[Pusscrook]

(10-14-2011 11:31 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 10:20 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 09:20 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 08:40 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

I have been watching this series over and over again, and for the life of me, I can't seem to understand why "progressives", and the President, are now being attacked for class warfare.

Can someone explain to me how is it possible to trust someone who use information today, to promote tomorrow, but conveniently forgets that they mortgaged yesterday?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZ_JfROhOE

to answer your question the reason the president is being attacked for class warfare is because he keeps blaming alot of the problems we have on 'millionaires, billionaires, and private jet owners' who 'refuse to pay their fair share'

Is the very source of all this suspicion, the work of guilty minds? Strange , I never heard him "blame" anyone for the acts that got us in to this shit-hole except those who were responsible.

if you think every millionaire, billionaire, and private jet owner is responsible for this mess you are nuts. most millionaire and billionaires are private business owners who risk taking provides jobs for alot of society. ever got a job from a poor man? didnt think so. are there some millionaire and billionaires who got rich off the recent banking/mortgage implosion that belong in jail. absofuckinglutely. but the fact of the matter is that Obama has been in charge for 3 years now and his administration hasnt done dick to pursue those people, all he does is talk about them and use them as an excuse to raise taxes on business owners and people making decent coin so he can continue his progressive agenda of redistributing the wealth around to those to lazy to work for it themselves.

I think you misunderstood me. Most of us know who was responsible for the financial meltdown, and though it was not "All" the millionaires , billionaires, jet owners in the country, I can assure you it wasn't any one that would be considered poor, middle class, upper middle-class, by any standard. My point was that the people who was/are guilty of allowing the meltdown ( republicans, fiscal conservatives in name only) are the staunch defenders of institutions/individuals,( ie;bankers, hedge fund managers,secondary markets, financial institutions), who, perpetrate the act on the world's economy to this very day. That is not in dispute.

Whether Obama has been in office for 3 years, or another 4 year term, is inconsequential at this point. His task will remain arduous because of the dynamic shift in perception when it comes to blame. What he missed, was an opportunity , very early on, to drive the point home that taxes should be raised on millionaires, billionaires, the minute he understood the analysis. All of his points today , are still good points, however, the process of time, a little to no growth economy, and a change in congress have neutralized his position. To say that it is wealth distribution is arguable. EVery coin has two sides last time I checked. If we are looking at hard numbers , as opposed to getting caught up in the emotional moment, you would have to come up with a better response other than "his agenda to redistributing the wealth around those who are too lazy to work for it themselves". Do you know how dramatic the income gap changed between 2000-2008? Just in 2007 alone, after tax income, shot up to 17.1 percent for the to 1 % income earners. WHile middle american after tax income dropped to 14.1% Were you screaming bloody murder or do you think it was because they worked harder and smarter? Most of us understand why that happened but perhaps you are saying that everyone else became slothful creatures, and therefore deserved to have drastic cuts in pay, and an increase in taxes. Probably not. Are you aware of the earnings potential between the sexes, and races during this period? It gets worse. Ok, so they were all lazy bums, collecting welfare, and fleecing the system in any way possible right? That's 99% of the people you would be talking about, since only 1% of the people saw a dramatic increase in after tax income. So when we talk about redistributing of wealth, let's be fair.

[Brian]

of course we grew faster, we were at a different point in the life cycle of a country then we are now. you cant continue to grow exponentially for ever. its impossible. and even if your raised tax rates to the historical highs it still wouldnt be enough to cover the budget due to the massive entitlements that are built in. its really pretty simple - you can only spend more then you make for so long before the money runs out. you can get creative and prolong it buying paying bills w/debt but eventually the credit runs out and the cash flow isnt enough to pay the debt service. ask Greece about this. the problem with raising taxes is it has a diminishing return. google "the laffer curve." at the end of the day the only way to get out of the mess it to dramatically cut spending. medicare, medicaid, welfare, govt salaries, pensions, all if it has to be cut. its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun but its really the only way out of the problem. until you are ready to live with that there is really not point in arguing about anything else.

