reply to smacintush.
Republicans are doing the bidding of the banks who don't want regulation or be held accountable and penalized for gouging consumers then and now.
The banks are getting their moneys worth.

The rest of your post just shows your defense of big banks that were the cause of the near collapse of their industry, and puts the blame on dumb borrowers doing it to themselves by just being stupid.
Financial institutions took government, taxpayer money, failed to provide loans to small businesses and paid themselves with bonuses, and when questioned? it was in their contract, pretty much their right.
Well they kept the bright bulbs who are now exploiting the dumbasses who are at their mercy.

I'm sure when the Wisconsin unions contract is broken, which you claimed isn't a right, better teachers will flood the school boards for jobs right?
Who wouldn't want to be teacher, be blamed for all the ills of the education system etc.

You'll end up with glorified babysitters turning out dumber asses to be exploited even more.

Nice future.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2011, 05:24 PM
 
Anti-teacher climate humbles the conservative husband of a Cleveland educator.
Instead, I want to quote another self-described conservative who had a lot to say about character. His recent e-mail to me echoed the sentiments expressed by many readers who object to various states' legislative attacks against public school teachers, including those in Ohio. These letters and e-mails are not from teachers, but from those who love them.

To insulate this man and his wife from the current blood sport of teacher-bashing, I won't name them. He did give me permission to share the recent letter of apology he wrote to his wife:

Dear Honey,
I'm sorry.

I am a conservative husband, belong to the Tea Party and I voted for John Kasich. I have been married to a Cleveland teacher for almost 14 years and my vote let her down.
I apologize:

For letting people tease you about having the summer off and not asking them to thank you for the tough days ahead that begin in early August. I know for a fact you work more hours in those 10 months than many people do in 12. All those hours are earned.

For complaining that my Sunday is limited with you because you must work.

For making you think you have to ask permission to buy a student socks, gloves and hats.

For not understanding that you walk through a metal detector for work.

For leaving dirty dishes in the sink [when you awoke] for your 4 a.m. work session. I should know you have to prepare.

For thinking you took advantage of the taxpayers. Our governor continues to live off the taxpayer dole, not you.

For counting the time and money you spend to buy school supplies.

For not saying "thank you" enough for making the world and me better.

I love you.


Thankfully, this teacher is not an anomaly. Despite recent attacks on their pay, motives and even their supposed lifestyle, the majority of public school teachers across the country continue to bring their talent and high ideals to some of our most troubled districts.
Consider the take-home message for America's schoolchildren:
Conservative politicians emboldened by brand-new legislative majorities insist that children are our most precious resource, but then pass bills guaranteed to undermine the teachers entrusted with our children's future.
Nevertheless, those same public school teachers under attack continue to report for duty every day.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2011, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
The rest of your post just shows your defense of big banks that were the cause of the near collapse of their industry, and puts the blame on dumb borrowers doing it to themselves by just being stupid.
You see DUMB BORROWERS because of your own hangups screener. I mentioned delinquent borrowers and I mentioned responsible borrowers. You read BANKS ARE SWINDLING MONEY with no regard for how legislation affects the market. You think you know what is needed to resolve the issue because you don't know what already existed at the time, why, and what became of it. The practices being blamed for both the housing crisis and market crash were already regulated. Remember, before the notion of government funded safety nets, defaults were bad things that lenders didn't want. All of a sudden they become their own commodity? I mentioned bailing out delinquent borrowers and I mentioned bailing out the financial institutions. I stated that this exacerbates bad behavior. You see BANK APOLOGIST because of your own hangups.

Most businesses want to remain in business which requires maintaining solvency. Banks with shoddy practices fail. If they are not allowed to fail, they become too big to fail, and they continue taking risks that are in conflict with the desire to remain solvent... just like the government itself. If they do lend they're preying on poor people, if they don't they're preying on the taxpayer. Your argument is rock-solid to be sure, but not for the reasons you might think.

Financial institutions took government, taxpayer money, failed to provide loans to small businesses and paid themselves with bonuses, and when questioned? it was in their contract, pretty much their right.
Well they kept the bright bulbs who are now exploiting the dumbasses who are at their mercy.
I love this; Financial institutions took government, taxpayer money... as if they went directly to the taxpayer and took it, no middle man - POOF! - no government at all. Then, the institutions should take the money and risk it on bad investments... again. That's what you're asking for screener. You want the government to take more money of yours for another regulatory bureaucracy that will have to bail these institutions out with your money again in 5 years. That'll show 'em!

