|
Post by goGopherBill on Jan 9, 2009 10:16:47 GMT -5
Nice debate point..You liberals whined for 8 years...Just how bad was it until a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS TOOK CONTROL ? Who Controlled the banking Committee that regulated FREDDY and FANNIE?
Ye p rip my spellin,ny debate style but you LOSE because your argument is weak.
JT.. Public service contracts done by UNIONS are based upon projected income from tax revienies...FACT..not gray or brown.
They look at the future..ask for percentage of wage being earned now and go forward.
Unions use a PIE CHART showing income and their slice of wages. They always want a bigger slice ..yet the pie isnt getting LARGER as it was during the eary BUSH years it is getting smaller ..DUE to DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS screwing up.
UNIONS must adjust to the pie as the private sector has. LESS PIE FOR EVERYONE. NOT MORE. School districts are held hostage by this. Teachers don't strike or negotiate during summer they wait until the school years starts for more leverage. School boards are a political process..you run for election. Teacher UNIONS contribute money to their Campaign to get them re- elected..then get rewarded with % raise larger than the income can provide.
In a word ...corrupt.
The whole system of funding is.
I show it ..you deny it.
There is no Grey areas,,it is black and white..Right or wrong.
Nothing to be compromised.
The current budgets further my claim that public service workers need wages to be frozen.History shows that is correct policy.
When the private sector suffers ..so MUST GOVERNMENT.
If the whole community goes down..TEACHERS must go down also...along with the KIDS that will be PAYING for the salaries and programs for years .
Higher intrest rates..that are sure to follow are to be put on DEMOCRATS..this will be worst than CARTER ..
HISTORY and not spellin expertise forecast that and History is not wrong very often.
You want to use History to forecast Hurricanes..global warming ...yet can't or wont use it to show DEMOCRATS and economic ruin?
The Current cycle started with the Democrats taking over Congress.
ONLY You can't or admit admit I am right..For personal reasons..I cant spell...I am a conservative..thus I MUST BE AN IDIOT.
It is in black and white terms ..easily identified.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2009 11:01:03 GMT -5
This is the current right wing lie: The financial mess is because poor people (code name for black people) were being given sub-prime mortgages. It's just so typical. Everything can be blamed on minorities. It's always their fault. If we'd just let business have carte blanche everything would be swell.
Black and white terms is absolutely right, Bill.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jan 9, 2009 12:22:07 GMT -5
No..that's the current left wing spin.
An Idiot (D) from New York was in charge of regulations. Up until 2 months prior to the housing collapse he stated "everything was FINE"
Which was a fraudulent response.
there fore criminal.
When you testify in any committee hearing ..you are under oath to testify to the best of your knowledge ..truthfully.
Ever attend a meeting or testify ?..I have done both... at our state Capitol. The truths are strectched very far and are not enforced.
Conservatives don't use the RACE card...MONEY KNOWS NO COLOR BOUNDARIES.
Democrats used RACE during the election..during the BLAGO mess... and now here.
We wanted every American the opportunity to own a Home.
HOME Ownership is a privilege ..not a right. Housing isn't even a Right.
If people of any race and gender do not work and are ABLE to...they must do so in order to get a apartment or HOUSE. IF not..sleep under a bridge of in a church.
The GOVERNMENT BROKE THIS MESS..
NOT BUSINESS.