[The_CEO]

(10-14-2011 01:13 PM)Brian Wrote:  

of course we grew faster, we were at a different point in the life cycle of a country then we are now. you cant continue to grow exponentially for ever. its impossible. and even if your raised tax rates to the historical highs it still wouldnt be enough to cover the budget due to the massive entitlements that are built in. its really pretty simple - you can only spend more then you make for so long before the money runs out. you can get creative and prolong it buying paying bills w/debt but eventually the credit runs out and the cash flow isnt enough to pay the debt service. ask Greece about this. the problem with raising taxes is it has a diminishing return. google "the laffer curve." at the end of the day the only way to get out of the mess it to dramatically cut spending. medicare, medicaid, welfare, govt salaries, pensions, all if it has to be cut. its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun but its really the only way out of the problem. until you are ready to live with that there is really not point in arguing about anything else.

You're right.
And O. offered to cut all those things, cutting out 4 trillion $ from the budget, and the GOP held the govt hostage over it via the debt ceiling. Clinton massively cut welfare FYI.

As far as taxes, what has been proposed is eliminating the GWB tax cuts (going back to Clinton era rates, back when there was 2 trillion $ surplus).

It's dishonest to talk about cuts without raising revenue as well. I notice you didn't mention defense spending either, maybe you meant to.

[Brian]

defense spending needs to be cut also. absolutely. there is an awful lot of fat that can be trimmed there, although some people will squeal. pretty much everything needs to be cut.

"And O. offered to cut all those things, cutting out 4 trillion $ from the budget, and the GOP held the govt hostage over it via the debt ceiling. Clinton massively cut welfare FYI."

when did this happen? the only time he even submitted a budget to the Senate they rejected it 99-0. and dont be fooled by DC accounting tricks. when i say cutting $4T from the budget i mean cutting it from 14 to 10T. what DC means is that instead of having a debt of 25T in 2020 it will be 20T in 2020. thats not really cutting. if i buy an M5 this weekend instead of a loaded ferrari i didnt really 'save' 200k, i spent 100k. thats what made the debt ceiling a complete farce - the only people who actually wanted to legitimately cut the budget by actually decreasing spending were labeled as tea party terrorists.

[thegmanifesto]

Brian -

The thing you are not getting is these things will never be cut.

Republicans spend as much as Democrats. They are one and the same.

The reason?

Think about defense spending that you just mentioned. The lobbyists for the defense industry won't let it happen (can't let it happen).

It always goes back to the elites that hold our government hostage.

[Brian]

(10-14-2011 01:48 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Brian -

The thing you are not getting is these things will never be cut.

Republicans spend as much as Democrats. They are one and the same.

The reason?

Think about defense spending that you just mentioned. The lobbyists for the defense industry won't let it happen (can't let it happen).

It always goes back to the elites that hold our government hostage.

Republicans dont spend as much as democrats. they're not much better, but they are better on spending.

Oh it will eventually be cut. If something is unsustainable it wont go on forever. and its clearly unsustainable. it will come with a lot of bitching, whining, squealing, threats, and etc but it will be cut. Obama just doesnt have the balls to do it, you need a hard ass like Chris Christie. the cuts may be forced upon us by a lack of cash after the credit card gets cut up but eventually it will happen. its mathematically inevitable.

[Pusscrook]

(10-14-2011 01:13 PM)Brian Wrote:  

at the end of the day the only way to get out of the mess it to dramatically cut spending. medicare, medicaid, welfare, govt salaries, pensions, all if it has to be cut. its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun but its really the only way out of the problem. until you are ready to live with that there is really not point in arguing about anything else.

I didn't know we were arguing. This is a robust debate, so if you want to take up your marbles, pack up your lunch kit and haul ass, I am sorry if I offended you.