I'm sure when the Wisconsin unions contract is broken, which you claimed isn't a right, better teachers will flood the school boards for jobs right?
Who wouldn't want to be teacher, be blamed for all the ills of the education system etc.
You'll end up with glorified babysitters turning out dumber asses to be exploited even more.
Not only is it not a right IMO, it is unequal protection and there's no reason for it. The whole; "blamed for all the ills of the education system" and "glorified babysitters turning out dumber asses to be exploited even more" stuff is just drama. Like when you ask your daughter to take out the garbage and she tells her sister you yelled at her about the garbage. No one is blaming all the ills of the education system on teachers, but folks are citing more successful models; more efficient types of education systems. You like to frame this as some type of Draconian measure when it is nothing of the sort. These people have as much right to speak as those with the special seat at the table of government bargaining on their own pay. Yes screener, even if you don't like it.

Although I'm certain I've not seen dumber asses in a post before.

Nice future.
For who, the rotten kids and bad parenting that's causing all the ills of the education system? See how annoying that is?
ebuddy
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2011, 03:56 AM
 
You really are a defender of pure greed at the expense of dumb asses and expectant dumber asses.
The practices being blamed for both the housing crisis and market crash were already regulated.
You have heard of the Glass Steagal act that Phil Graham got repealed.
Glass–Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there were credit default swaps that weren't regulated at all.

And then you get the predatory lending to unsophisticated borrowers, "Dumb asses"and more colorfull terms used by some lenders.
Predatory lending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A nice example,
A federal statute requires notice to the borrower of a change in servicing agent, but does not protect the borrower from being held delinquent on the note for payments made to the servicing agent who fails to forward the payments to the owner of the note, especially if that servicing agent goes bankrupt, and borrowers who have made all payments on time can find themselves being foreclosed on and becoming unsecured creditors of the servicing agent.
Who's protected huh?
Warren does not have a sound track record in this regard and her ideals have already been deemed bad policy by both parties.
Right, I think she is the right person,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/op...R_HP_LO_MST_FB
Later, she took the lead in pushing for consumer protection as an integral part of financial reform, arguing that many debt problems were created when lenders pushed borrowers into taking on obligations they didn’t understand. And she was right. As the late Edward Gramlich of the Federal Reserve — another unheeded expert, who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to rein in predatory lending — asked in 2007, “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers?” And he continued, “The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”
Dumb asses, you shoud have known better.
Greed is god, err, good.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2011, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
You really are a defender of pure greed at the expense of dumb asses and expectant dumber asses.

Dumb asses, you shoud have known better.
Greed is god, err, good.
It's part of their core beliefs in religious values.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
You really are a defender of pure greed at the expense of dumb asses and expectant dumber asses.

You have heard of the Glass Steagal act that Phil Graham got repealed.
Glass–Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there were credit default swaps that weren't regulated at all.
BZZZT! A few problems;
1. You've misspelled Glass-Steagall
2. You've misspelled Gramm as it was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall. These errors indicate a fundamental ignorance around the whole of the topic.
3. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law by Clinton. Why?
  • Prior to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (repeal of Glass-Steagall), investment banks were already allowed to trade and hold the assets being blamed for the crisis such as mortgage backed securities, credit-default swaps, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, etc... and in fact it was the gradual loosening of this law over many years that finally led to its repeal. It was found to have had little to no impact on the market behaviors it oversaw and so many exemptions had been granted prior that the case for its repeal was an easy one on both sides of the aisle.
  • The most diversified holders survived the crisis, the least did not. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers for example, did not meddle in depository institutions and they became the milk-carton kids of this fiasco. Surely, if tight reigns on this market activity would've averted the crisis, the least diversified (those trading least in the assets being blamed for the crisis) would've illustrated best-practice, but... this was not the case.
  • European legislators adopted a series of recommendations for bank capital regulations referred to as Basel II and the SEC in wanting to get a jump on this international regulatory environment, adopted its own set of regulations in 2004 giving the SEC complete oversight authority over investment banking. An SEC spokesman, John Heine said of the enhanced regulation; "The Commission's 2004 rule strengthened oversight of the securities markets, because prior to their adoption there was no formal regulatory oversight, no liquidity requirements, and no capital requirements for investment bond holding companies."
  • The fact is, there was an overall increase in regulations and the blind eye to derivatives, etc... being blamed for the crisis is simply not looking at the problem deeply enough to find that these items were not central to the failures; falling prey to partisan talking points about the evils of free-market capitalism.

