Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: House Republicans Approve New Perk For Wall Street

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 15, 2015, 6:02 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I know we have a lot of GOP supporters on here but they are so busy digging up crap on the Dems that they have little time to keep up on how their prefered party is doing, so I thought I would let them know, flip, shadz, johannus, turbo, BradB no worries your friends are getting right to work with that huge margin you helped them get.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

It will be interesting to see if Obama signs it, or vetos it. That should put the matter here to rest.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

it would if Obama were the onlt Dem in town I prefer to watch how every one of them vote then I know if it is a partisan or bi-partiasn effort it take just a bit of work, more than most on here care to do, but anyone actually serious about change would do the work, it is one of the most important thing anyone can do, pay attention and vote, then of course calling bullshit on bullshit like the bullshit that goes on here with people working to elect the GOP calling out bullshit lies is the second most important thing right behind voting, in such a way as to keep the GOP from winning unless of course you want rich people to get richer

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

of course they did.

This right off the heels of 6 straight years of trillions in bail outs by the Dems.

Seems like they win no matter who is in office. Hysterical.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Yet you come here and encourage people to elect Republicans how odd? You think that Wall Street is not getting rich fast enough under the Dems so you want the GOP running things, after all you never have a bad word for the GOP if i have missed it point it out please, tell me do you elect the GOP for the same reason flip does? He says it will piss people off and help him achieve his true goal though he is a little fuzzy on what that is. i am a much simpler person i think the rich are too damn rich and the GOP work to make them so richer so i think we should act at all time to reduce the number of GOP that are in a position to make the rich richer, it is clear you don't care about rich getting richer because you don't care if the GOP are elected

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

Its hard to imagine a scenario worse than giving them 6 trillion of our dollars the last 6 years...

That being said, whoever is in charge next will up the game, because thats just how Dems and Reps are.

Bankers in Wall St first, you and me and everyone else last. In between we have all the other fuckers with enough cash to bribe em.

Dude, you know absolutely nothing about maple syrup. Just because you eat it doesnt mean you understand it dude.

Time to wake up Peter Pan. Count Chocula.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Come on trubo it is a simple policy question do you think it is good policy to consider economic gain to offset the cost of tax cuts to make them easier to pass? What real policy you can't discuss?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you talk like you know so much about the Ds and Rs yet you can't find a difference? Tell me what do you think of this ideal of subtracting the projected growth from the cost of a tax cut to make it easier to pass tax cuts, do you think that is a policy we should adopt as a nation? I know this is boring real life stuff that is actually happening not nearly as much fun as the dream talk that normally passes for "activest" talk around here, see I have a different definition of activest I think they act to change reality not just sit around talking bullshit. I was rewatching the greatest TV series ever made, The Wire, as if everyone doesn't know that, and it reminds me of a line from that, "you see you wish the world was one way but it's another way" a true activist knows about how the world is and acts with that knowledge, you see you are a goldfish so you really can't see it i understand that but for those of us who do see how easy it would be to change everything it is disheartening seeing you keeping the 1% in power even when just a small amount of truth would bring them crashing down.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Breakdown that 6 trillion please. Then explain why those corporations deserve the tax cut that virtually every Republican has been pushing for.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

They don't deserve it, they have just gotten handed to the them trillions from this administration the last 6 years. But they will get it, and it doesnt matter what dumb ass politician is in there.

You dummies need to realize that the DNC/RNC is not there for you. It wasnt created by you, it doesnt serve you, and you are not in any of the future plans. Get over it.

If you really dont understand what I am talking about in terms of the bailouts, well, start educating yourself.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Again for the pig headed. I'm not aware of ANY politician at the Federal level who I would describe as 'there for me'. Still, the fact remains:

Lesser evil.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

right after you explain the tpp and how it will benefit the 99%. as for the 6 trillion look it up yourself - you know how to use google no? pretty easy to see how the present admin has helped our poor banks. remember your dear president saying "i am the only thing between you and the pitchforks" - he put down the pitchfork and opened the wallet

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Get your bogus implications straight. I have never typed a single word supporting the TTP. Not one.

I want any of you posers to break down the 6 trillion. I want your breakdown posts right here for the record.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

When you vote for people who support it, you support it.

Thats how voting works you idiot.

Thats why most people dont like picking from a rotten group. Some of us are decent enough to not vote for more war like some fuckin sociopath.