I do agree with you that we need dramatically cut spending. I have no problems with that, and only a fool would argue against such a thing. My point is that if one is to argue that Obama is now "redistributing" wealth, simple because people are lazy and won't work, my question to you is, Do you think these same people were lazy under the CLinton Administration? Do you think they were lazy under the Bush Administration? This doesn't sound like a balanced argument if that is your position. You could very easily go and look at the increase in wealth for both administrations during that 16 year period and you wouldn't be able to argue the fact that the disparity between 1% of the people and the other 99, grew to such discriminate proportions although we had a surplus under the Clinton administration. Between 2000-2008(Bush Admin.) we had (2) two wars that were unpaid for, a tax cut for the wealthiest americans,(that's roughly 500 billion by 2009 already) a medicaid prescription drug bill(still on going) TARP,a world wide economic meltdown, yet, the rich got richer in this country. Again, were you screaming bloody murder for the rich at that time?

[thegmanifesto]

"you need a hard ass like Chris Christie"

Don't you mean "you need a fat ass like Chris Christie"?

In all seriousness, if Christie ever got elected for prez, he would fold like an off suited 2-7 on his first day.

[Pusscrook]

(10-14-2011 02:23 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 01:13 PM)Brian Wrote:  

at the end of the day the only way to get out of the mess it to dramatically cut spending. medicare, medicaid, welfare, govt salaries, pensions, all if it has to be cut. its not going to be easy and its not going to be fun but its really the only way out of the problem. until you are ready to live with that there is really not point in arguing about anything else.

I didn't know we were arguing. This is a robust debate, so if you want to take up your marbles, pack up your lunch kit and haul ass, I am sorry if I offended you.

I do agree with you that we need dramatically cut spending. I have no problems with that, and only a fool would argue against such a thing. My point is that if one is to argue that Obama is now "redistributing" wealth, simple because people are lazy and won't work, my question to you is, Do you think these same people were lazy under the CLinton Administration? Do you think they were lazy under the Bush Administration? This doesn't sound like a balanced argument if that is your position. You could very easily go and look at the increase in wealth for both administrations during that 16 year period and you wouldn't be able to argue the fact that the disparity between 1% of the people and the other 99, grew to such discriminate proportions although we had a surplus under the Clinton administration. Between 2000-2008(Bush Admin.) we had (2) two wars that were unpaid for, a tax cut for the wealthiest americans,(that's roughly 500 billion by 2009 already) a medicaid prescription drug bill(still on going) TARP,a world wide economic meltdown, yet, the rich got richer in this country. Again, were you screaming bloody murder for the rich at that time?

double post

[Brian]

(10-14-2011 02:23 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

"you need a hard ass like Chris Christie"

Don't you mean "you need a fat ass like Chris Christie"?

In all seriousness, if Christie ever got elected for prez, he would fold like an off suited 2-7 on his first day.

he may be fat but he's a hard ass. he hasnt folded yet and i dont see why that would change.

i just read this...its an interesting article on the topic..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-note...t-movement

[thegmanifesto]

This thing is going world wide:

Students storm Goldman Sachs building in Milan

A group of students stormed Goldman Sachs's central Milan offices on Friday ahead of worldwide protests against financial inequality planned for the weekend.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/1...ZM20111014

(10-14-2011 02:30 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 02:23 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

"you need a hard ass like Chris Christie"

Don't you mean "you need a fat ass like Chris Christie"?

In all seriousness, if Christie ever got elected for prez, he would fold like an off suited 2-7 on his first day.

he may be fat but he's a hard ass. he hasnt folded yet and i dont see why that would change.

i just read this...its an interesting article on the topic..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-note...t-movement

We differ on that.

To me he is a fat kid that got kicked on the ground on the playground because he couldn't get up.

Like a turtle on his back.

[Brian]

Does he really seem like the kind of guy who would back down?