And then you get the predatory lending to unsophisticated borrowers, "Dumb asses"and more colorfull terms used by some lenders.
Predatory lending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A nice example,

Who's protected huh?
First of all, it was people that would generally be deemed "high-risk" that the government sought to protect by mandating lenders to provide a certain amount of their loans to this demographic. Bush in fact perpetuated a great deal of this because politicians want to be able to tout poor and minority home ownership increases under their watch. I'm sorry the socialist utopia idea went south as most do, but this is not a failure of "free market greed" as much as the failure of bleeding-heart naivete in its meddling in the private sector and the drunkenness associated with maintaining power and office. It might surprise you to know that the humans of government are not somehow above the human condition. Second, the way to avoid the Servicing Agent changes is to get an ARM directly through a Depository Institution. Know what caused the problem for many of the delinquent borrowers screener? Yeah... you guessed it, the adjustable rate mortgage. When lending institutions are forced into the position of writing bad paper, they're going to take creative means of protecting themselves. You want people to get loans and when they do they are being preyed upon and if they don't, it is the lenders preying on the tax payers who gave them money to grant loans. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

Right, I think she is the right person,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/op...R_HP_LO_MST_FB
Of course this is meaningless as I can simply post the opinions of others who feel she's the wrong person.

Dumb asses, you shoud have known better.
Greed is god, err, good.
Greed is bad. Solvency is good. Any policy that does not concern itself with solvency is doomed to failure and should be allowed to fail as a warning sign to the other entities about to engage the risky behavior. If the failures are provided safety-net after safety-net, there will be no warning and the risky behaviors will not only continue, but will continue to increase. And when exactly do we consider consumer greed huh? Of course, all just have a RIGHT to whatever house they want I'm sure.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Mar 23, 2011 at 08:32 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It's part of their core beliefs in religious values.
I notice the pointless left has begun to invoke religion in every argument regardless of relevance. I'm sure it is your lack of faith that explains your utmost integrity in all affairs.

If only everyone were as enlightened as you OldMan, their arguments, like yours, might indicate a superior demeanor and a more disciplined approach to disagreement.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I notice the pointless left has begun to invoke religion in every argument regardless of relevance. I'm sure it is your lack of faith that explains your utmost integrity in all affairs.

If only everyone were as enlightened as you OldMan, their arguments, like yours, might indicate a superior demeanor and a more disciplined approach to disagreement.
These recent actions are based around nothing but pure unadulterated greed by a relatively wealthy few to get their hands on more, more, more. Seeing as how approximately 90% of Americans call themselves Christian, the relevance is front and center. They are hypocrites of the highest order. I don't devise devious ways to rob my fellow Americans, like these people do.

And you're right, if everyone were as enlightened as me, this country would be a better place. It's not my fault if you can't handle the truth.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
BZZZT! A few problems;
1. You've misspelled Glass-Steagall
2. You've misspelled Gramm as it was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall. These errors indicate a fundamental ignorance around the whole of the topic.
What a turtlejerk.

You win, everything should be left the way it is and all will be good.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
. I don't devise devious ways to rob my fellow Americans, like these people do.
Oh bullshit. You liberals do NOTHING but sit around and pine for your precious government to rob your fellow Americans because you're too big a bunch of losers to take care of your own needs.

The reason you hate Christians and accuse them of greed is because they all won't roll over willingly for all your socialist tripe and just hand whatever money they have over to your nanny state that you think is someday going to float your ever loser desire.

You're such a hypocrite. Liberals are the greediest bunch of money grubbers of all- always trying to rob everyone that you've conveniently labeled 'rich' and that you idiotically believe have "all the wealth" as if it were some finite thing that could be put in a box. You lack the creativity and imagination to even know what wealth is, let alone how to create any- so no wonder you think the only way anyone gets it is to steal it from someone. You're just angry because you can't have your precious nanny state steal it on your behalf from someone else- and of course you can't figure out that that would NEVER work in the first place.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 01:18 PM
 