Here ya go. This doesnt include the stimulus or the official bailouts. Amazing how they can simply call it something else besides a bailout and dumb shits like you literally have no clue whats going on


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You don't vote for anyone - so you have no ties to any failures - you don't vote for anyone - so you have no ties to any successes.

You have no clue as to what is going on - as - you have opted out.

You really have no right to pick on those who are trying to make a difference for the betterment of all.

You have opted out.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

"the betterment of all"... As Wall St hits records and the bombs overseas keep dropping and tearing families to pieces.

Another human easily played by the celebrity condition.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Not only do you need to get your facts straight and explain them when you post your vague attacks on Democrats, you also need to learn that QE to a significant degree was necessary in the absence of any law forcing the financial industry to recoup it's own loss of capital from those who wrongly profited from it or to loan it's remaining capital. Also, that only a portion of the difference could pass for a 'gift'. You see, those bonds will be cashed in at some point. Finally, that aside from the corruption involved with every major government transaction, there was a benefit. Otherwise, the economy would still be in free fall.

A delayed Greater Depression is better than nothing. For the one on it's way will outlive this very site by many years.

The next time you post some vague crap, legit or otherwise, don't get so damn hissy when you're challenged for detail. You should have made some attempt to explain yourself the first time.

By the way you can't prevent QE by convincing others not to vote.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

So you vote for war, for wall st, and now you think that the pillaging of our money for the sake of a record wall st was a good thing.

You are on a roll. Bankers cashing in their own bonds, to themselves, with interest. Great scheme eh?

And how very adult of you to be happy that you avoided a depression and fucked over the next generation in return. Just as long you are ok, its all good.

Typical. Now go vote for more of it you sucker.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Another thing turboposer. If it were up to me, I would have given as many bank bailouts as necessary (not wanted but necessary) under the condition that they forgive every penny in outstanding primary residence home loans.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

But it's not up to you is it? In fact, the people who trick you to keep them in power do pretty much the exact opposite, for the most part.

But keep doing the same thing over and over. I'm sure it will get you different results at some point.

And don't worry about what DKAToday has to say too much. He/she bitches and sits on a computer. No one even knows what he/she's real name is, much less any other way to contact besides an anonymous twitter handle. So again, not really much of a leader in the community, certainly not anything else outside of it.

"The moderator of the OWS topic forum whom no one has ever met, nor spoken to, nor seen".. Freakin awesome. Then complained the stress of this site was causing health problems.

My god, with a track record like that, I'm the wimp? Hysterical.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

DC Republicans keep the bailout gravy train rolling

By Brant Clifton

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  We had something pass Congress late last week called “The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act”.     How do you oppose something with a title like that? It’s kind of like the “God Bless America Law” or a “Resolution in support of Mom and Apple Pie.”   But — if you read into the fine print on TRIA — you see that the bill is little more than a bailout akin to the bank bailouts of 2007-2009  that plays real havoc with the free market.

Politicians were falling all over themselves to support TRIA. In the House, Walter Jones was the only North Carolina Republican to vote ‘Nay.’  In the Senate, both Burr and Tillis said ‘Aye.’  Senator Thom even put out a statement: 

[…] “The heinous act of terror in Paris yesterday serves as a tragic reminder that our enemies continue to pose a significant threat to America and its allies, and our nation must be prepared,” said Senator Tillis. “The Senate overwhelmingly voted to reauthorize TRIA to safeguard our economy in the event of a terrorist attack and provide American taxpayers and businesses with long-term certainty. I thank my colleagues from both parties for coming together to pass this critical legislation.”

TRIA was created by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002 following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The law helps cover damages caused by acts of terror against our nation and its citizens.

The TRIA Reauthorization Act of 2015 extends the law through December 31, 2020. Reforms in the legislation allow the law to naturally adapt to market-based competition, increasing protection of taxpayers and private insurers from large economic losses that are the direct result of terrorist attacks.[…]

The folks at right-leaning locales like Cato, Heritage, and The Heartland Institute had a much less rosy view on the bill. Here’s Eli Lehrer at Heartland: 

After hijackers destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11, taxpayers ended up spending a lot of money to aid the injured, rebuild public infrastructure, improve security, and help the jobless. But the private firms with property and workers in lower Manhattan fell back on their private insurers. And the companies paid out: Over $35 billion flowed from their capital reserves to people harmed in the attack. No insurers went under as a result of 9/11 and all but a handful of claims were paid within a few months. In short, it was a shining hour for the insurance industry.

