State Of The Union

[steelish]

You linked me to an article that shows bankers failed to comply with the regulation.

It in no way shape or form shows that bankers failed to comply with the regulation. What it shows is that the government's misguided attempts to "equal the playing field" amongst ethnicities didn't work. The banks did comply. They gave loans to people who could not afford the loans, the banks didn't discriminate while doing so. The government's attempts to "spread the wealth" of homeownership backfired, as does much of what they attempt to do "for" the citizens of the U.S.

They need to quit trying to "take care of us" and simply be the government that the founding fathers designed.

[SadisticNature]

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

[DuncanONeil]

Banks had a procedure of evaluating the risk of loans. They also conducted this assessment along a geographic area. Certain areas were seen to be at a very high level of risk. Hence banks were reluctant to loan into properties in those areas. The process came to have the term redlining attached to it. (Hey maybe we ought to attach that term to FICO scores! Then all of could qualify for loans!) Specific groups attacked this process of the business of banking, to limit its risk, as unfair and biased. One of the lawyers that took this issue to court, just happens to be, The current President of the USA. Anyway Congress became involved, and with court rulings, passed legislation to require banks to eliminate all such analysis and loan no matter the risk to anyone that asked. It took some 30 to 35 years for the result of this Congressional intervention in business to become known. It was clear to everyone by the end of 2008. But by then it had been forgotten was the catalytic event had been. And the banks took the heat for doing what they were told to do.

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

See the above paragraph.

What do you have to say about the Government forcing banks that did not need or want TARP to take the money?

[DuncanONeil]

On what subject?

Also keep in mind we haven't seen versions of the bills that Obama actually wants to finalize and sign off on. We've seen attempts by the senate and house to put all sorts of special interests through. Maybe Obama will refuse to sign bills that violate certain campaign promises.

[DuncanONeil]

You think this is not going to require state funds?
What rock have you been living under?

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

Furthermore its a different story when its part of a national rail plan.

High speed rail exclusive to a small piece of Florida is very different from high speed rail all over the country with a long term plan of connected routes.

[DuncanONeil]

i think he took too long and spent far too much money to say ..
It's really bad, we're fucked; so lets make it worse!.

0123456789

[DuncanONeil]

He essential is a used car salesman. But rather than go into that field he chose "community organizer". Which appears to be how he views his current job.

I am so speechless that I don't know how to say what I want to say.

How can our government blow so much smoke up our ass and tell us it is good for us and not to worry about this near-4 trillion dollar budget?

Obama should be a used-car salesman at 'Slick Sam's' or something, the way he can stand there in a speech and say what he does into the camera as straight-faced as if he were telling us that sunrise will occur at 8:11 AM in Montana tomorrow.

Thanks, guys, for taking your valuable time to write about such important matters.

[DuncanONeil]

I'll agree that the federal banking acts tend to be terrible, and that the links to those reports blame bankers for discrimination. This of course begs the question, if the bankers aren't actually fixing the discrimination problem by issuing bad loans, how did this cause the crisis? You can't both have your cake and eat it to. Your reports indicated that bankers are still denying loans to blacks at a disproportionately high rate, which means they are not making the high risk loans the ridiculous law would suggest. Ergo, this did not cause the financial crisis.

I believe this is referred to as denial!

I point to the specific actions where the worst collapses in the crunch were by organizations that specifically requested overrides of debt limits that were already unreasonable and unsafe, not to comply with specific policies but to pad the bottom line.

Do not know what your source is but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to protect the real perp.

As for Reagan, he started the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves, leading directly to the absurdly large $10+ trillion deficit that the US now faces. This has been shown to be false in every country in the world where it has been applied. That being said its nice to pay less taxes, after all it won't be your problem when the government goes bankrupt.

Simple statements with no support. A logical look at this should suffice. If people have more of the money they worked for then they can choose what to do with that money; save it, spend it, invest it. In each case this money creates work for someone, that work generates income that income is taxed. since there is an increase in income then the revenues to the Government increase.
The greatest cause for Government income problems is the fact that there is no restraint on the Government checkbook. Would you not love the ability to increase you credit line if you were getting close to that limit? Even under the current conditions, when any sane person would realize that income is down and the need to cut spending the Government is doing just the opposite! Where does the Government get its money? Especially when they have "promised" to see that there is not one dime in tax increase for people earning under a certain amount. What is a fee on a business other than a tax? When taxes are increased on a business who pays that tax?

[DuncanONeil]

Just a little bit too busy to be as scary as it should be!

This should scare any Americans reading this forum.