During his tenure, Christie's office won convictions or guilty pleas from 130 public officials, both Republican and Democratic, on the state, county and local levels without losing a single case.[18] The most notable of these convictions included those of Hudson County Executive Robert C. Janiszewski in 2002 on bribery charges,[19] Essex County Executive James W. Treffinger in 2003 on corruption charges,[20] former New Jersey Senate President John A. Lynch, Jr. in 2006 on charges of mail fraud and tax evasion,[21] State Senator and former Newark mayor Sharpe James in 2008 on fraud charges,[22] and State Senator Wayne R. Bryant in 2008 on charges of bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud.[23]

[Kona]

(10-14-2011 04:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Does he really seem like the kind of guy who would back down?

During his tenure, Christie's office won convictions or guilty pleas from 130 public officials, both Republican and Democratic, on the state, county and local levels without losing a single case.[18] The most notable of these convictions included those of Hudson County Executive Robert C. Janiszewski in 2002 on bribery charges,[19] Essex County Executive James W. Treffinger in 2003 on corruption charges,[20] former New Jersey Senate President John A. Lynch, Jr. in 2006 on charges of mail fraud and tax evasion,[21] State Senator and former Newark mayor Sharpe James in 2008 on fraud charges,[22] and State Senator Wayne R. Bryant in 2008 on charges of bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud.[23]

I've been following that Christie guy. And I like him.

He'd be a good President if he wasn't fat. I guarantee that's why he isn't running. He won't come out and say that though, and I think that's his dishonesty point. If he would just be straight about it that would be a huge boost to his credibility.

How's he gonna say "President's Council on Fitness Sports and Nutrition" with a straight face? Or be the Commander-In-Chief of a military he can't meet the physical requirements to be in?

It's the personal responsibility issue a lot of American's have, and I think he does too.

Aloha!

[speakeasy]

Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine doing some Q&A on the movement. Never heard him speak before. He's a sharp cat.

[The_CEO]

Brian: "Republicans dont spend as much as democrats. they're not much better, but they are better on spending"

[/quote]

except for 2000-2008, right?
except that after 2 Bill C, there was over a 2 trillion $ surplus...
etc etc etc

[thegmanifesto]

(10-14-2011 04:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Does he really seem like the kind of guy who would back down?

During his tenure, Christie's office won convictions or guilty pleas from 130 public officials, both Republican and Democratic, on the state, county and local levels without losing a single case.[18] The most notable of these convictions included those of Hudson County Executive Robert C. Janiszewski in 2002 on bribery charges,[19] Essex County Executive James W. Treffinger in 2003 on corruption charges,[20] former New Jersey Senate President John A. Lynch, Jr. in 2006 on charges of mail fraud and tax evasion,[21] State Senator and former Newark mayor Sharpe James in 2008 on fraud charges,[22] and State Senator Wayne R. Bryant in 2008 on charges of bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud.[23]

Yes.

His first day in office he gets the Cheeto he was about to eat slapped out of his fat mouth by the Military Industrial Complex.

Then he starts sobbing.

I am a pretty good judge of people with no heart, and Christie doesn't seem to have it.

[tenderman100]

Hitler Discovers #OccupyWallStreet Is A Laughingstock

[Hooligan Harry]

(10-14-2011 01:07 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

I think you misunderstood me. Most of us know who was responsible for the financial meltdown, and though it was not "All" the millionaires , billionaires, jet owners in the country, I can assure you it wasn't any one that would be considered poor, middle class, upper middle-class, by any standard. My point was that the people who was/are guilty of allowing the meltdown ( republicans, fiscal conservatives in name only) are the staunch defenders of institutions/individuals,( ie;bankers, hedge fund managers,secondary markets, financial institutions), who, perpetrate the act on the world's economy to this very day. That is not in dispute.