You should see someone about your anger issues, really!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I notice the pointless left has begun to invoke religion in every argument regardless of relevance.
I guess they're taking cues from the pointless right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm sure it is your lack of faith that explains your utmost integrity in all affairs.
Which holds more integrity than someone's opinion based on religious posturing.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You should see someone about your anger issues, really!
Says the grumpy old self-righteous guy. The real enlightenment you need is that your opinion holds no merit outside of your own narcissist fantasy world.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Says the grumpy old self-righteous guy. The real enlightenment you need is that your opinion holds no merit outside of your own narcissist fantasy world.
Let me ask you something. Why do you feel so threatened by people who's views are different? You're supposedly a smart guy, so you should be able to hold your own (at least if you believe what you tell us frequently, as you're the master of your destiny), yet you continually show your emotional side, with the third grade name calling. Kind of says a lot.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2011, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
These recent actions are based around nothing but pure unadulterated greed by a relatively wealthy few to get their hands on more, more, more.
Your focus seems one-dimensional to me OldMan. You don't see greed and manipulation in humankind, only in two institutions of it. You don't see a collective that wants more iToys, Wii Worlds, more car than they've ever had, and more house than they've ever had and/or need, and you don't see a government that also wants more, more and takes it under penalty of imprisonment.

The truth is OldMan, by global standards every last one of us in this country is "the wealthy few". it is not things that define us, but what we do with those things. In this, religion is no different than resources and regulation. It is not regulation that ensures healthy behavior, it is personal motivation. All another regulation does is necessitate another wink-nod relationship between big government and big business. You astound me at times with your disregard for the remainder of parties involved. Businesses with failed, insolvent models and abusive practices should and will fail. The only way they don't is by being somehow propped up and/or sustained by welfare. I guess if you acknowledge this problem however, you'd have to apply that logic to its inevitable conclusion which would be unthinkably conservative and sensible.

Seeing as how approximately 90% of Americans call themselves Christian, the relevance is front and center. They are hypocrites of the highest order. I don't devise devious ways to rob my fellow Americans, like these people do.
No. I suspect you believe what you advocate is good for people. You've never been able to express what that is exactly, but you just know it's better than a bunch of cigar-chomping Christians and their hapless American minions. The only front and center relevance here OldMan is human nature. The fact that you can't separate that from what you believe are its own constructs is just more evidence of a one-dimensional view.

And you're right, if everyone were as enlightened as me, this country would be a better place. It's not my fault if you can't handle the truth.
Handle it? I've been distributing it.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2011, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your focus seems one-dimensional to me OldMan. You don't see greed and manipulation in humankind, only in two institutions of it. You don't see a collective that wants more iToys, Wii Worlds, more car than they've ever had, and more house than they've ever had and/or need,
I see that. It's human nature.

and you don't see a government that also wants more, more and takes it under penalty of imprisonment.
That government is just a front for the corporations that have bought it, and therein lies the problem. You don't see that, because you've been hoodwinked into thinking that your "conservative" viewpoint is good for the country, while your money is being taken from you just the same. You don't see that working people's wages have stagnated for the last thirty years, while their benefits have declined, yet a very minute fraction continue to improve their lot in life, at your expense.

The truth is OldMan, by global standards every last one of us in this country is "the wealthy few". it is not things that define us, but what we do with those things.
Not every one last one. Most of us, yes, but far from every last one. The disdain you show for people you see as lazy and unwilling is obvious.

In this, religion is no different than resources and regulation. It is not regulation that ensures healthy behavior, it is personal motivation.
And, because you somehow found personal motivation, you make the false assumption that everyone else can. This underscores one of the big fallacies of the false conservatives that are currently in control. They actually believe that, just because they made it, everyone can. They don't realize that people have different viewpoints on life, and that many see no hope, because they were raised without hope. They don't realize that not everyone is raised/socialized the same way they were, and it is beyond their small brain comprehension that there isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for everyone. The false conservatives that are in power today don't really believe that anyway. They've just duped people like you into believing they do, so you'll vote for them, while they rob you blind behind your back. The Koch brothers, who are major financiers of the Tea Party movement, no doubt sleep very well at night, knowing they're motivating people like you to help them get richer.

All another regulation does is necessitate another wink-nod relationship between big government and big business.
Some regulation is necessary to keep the unfortunate (whom I realize you don't think exist) from being preyed upon by the wolves.

You astound me at times with your disregard for the remainder of parties involved. Businesses with failed, insolvent models and abusive practices should and will fail. The only way they don't is by being somehow propped up and/or sustained by welfare.
You're right, in so far as it goes. When unfair business practices are involved however, and the playing field isn't level, is when we have the problems we're seeing today. The day is not too far away when we will be told what we can absorb through the media, as the media is rapidly being absorbed by a concentrated few. That's not conservative behavior.

I guess if you acknowledge this problem however, you'd have to apply that logic to its inevitable conclusion which would be unthinkably conservative and sensible.
Rubbish.