ONLY LIBERALS TRUST HUMPTY DUMPTY to BE put back together again. Ready for another NEW FALL.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 9, 2009 12:37:44 GMT -5
JT.. Public service contracts done by UNIONS are based upon projected income from tax revienies...FACT..not gray or brown. I don't disagree with this. Saying this is a fact over and over again doesn't change the fact that you're using it improperly. EVERYTHING is agreed upon based on projections of what the future will provide. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You don't gain the right to force the person you agreed on a contract with to change the contract because it didn't work out for you. That's what you want, Bill. You want a "contract" to be binding only as long as the predictions you based your agreement on hold true. You don't get to do that. -- If you buy a house for $250,000 and the market tanks, you can't tell the mortgage company that your loan needs to be renegotiated, and that you only want to have borrowed $150,000 because that's all the house is worth now. -- If you sign a contract that has a wage hike of 4%, and the company does great because the economy improves and the new whizbang work environment makes the employees more productive... they don't get to go back to the company and say that their contract needs to be revisited in light of the great returns, and there should be an 8% wage hike instead. It's a contract. Both parties agreed to it. If you !!!!###$$$!!! up, then you suck it up. If the situation changes, then you fire the person who gave you crappy projections, hire a better one, and when the contract comes up, you renegotiate it then. Damn those free market capitalists to hell. They should certainly be willing to work for a smaller slice of the pie. I assume you volunteered to take a pay cut, in line with your beliefs? Yup. When the contracts come up for renewal, they need to accept that they won't get as good a deal, because the situation's worse. You claim it. Sometimes I agree, and you fail to recognize that. Other times I disagree, and you say that you've proven it because you said it. Sorry Bill, but a caveman's word is not Gospel. Take away the "thus." You're not an idiot because you're a conservative, nor because you can't spell. You're an idiot because you can't argue logically. You're an idiot because instead of arguing against positions, you villify people. You're an idiot because you oppose policies, claiming that they're democrat-inspired wastes of money, and then when it's shown that the policy came about because of a republican president, republican sponsors in Congress, and majority republican vote, you turn around and say that it's a good policy.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 9, 2009 12:38:33 GMT -5
... and I'm an idiot because I came back to this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2009 13:03:27 GMT -5
JT may be lots of things, but he is not an idiot. If you persist in calling him one, I will have to thrash you soundly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2009 13:07:58 GMT -5
Bill, all I'm going to say is this: If you think the current financial crisis was caused by us wanting "every American [to have] the opportunity to own a Home" there just isn't much hope for you. The truth is out there. Go looking for it.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jan 9, 2009 14:12:25 GMT -5
can you guys read...Your arguments put into context are exactly whats happening now.
Banks are forced to foreclose when buyers cannot make payements... Who wants to force banks to work out new deals?..THERE BY BREAKING THE CONTRACTS.. DEMOCRATS.
MI.AUTO WORKERS want a GOVERNMENT BAILOUT to not effect their contracts but the Companies structure and way of doing business going forward... I'd say that is breaking tradition in negotiating any contract... Democrats are behind this also.
X where have I state that was the ONLY reason as you imply..
You cant debate. stay home.
Jt..mi amigo ..you mince words like a food processor..but your meanings are wrong..no matter how you slice or dice them.
It was not the banks fault OR private business that caused this mess. You and x need to read something that is a little more current than the " Democratic OBAMA WEEKLY"
In the history of the world..GOVERNMENTS have been the problem ,not any solution.
You place all your trust in a corrupt young innocent DUDE from a corrupt CHICAGO landscape...Believing that anything is better than what we had. You base that on HOPE..not any HISTORICAL evidence,plan,or current OBAMA picks for cabinet or platforms.
Your calls to ease the Deficit are now cheers for OBAMA.
You are a sell out ..progressive ..my sheep's foot.
As long as you are bailed out..who cares the cost...
Yep..UNION thinking all along...UNIONS and DEMOCRATS.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 9, 2009 15:31:28 GMT -5
Oh... you're also an idiot for continuing to think I'm a democrat.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jan 10, 2009 14:02:36 GMT -5
Jt..Name the OTHERR POWER PLAYER.. IF NOT DEMOCRAT..NOR REPUBLICAN... YOU support one side more than the other...even if you lean or say ..or even think ..you are a independent. YOU NEVER argue any conservative poitions..I am alone in the wasteland here... Saying you are fiscal conservative means NOTHING if you dont support a party that beleives in it. You cannot sit on a fence forever. There will be no magical independent WRESTLER to run for president. Maybe Sir Charles after he dries up. The so called independents only run on that because they cannot get official party endorsements. We know how JOE votes i the Senate and the other IDIOT from Vermont. DEMOCRAT. So Now debate... EXPLAIN if GOVERNMENT can be counted on to save us..How come they are establishing a record debt? ELECT ME SHEEP/ I can buy you PIZZA and BEER every FRIDAY night stimulating the economy more and make you feel better. I Could just give you all checks for $10,000 and LET YOU determine what to invest in or save. There are many different ways to spend our money... WhY is OBAMAS plan better? You voted and elected the guy...show us why? and try to spell write.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 10, 2009 16:22:09 GMT -5
Bill - I'm a libertarian (both small-ell, and a voting member of the party). Unlike the two wings of the BigGovt Party (D&R), libertarians actually do believe in fiscal conservatism.