Whether Obama has been in office for 3 years, or another 4 year term, is inconsequential at this point. His task will remain arduous because of the dynamic shift in perception when it comes to blame. What he missed, was an opportunity , very early on, to drive the point home that taxes should be raised on millionaires, billionaires, the minute he understood the analysis. All of his points today , are still good points, however, the process of time, a little to no growth economy, and a change in congress have neutralized his position. To say that it is wealth distribution is arguable. EVery coin has two sides last time I checked. If we are looking at hard numbers , as opposed to getting caught up in the emotional moment, you would have to come up with a better response other than "his agenda to redistributing the wealth around those who are too lazy to work for it themselves". Do you know how dramatic the income gap changed between 2000-2008? Just in 2007 alone, after tax income, shot up to 17.1 percent for the to 1 % income earners. WHile middle american after tax income dropped to 14.1% Were you screaming bloody murder or do you think it was because they worked harder and smarter? Most of us understand why that happened but perhaps you are saying that everyone else became slothful creatures, and therefore deserved to have drastic cuts in pay, and an increase in taxes. Probably not. Are you aware of the earnings potential between the sexes, and races during this period? It gets worse. Ok, so they were all lazy bums, collecting welfare, and fleecing the system in any way possible right? That's 99% of the people you would be talking about, since only 1% of the people saw a dramatic increase in after tax income. So when we talk about redistributing of wealth, let's be fair.

That is incredibly naive. As far back as 2005, Greenspan warned of impending collapse and they passed a bill trying to curtail both heavy lending and in particular Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats blocked it! Obama did not inherit a mess from Bush, he inherited Clintons legacy.

When Bill Clinton eased regulation, the Dems were trying to provide the poor with access to easy capital and finance. It was never a free market system, it was a system where government hoped to privatise the supply of homes and services to Americans through consumer spending. The middle class and poor were given access to money and it had never been easier to get money. Liberal government, dreaming of a country where a poor immigrant can have a mortgage for a home in the suburbs.

What did the middle class and lower classes do with all this new money? They went out and bought houses they could not afford to pay and filled them with electronics, new cars and brand label clothes. Eventually, after they managed to get themselves into so much debt they started defaulting, the whole house of cards came crashing down.None of that money was actually invested in anything productive. Consumer spending on steroids, but no longevity, all structured under Clinton.

Global turmoil now is the result of that credit crisis. That credit crisis has come off the back of the housing collapse in the USA. The housing collapse came off the back of defaulting. That defaulting came off the back of the poor and lower middle classes who borrowed so much money they could not afford to pay their loans. Loans they were taking from commercial and government banks. Both privatised and socialised "distribution" of wealth!

Bottom line is that the poor and lower middle classes were given access to easy credit, just like the wealthy, except all they did was consume until they were so fat they croaked. Unemployment did not spark the defaulting, people were defaulting while employed.

They blame the rich bankers for the mess. They blame government for not taxing the wealthy enough. They blame capitalism. They blame George Bush for the policies of the Democrats under Clinton. They blame Wall Street for being a bunch of hucksters and tricksters. Everyone is to blame except for the poor middle class and lower class American who spent like there was no tomorrow. Like pigs at a trough they spent themselves into a black hole.

Everyone is guilty of greed here and everyone needs to accept responsibility for that. Stop blaming just the wealthy for this. What separates the wealthy from the poor? Its access to resources, thats it. When the masses were given access to easy resources, why did they do with it???

Of course that easy credit was exploited by the wealthy too. Clinton and his pals created an environment where money was easy to get and easy to leverage. But unlike the average consumer, most of them did not burn through their resources. They made money, just like they always do. Sure a lot of them were wiped out, but most of them will make money on the down, not the up. Its always been like that.

There is a reason why 99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the people. Its because 99% of people are simpletons, and that top 1% are our most productive and innovative. Its the natural order of things. Just like a small minority are good enough to play pro sports, so too are a small minority capable of conducting business on a scale like the top 1% do. And just like pro athletes spawn kids who often become pro athletes themselves, so too are many people born into wealth given the foundation to grow that wealth further.

You are not entitled to a pro sports career and you are not entitled to a free ride either. You are also not entitled to their excessive production, rather you benefit from it in the jobs they create and the products they provide at affordable prices. The top 1% are already paying a substantial chunk of total taxes, not to mention the taxes of salaries they pay, along with corporate taxes and sales taxes! Not just in the USA, all over the world.