No. I suspect you believe what you advocate is good for people. You've never been able to express what that is exactly, but you just know it's better than a bunch of cigar-chomping Christians and their hapless American minions. The only front and center relevance here OldMan is human nature. The fact that you can't separate that from what you believe are its own constructs is just more evidence of a one-dimensional view.
More rubbish.


Handle it? I've been distributing it.
Sadly, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Mar 24, 2011 at 07:44 AM. )
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2011, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
That government is just a front for the corporations that have bought it, and therein lies the problem. You don't see that, because you've been hoodwinked into thinking that your "conservative" viewpoint is good for the country, while your money is being taken from you just the same. You don't see that working people's wages have stagnated for the last thirty years, while their benefits have declined, yet a very minute fraction continue to improve their lot in life, at your expense.
Poppycock. You're talking about the statistical dichotomy between microeconomics as it relates to individual/household wage-earning and macroeconomics in relation to national economic data; a dichotomy that actually misleads the easily duped who can't consider inflationary rate differences among many other things. When you look at consumer spending, benefits packages, and changes in wage structure over the past 30 years, you see that the market has changed substantially and that the measurements used are in dire need of an update. When a common price index is used and benefits packages are included (i.e. things you used to have to PAY for), what you find in fact is a healthy median hourly wage increase of 28% from 1975 to 2005. Has Middle America Stagnated?

The other dire mistake you make is in the indictments against evil "large" corporations (the ones having gotten that size only with government choosing them as winners) when the reality is an economy that is run by 99.7% small businesses. For AlterNet readers, NOT the uber-rich. Your punitive policy against what you view as the haves causing the biggest problems for have-nots time and again. While there has only been more government intrusion, more government authority, more welfare, and more regulation, the wage dichotomy is going nowhere in your opinion, and yet... somehow more government is the answer again.

Not every one last one. Most of us, yes, but far from every last one. The disdain you show for people you see as lazy and unwilling is obvious.
All of us.

The only laziness I've indicted in this forum is the intellectual laziness of leftist blowhards around here. In fact, our poorest in the US are among the wealthiest on the globe. All the while ironically missing the part where you, like the cigar-chomping rich guys, are asking for more, more, more. Your greed is A-okay, their greed is bad.

And, because you somehow found personal motivation, you make the false assumption that everyone else can. This underscores one of the big fallacies of the false conservatives that are currently in control. They actually believe that, just because they made it, everyone can.
Ahhh and here inlies the failures of the left; that others are just too stupid and lazy to make it work. They need the help of a benevolent government tit from which to draw.

They don't realize that people have different viewpoints on life, and that many see no hope, because they were raised without hope. They don't realize that not everyone is raised/socialized the same way they were, and it is beyond their small brain comprehension that there isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for everyone.
Yet you insist on perpetuating their misery by continuing to value them by their incomes. The fact is, there may not be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all, but thankfully a pot of gold is not necessary unless Jones has one and you've got to keep up with him. You know... more, more, more... Your message of hope is; you were born without hope, you were raised without hope, you make nothing and as such are hopeless, and because you weren't born and raised with the silver spoons of wealth, you should never expect to attain it, and it is rich people that will ensure you stay hopeless. Solid message OldMan. Especially knowing that if godless forbid they should find themselves in a place of wealth, OldMan will be there to indict them for greed and for selling out and for stealing from poor people.

The false conservatives that are in power today don't really believe that anyway. They've just duped people like you into believing they do, so you'll vote for them, while they rob you blind behind your back. The Koch brothers, who are major financiers of the Tea Party movement, no doubt sleep very well at night, knowing they're motivating people like you to help them get richer.
Koch brothers? Really? Do you really pay this much attention to the Koch brothers? What have they done to you? How have the Koch brothers held you back OldMan? In fact, has any of this really held you back at all OldMan? Are you one of those over $100k readers of AlterNet, railing on the horrors of the have-nots and why it is you're just more intelligent and capable than they? Soros and his minions of the uber-wealthy haven't held me back, has Soros held you back? I mean, it is your ilk that enjoys the positions of the greatest wealth in this country OldMan in case you haven't noticed.

Some regulation is necessary to keep the unfortunate (whom I realize you don't think exist) from being preyed upon by the wolves.
We already have some. You want more, more, more and you'd like the government henchmen to go take it for you.