[DuncanONeil]

denial!

you linked me to an article that shows bankers failed to comply with the regulation. If the bankers are failing to comply with the regulation they aren't making the ridiculous loans it stipulates. So the crisis isn't being caused by bankers being forced to make loans they don't want to make, due to a regulation they aren't complying with.

If the bankers actually complied with the regulation and made the bad loans that then defaulted then i could agree. But the evidence you've given shows that they didn't. So i don't see how people somehow magically defaulted on these loans that were never made.

[SadisticNature]

I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.

"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."

Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.

"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."

Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)

"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."

Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?

On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "

Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

[SadisticNature]

I was going to do a point by point posting a copy of the entire speech, but that effort however thorough is too large to place in any single post.
All of the following quotes are taken from the excerpt of the President’s State of the Union Address provided by The White House, Office of the Press Secretary’s online release.
I am not going to bother going over the “fluff” parts where he makes the standard rally cry or tries to explain away his difficulties by blaming the previous administration or makes empty attempts to appear more like the average citizen instead of the average politician, they do make up the bulk of his speech, but really don’t address anything as to the state of our union except pointing out how much wool we have allowed our politicians to pull over our eyes.

“One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

But he is going to start off with a lie? The worst has passed? Last time I checked things have gotten worse. Unemployment has risen and the deficit has only increased.

“For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. “

Seems like? WTF… Try “IS”, “Wall street” is the only one being helped and rewarded and they got us into this mess to begin with! And he is the primary one behind doing the rewarding at that. It took him a year to figure out we are sick of partisanship and poverty? Or is he just sounding like he wants us to cooperate? Remember this is the same man who set up a podium and teleprompters to address a classroom of middle school students.
His solution for fixing the economy is based completely upon the former administrations? I told ya all that he wasn’t going to change anything a long time ago but follow in his predecessors footsteps because he lacked the experience to do anything else.

“Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis”

He purposes charging the Banks a modest fee and extending unemployment. I have nothing against that; I didn’t want the banks or Wall Street to get one red cent to begin with. But I do purpose that his modest fee isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, in the end he will cave to the bigwigs. He also claims to have cut taxes, yet, I didn’t see any reduction whatsoever in my taxes. I wonder who is getting all these magical tax cuts. So far apparently lies and dam lies make the wheels of his speech go round and round.
Truth be told He didn’t raised income taxes, but, he sure hasn’t done anything to stop the raise in prices on home insurance, property tax mil rates, or the price of gas and power. Every single bill I pay for regular day to day living in those regards has done nothing but went up, in some cases doubled…like groceries.
As for all these magical new jobs I haven’t seen any of them yet.

“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill.”

Again WTF! Let’s use the same plan that hasn’t been working to fix things? They won’t even hire more “strippers” at the club where I had to go back to dancing at to make ends meet so I could stay in school.

“So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”

Talk is cheap; I will believe this one when I see it. He should have given all of the stimulus money to the small business to begin with.

”Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. “

I am all for that. Let’s rebuild the entire infrastructure of the country. Now show me where and how you plan to pay for it.
The Tampa High-speed Railroad is his corner stone? Who exactly is paying for that? He already has me dancing naked for drunks to pay for school, I can’t afford to pay for his toy train that no one in Tampa wants. How about you spend that money to rebuild the failing roads instead and make cheaper cars that don’t use fossil fuels. A statewide mass transit system isn’t a feasible solution on the scale it would take in a state like Florida.

“We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.”

OK here I agree, I am all for converting my home to not have to rely on the power or water companies and keep our business from running off to other countries just so they can increase their own profit margin. To bad that goes directly against the water and power companies wishes not to mention the big foreign investors; gee I wonder how much money he thinks I have to do all this, will I have to go into porn to pay for it.

“Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks.”

Blinks! Punishing the banks?!?, no of course not, we know how much he loves them….because he rewarded them!!!

“It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

Allmost spit up my coffee......My, oh my how he has changed his tune here, looks like big oil and coal have their fingers deep into his pockets now.

Then after saying what every other president before him since Regan has said about the economy about increasing exports and fostering growth he goes into education.

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans.”

So much for what little bit of government money I can get for school, porn is looking better and better.

“ Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.”

Good luck getting through the four year peerage and liberal indoctrination system our colleges have become.

I must give him credit for saying we need to re-vamp the insurance industry. Fat chance of that actually happening, I bet coal and oil are not the only ones with their fingers up his ass.

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know”

Dozens of things have been purposed only to be shot down. How about we leave Iraq and Afghanistan like he promised in the first place we would do, and re-focus our military’s direction on self defense and re-building the infrastructure for a little while. Then use some of that massive excess in the defense budget used on offensive initiatives and strategic deterrence (provided by our taxes) to really stimulate internally organized growth and development. The amount spent on bonuses alone last year would be enough to pay off almost every single mortgage in the USA. Just think how much extra money that would put into the play.
I am in agreement with the “freeze” as well as going through the budget and cutting programs out. But I think that’s not enough, he has entire divisions of government that need to be cut or reorganized.

“Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

Careful here, he is suggesting that if our elected officials do not agree to do it his way, that he is going to do it anyway somehow. Dangerous ground people and it’s exactly this kind of thing that led the Republic upon which we based our own to end up under the tyranny of an empire.

“Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new.”

Like what? Sidestepping our political systems check and balances through executive orders?

Oh wait I know something that will change things.

Next election we have…if a candidate is listed as a republican or a democrat, we just simply wont vote for them at all and instead throw our support to one of the other people who have been trying to get in who are from a whole different party or are independent with real fresh ideas as opposed to the same ole two party tug of war!

"It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. “

How about this, we don’t allow monetary political contributions at all!

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Wait a second; didn’t he himself get elected this very way? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the Courts decision. I just wanted to point out the inherent irony this time. Allowing corporations to openly spend as much as they wish just brings what has been going on anyway out into the open. But again I say we shouldn’t allow money into the process at all!

“Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.”

The whole two party only thing wouldn’t be nearly as polarized if the media wasn’t feeding off building tension where it wasn’t and excluding representation of other views; which is something I am sure they will do reverently once they start “spinning” this speech into what they want it to say.

“But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day”.

Including the day he gave this speech.


Then he gets to the War stuff.

“Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons”. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.”

In other words he means that he is perfectly willing to continue following in his predecessor’s footsteps and go even further, especially if he can convince the Russians and Chinese to back our hegemony if we decide to invade either of these two so called forces of “evil”.
Then he goes on to say why he supports American imperialism all the while calling it something else and window dressing it under the veil of democracy. Sounds surprisingly like the speeches given by different Archons when Athenians formed their own empire except our banner is supposed to be civil rights violations.

“Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation. “

My personal response to the television at this point was: “Well then get on with it, just try and not fuck us anymore than you already have!”

Talk is cheap, no more is that proved ironically true and false than with politicians, true because what little that comes out of their mouth is true, false because what does roll out of their mouth is all too often not cheap, at least not for those of us who end up paying for their gibber jabber.

I really want to be wrong, to be mistaken and believe that our “beloved” leader really is magically endowed and that his natural penchance for mendacity as a politician is a misconception on my part.

Though I must say nothing in his speech on the state of our Union has shown me that I should be hopeful in any way what so ever.

A bunch of unsupported facts used to provide credence to an opinion.

[SadisticNature]

0123456789

Here is your post where you did all your responding inside a quote so it can't be quoted. You give a bunch of numbers completely unsourced. So its fairly obvious you are holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

[SadisticNature]

I've provided links to the sources:

During the Carter administration, government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities? Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

This is probably the only post in this entire thread that makes a serious attempt to support statements.

[DuncanONeil]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

What has this got to do with oil??

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

[DuncanONeil]

Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

????????????????

[DuncanONeil]

A bunch of unsupported facts used to provide credence to an opinion.

Now you are just being more petty!

This was obviously an opinion piece!

[DuncanONeil]

Here is your post where you did all your responding inside a quote so it can't be quoted. You give a bunch of numbers completely unsourced. So its fairly obvious you are holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

Waaaahhh!

[SadisticNature]

I believe this is referred to as denial!

There is a phrase about having your cake and eating it to. This is what applies here. The numbers in the article show that black communities are getting far fewer loans than white communities Yet the person is claiming that the cause of the problem is that the black community is getting more high risk loans which the bankers know are sure to default. You are hence claiming they are both getting less loans and more loans. This is obviously absurd. Your 1 word statement of "denial" does nothing to answer this criticism.

Do not know what your source is but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to protect the real perp.


Simple statements with no support. A logical look at this should suffice. If people have more of the money they worked for then they can choose what to do with that money; save it, spend it, invest it. In each case this money creates work for someone, that work generates income that income is taxed. since there is an increase in income then the revenues to the Government increase.
The greatest cause for Government income problems is the fact that there is no restraint on the Government checkbook. Would you not love the ability to increase you credit line if you were getting close to that limit? Even under the current conditions, when any sane person would realize that income is down and the need to cut spending the Government is doing just the opposite! Where does the Government get its money? Especially when they have "promised" to see that there is not one dime in tax increase for people earning under a certain amount. What is a fee on a business other than a tax? When taxes are increased on a business who pays that tax?