If you think I support one side more than the other, it's because I respond mainly to you and your inanities.
False premise. Government CAN'T be counted on to save us. The actions of the (R) and (D) parties show that pretty clearly. Your children and grandchildren will be screwed over with debt that we've accumulated. You might get something, but I fully expect to get a big fat ZERO in SocSec and other retirement support from the govt, regardless of how much I've put in. The govt estimates that with their best guesses on program growth, SocSec and Medicare alone will consume 90% of federal revenues in 75 years. Clearly, that can't occur, nor be sustained.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jan 10, 2009 21:33:26 GMT -5
mmm..
Now we are getting somewhere.
WARNING ..no spin zone ahead.
Any 3rd party can complain about how power and wealth are redistributed..
UNTIL they have been elected and danced to the music can one judge if they are better or worst.
We could take the best of all parties and still never have a majority...
BUSH screwed America by allowing all these bailouts.
HISTORY shows they never work.
The current down cycle started 2 quarters ago and History shows the market after the bad 4th quarter response despite what government does starts to improve..even if nothing is done.
OBAMA paints a gloomy scenario....years in recession..never in history as this happened. Any improvement and he will hail himself a SAINT.
He will be the benefactor of all the lower intrest rates and lower oil prices alone that would have worked in 6 months.
CRAMER on MSNBC and MAD money even has acount down to recovery.
History shows the American worker and investor will recover. Without Government interference.
OBAMA may indeed create the worst disaster in History, and sheep dont study History...
they like spelling instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2009 22:11:52 GMT -5
What it indicates -- your inability to spell and construct coherent sentences -- is intellectual laziness. This is the same thing we see in your political "arguments" and your understanding of history.
Here's one tip for you. You can apply it to history AND to the stock market. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it's going to happen in the future. Past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future results -- or something like that. Right there on the prospectus.
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Jan 11, 2009 8:54:05 GMT -5
I have a problem with how Social Security is understood. It is not a budget item, it is a trust fund. It is not paid for by "the government." It is entirely paid for by the taxpayers. We pay our social security taxes...it goes into the social security trust fund....and then it is paid out from that trust fund (the fact that the government has "raided" that trust fund to pay for budget items not withstanding.) So social security is revenue neutral. It doesn't "cost" the government anything. I think that the government itself promotes this misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 11, 2009 18:59:36 GMT -5
First off, I'd note that everything the govt does is (directly or indirectly) paid for by taxpayers. "The government" pays for nothing at all.
On SocSec... the "Trust Fund" is a farce. Quite reasonably (imho... the effect of investment anywhere else) the SocSec surplus revenues are invested in government T-Bills. That means that the SocSec Trust(us) Fund purchases government securities. The effect of this is that (1) the government gets "free" money as the IOUs are exchanged for real money, and (2) when the SocSec fund has to dip into that accumulated Trust(us) Fund, they redeem govt T-bills, which get paid for by... general revenue collected from taxpayers. If there's not a surplus of taxes when this happens, the govt will need to either renege on the obligation (or redefine the benefits so SSA doesn't have to redeem the securities) or they have to borrow more money from somewhere else.
And all of that doesn't get into the fact that SocSec is not solvent -- even assuming the Trust(us) Fund is somehow redeemed -- for more than about 32 years. That'd be fine if we were talking about a normal business; looking out 3 decades would be admirable for an ordinary company. But for a retirement fund, it's essential to look out longer than that, and to be solvent longer than that. The long term growth -- both in per-person cost and number of people -- in SocSec and Medicare benefits cannot be handled without large increases in taxation, or serious cuts in eligibility.
My feeling is that the eligibility is what'll get cut, and that people younger than about 55 will end up qualifying for SocSec and Medicare only if they were unlucky enough, stupid enough, or greedy enough to not plan for their own retirement. I expect to get a big, fat 0 from them.
|
|