What the US needs is for its wealthy to invest more. By doing that, they create jobs. You dont spur investment by taxing people, and this is not pre 1980's America where the rest of the world cant compete with your manufacturing anymore. At the same time, it needs conservative government to reign in the fucking spending. All raised taxes will do is see government continue to blow money on bullshit instead of seeing it invested in business and by default jobs.

[Brian]

well said Harry, well said.

[blurb]

Quote:

Everyone is guilty of greed here and everyone needs to accept responsibility for that. Stop blaming just the wealthy for this. What separates the wealthy from the poor? Its access to resources, thats it. When the masses were given access to easy resources, why did they do with it???

Quote:

There is a reason why 99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the people. Its because 99% of people are simpletons, and that top 1% are our most productive and innovative. Its the natural order of things. Just like a small minority are good enough to play pro sports, so too are a small minority capable of conducting business on a scale like the top 1% do. And just like pro athletes spawn kids who often become pro athletes themselves, so too are many people born into wealth given the foundation to grow that wealth further.

Agree. Reminds me of people that win the lottery but then become homeless in a couple of years, the same position as they were before, maybe worse.

Do you really want to give these guys more money? They wouldn't know how to properly manage money!

[Jim Kirk]

I was in lower Manhattan this morning - these characters are kicking up a great ruckus.

I was just in Midtown an hour ago - take this with grain of salt - but you may see some action at Times Square tomorrow.

[Smitty]

The thing I don't understand about the Occupy Wall Street rationale, is what these protestors really want as an end state. They are fighting against corporate greed. Ok, so Bank of America institutes a debit card fee. Why not go to a bank who does not charge a fee? Cancel your credit cards, close your accounts and stop doing business with them.
But no, it's this idea of fighting greed that these people get wrapped around, when in reality, this so-called greed does not impact these protestors one bit. Businesses are free to be as greedy as they like and charge whatever they want (some are regulated, but all other things equal) -- that's the beauty of a free market...we vote with our feet when we're not happy. We sell our Bank of America stock and invest in something else. But these protestors sure aren't cursing Apple. Why not? Apple charges so much more for their products than any of their rival pc makers. Apple is one of the the richest countries in the world. Why not protest against them? Because they are a brand beloved by the very Liberals who are the foundation of the Occupy Wall Street protests. I've yet to find the logic behind these protests. Vote with your feet and stop doing business with these companies if you are unhappy with their business practices.

[Brian]

i think most of these protesters have no idea wtf they are protesting but they know they are being scammed. they just dont realize its their own government thats scamming them, not the wall st banks. i saw one of them bitching about the Federal Reserve. well, the dude was right, but then head to the Federal Reserve building in DC. got a problem w/TARP? head to Congress. better yet, head over to the White House. stuck with 200k of student debt and no job? well who signed the paperwork and asked for the loan? oops, you did. but they're kind of stuck in a bind because if they actually figure out what the real problem is (govt) a lot of them will have to admit they are part of the problem, and its just so much easier to blame others

[thegmanifesto]

(10-14-2011 11:37 PM)Brian Wrote:  

i think most of these protesters have no idea wtf they are protesting but they know they are being scammed. they just dont realize its their own government thats scamming them, not the wall st banks. i saw one of them bitching about the Federal Reserve. well, the dude was right, but then head to the Federal Reserve building in DC. got a problem w/TARP? head to Congress. better yet, head over to the White House. stuck with 200k of student debt and no job? well who signed the paperwork and asked for the loan? oops, you did. but they're kind of stuck in a bind because if they actually figure out what the real problem is (govt) a lot of them will have to admit they are part of the problem, and its just so much easier to blame others

Brian -

You seem like a smart guy, but you still don't get it.

"they just dont realize its their own government thats scamming them, not the wall st banks."

They are the same thing.

Get off your knees, stop worshiping and bowing down to Billionaires and realize that Wall ST. owns the government.

That's it for me.

Time to go swoop some fly girls.

[La Familia]

Peter Schiff on Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMhsyAjilBA

I like the man's work; he can break down economics with the best out there.