So basically according to you when business spends money it creates work for people and when government spends money it doesn't. You have presented no evidence at all for this false dichotomy. You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

[SadisticNature]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.





What has this got to do with oil??



I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?



Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?



No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government



Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[denuseri]

Hey I never claimed that my personal opinions were gospel Sadistic. I was just saying what was going through my head as I watched and then later read the speach. I wasn't writting a peer reviewed doctoral thesis for your approval.

Personally I am all for heath care reform. (see my posts on it in universal health care thread) http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=18852

I just havent seen any yet, nor has what I have seen being purposed by the current administration even close to what I want to be done.

I fully support gay marrige (see that thread at your lieasure as well along with the sexual orientation in the military one)

I am also against torture and having our troops running hillie nille all over the globe pushing our ways on everyone else with the point of a gun (imperialism by any other name in my book). As you can also see from my numerous posts in those related threads.

Though if we do have to fight somewhere, imho we should get in, do it, and get out. Not hang around and turn it into a long term occupation.

I even supported Obama's campaign in its early stages until I had studdied his credentials (which were no better than Palins) and decided to support McCain instead (also a bad choice I know cuase he has turned out to be yet another lieing a hole willing to sacrifice his principles) but at the time he still seemed more cualified than Clinton(lesser of two evils imho).

In fact at this point, I am thinking the best thing we as americans can do is voting out all incumbants every time and replaceing them only with canadaites that don't have democrat or republican next to their name on the ballot.

[steelish]

I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.

Here are my sources...Obama unveils stimulus package and the deficit is worse now than it was EVER BEFORE AND PROJECTED TO GO HIGHER

"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."

Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.

No need to provide a source on this. I liked this idea.

"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."

Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)

Again, no need to cite sources as to the vote. I live here. We voted. No go. Here is a source as to the money we are "promised" and when ground will actually break. I wish I could find all the blogs that popped up immediately after the speech, because the internet was full of them. Floridians are PISSED OFF.

"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."

Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?

No need to cite sources. I was asking a question. Can someone help? Does anyone know what export Obama is planning to double and to whom?

On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!

Yes, my opinion (and the opinion of many I talk to). I certainly don't mind stating my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, don't read it or rebut it.

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "

Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

My bad. I was typing in such a hurry I put in the wrong document name. It is the Declaration of Independence NOT the Bill of Rights! (duh)

Constitution....Declaration of Independence

Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

Here is one what? Attack? No, I don't view this as an attack but I am sorry if you view requests for sources as a personal attack. I have my principles and values/beliefs...you have yours. I read your posts and rebut or disagree with them as is my right. You do the same to mine. We can agree to disagree.

[SadisticNature]

When I post an argument or disagreement there are those on this forum who instead of responding with something along the lines of:

I disagree, I see it like this (opinion). Would you like to provide some reference material for the original argument?



Then when you provide sources, they didn't mean they wanted sources (which according to dictionary.com is a list of materials) but rather they wanted you to source your statements (which differs in that it means providing exact locations in your source materials that support each statement in your post).

Then they turn the entire discussion into a discussion about "your evasion on sources" instead of the material they were uncomfortable with before.

[DuncanONeil]

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?

So basically according to you when business spends money it creates work for people and when government spends money it doesn't. You have presented no evidence at all for this false dichotomy. You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

[DuncanONeil]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[SadisticNature]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.
(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.

[SadisticNature]

Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?

[SadisticNature]

It in no way shape or form shows that bankers failed to comply with the regulation. What it shows is that the government's misguided attempts to "equal the playing field" amongst ethnicities didn't work. The banks did comply. They gave loans to people who could not afford the loans, the banks didn't discriminate while doing so. The government's attempts to "spread the wealth" of homeownership backfired, as does much of what they attempt to do "for" the citizens of the U.S.

They need to quit trying to "take care of us" and simply be the government that the founding fathers designed.

The article actually was arguing bankers were not providing adequate loans to the black community and gave numbers showing how those neighborhoods were getting much fewer loans.

My question still stands: How is it that they aren't providing loans to the black community? Yet in providing these loans they caused the housing meltdown?

[TwistedTails]

Originally Posted by twistedtails
i think he took too long and spent far too much money to say ..
It's really bad, we're fucked; so lets make it worse!.


0123456789

Normally, I would complain about someone altering my comments, but since you made it more in line with what I was actually feeling.
A "tip of the hat to ya"

0123456789 ? I take it the ten character minimum rule is still in effect?

[TwistedTails]

In fact at this point, I am thinking the best thing we as americans can do is voting out all incumbants every time and replaceing them only with canadaites that don't have democrat or republican next to their name on the ballot.

Definatly agree with this, and it seems there is a long history of this belief.

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
— Mark Twain