You're right, in so far as it goes. When unfair business practices are involved however, and the playing field isn't level, is when we have the problems we're seeing today. The day is not too far away when we will be told what we can absorb through the media, as the media is rapidly being absorbed by a concentrated few. That's not conservative behavior.
Right and it's not conservative media either, but it certainly appears state-run. Don't take my word for it, pay careful attention to the 2012 elections OldMan and you'll quickly see where the media allegiance is.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2011, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Poppycock. You're talking about the statistical dichotomy between microeconomics as it relates to individual/household wage-earning and macroeconomics in relation to national economic data; a dichotomy that actually misleads the easily duped who can't consider inflationary rate differences among many other things. When you look at consumer spending, benefits packages, and changes in wage structure over the past 30 years, you see that the market has changed substantially and that the measurements used are in dire need of an update. When a common price index is used and benefits packages are included (i.e. things you used to have to PAY for), what you find in fact is a healthy median hourly wage increase of 28% from 1975 to 2005. Has Middle America Stagnated?
I can cherry pick from the same article to back up my claims.

The other dire mistake you make is in the indictments against evil "large" corporations (the ones having gotten that size only with government choosing them as winners) when the reality is an economy that is run by 99.7% small businesses. For AlterNet readers, NOT the uber-rich. Your punitive policy against what you view as the haves causing the biggest problems for have-nots time and again. While there has only been more government intrusion, more government authority, more welfare, and more regulation, the wage dichotomy is going nowhere in your opinion, and yet... somehow more government is the answer again.
So 99.7% of the economy is run by small business, eh? Give me a reliable source, as I don't buy it. GE, one of the largest companies in the world, paid no income tax last year, and actually effectively gets money back. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

All of us.
No, most of us.


The only laziness I've indicted in this forum is the intellectual laziness of leftist blowhards around here. In fact, our poorest in the US are among the wealthiest on the globe. All the while ironically missing the part where you, like the cigar-chomping rich guys, are asking for more, more, more. Your greed is A-okay, their greed is bad.
Unfortunately, your state of denial, and your typical attempt to compare us with the rest of the world isn't valid, especially to those who are indeed poor, homeless, and go to sleep hungry most nights. You remind me of my mother, who used to tell me that I should eat my entire meal, because there were starving children in India who would gladly have it. The problem with that silly statement is that it doesn't apply to me; I'm not a starving child in India.

Ahhh and here inlies the failures of the left; that others are just too stupid and lazy to make it work. They need the help of a benevolent government tit from which to draw.
Should have expected that response. You completely glossed over my point, blathering on about another useless generality.

Yet you insist on perpetuating their misery by continuing to value them by their incomes. The fact is, there may not be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all, but thankfully a pot of gold is not necessary unless Jones has one and you've got to keep up with him. You know... more, more, more... Your message of hope is; you were born without hope, you were raised without hope, you make nothing and as such are hopeless, and because you weren't born and raised with the silver spoons of wealth, you should never expect to attain it, and it is rich people that will ensure you stay hopeless. Solid message OldMan. Especially knowing that if godless forbid they should find themselves in a place of wealth, OldMan will be there to indict them for greed and for selling out and for stealing from poor people.
Missed it by a mile again.

Koch brothers? Really? Do you really pay this much attention to the Koch brothers? What have they done to you? How have the Koch brothers held you back OldMan? In fact, has any of this really held you back at all OldMan? Are you one of those over $100k readers of AlterNet, railing on the horrors of the have-nots and why it is you're just more intelligent and capable than they? Soros and his minions of the uber-wealthy haven't held me back, has Soros held you back? I mean, it is your ilk that enjoys the positions of the greatest wealth in this country OldMan in case you haven't noticed.
They haven't done anything to me personally, but they've obviously hoodwinked the gullible like you into believing they're your saviors, while they're really stabbing you in the back.


We already have some. You want more, more, more and you'd like the government henchmen to go take it for you.
Another miss by a mile. I don't want anyone to give me anything, but a level playing field should be available (I know, that's something you conservatives don't really want to see, as you've got yours, and it doesn't really matter how you got it, ethically or not; you'll do whatever it takes to keep, legally or not).


Right and it's not conservative media either, but it certainly appears state-run. Don't take my word for it, pay careful attention to the 2012 elections OldMan and you'll quickly see where the media allegiance is.
You mean like Fox News, the most watched, by the most gullible?

You're a tool. We're not going to agree, and i'm not going to waste any more time with you. It's you who'd better pay attention to the 2012 elections, as working Americans are getting mad as hell at being screwed. You're also oblivious to history as well, obviously.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2