But if another major terrorist attack takes place, the industry won’t have as much need to step up to the plate. Instead, the government will take charge. Under an obscure but potentially budget-busting program-terrorism risk insurance-the federal government has assumed nearly unlimited liability for major terrorism losses. The program, called TRIA, can claim broad support but has deep flaws and imposes billions in liabilities on taxpayers. The program, though never intended to be permanent, will be entrenched before long. Still, it’s not too late to restore an affordable, private system of insurance.

Under the current program, once industry-wide private commercial and workers compensation insurance claims from a terrorist attack exceed $27.5 billion, TRIA kicks in and covers the remaining expenses up to $100 billion. (Congress would almost certainly lift the $100 billion cap if claims exceeded that amount.) In theory, the money to pay claims would come from a tax (up to 3 percent) on just about every eligible insurance policy in the country. If this tax proved insufficient, Congress would have to use other revenues.

Although TRIA was created in 2002 as a post-9/11 stopgap, insurance companies have shown almost no interest in replacing it. Often fractious industry groups representing brokers, insurers, reinsurers, and commercial insurance consumers have lined up in support of the program. And, when the Government Accountability Office studied terrorism insurance earlier this year, it found that the chances of a private terrorism insurance market developing were very slight. TRIA is currently authorized through 2014.

And that’s a problem because the federal government-already stretched with bailouts and “stimulus” spending-has no business running a hugely expensive insurance program. Its record isn’t encouraging. The other major federal effort at disaster insurance, the National Flood Insurance program, owes the Treasury about $19 billion, has no way to pay it back, and has actually increased the nation’s susceptibility to flood by effectively subsidizing building in flood-prone areas. States like Florida that attempt to run property insurance programs have done even worse.[…] 

And here’s Heritage: 

[…] In the years since 9/11, the percentage of larger companies purchasing terrorism insurance has increased from around 27 percent in 2003 to more than 60 percent. In some industries and areas of the country, insurance coverage is as high as 80 percent.[1] Costs have also fallen, with the median premium rate for medium- and large-size firms falling by almost 60 percent from $57 million to $25 million between 2004 and 2009.

Given the development of a functioning insurance market, there is no need for the federal government, and thus the U.S. taxpayer, to be on the hook for terrorism insurance payouts. The insurance industry and the companies that want to buy terrorism insurance are now perfectly capable of assessing the value of this insurance and making informed decisions in the marketplace.

Ultimately, TRIA is now little more than corporate welfare that is likely hindering the full maturation of the terrorism reinsurance market. At this point, there is no reason for the American taxpayer to be responsible for insurance losses on private property.[…]

And Cato:

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, inflicted enormous losses on the insurance industry and businesses. In the wake of the disruptions occurring in the insurance market at the time, the government enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to create a “temporary” federal backstop against catastrophic losses. This program subsidized private risk with public funds through a cost-sharing program for which the government does not receive any compensation.

The compelling need for the program was unclear even in the smoldering aftermath of 9/11. Yet in response to effective lobbying by the insurance industry and business interests, Congress has twice extended the program. The program is now scheduled to sunset at the end of 2014, 12 years after this supposedly temporary program was instituted.

If there was some ambiguity about the program’s need before, there is none now. Terrorism risk is not more severe than other insurable risks such as natural catastrophes, and a federal backstop stakes public money to protect the insurance industry, and subsidize the terrorism risk insurance premiums for commercial policyholders. The private market is capable of underwriting this risk. This policy analysis suggests that the program should sunset as scheduled in 2014, thus ending this form of corporate welfare.

Insurance — like so many other aspects of capitalism — is all about risk.  Insurance companies take a risk by agreeing to pay you if something bad happens.  You risk your money — in the form of premiums — to pay the insurance company so that you are protected if, God forbid, something bad happens.  If nothing happens, you are out that money.

The same with health insurance.  Obama and his comrades have been leaning on the insurance industry to cover EVERYBODY.  Start insuring uninsured people even after they get sick. You don’t start calling insurance companies seeking coverage AFTER you’ve had that car wreck. 

Putting the government into the middle of private business ventures like this takes away a lot of risk — just like it did in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.  Why worry about bad loans if you know Uncle Sam is going to cover them if they go into default?  Why worry about insuring a business that repeatedly gets threatened by al qaeda if you know Uncle Sam will cover the damage bill if something happens?  People tend to make more prudent, careful decisions in business and in life if they are risking their own money — as opposed to someone else’s.


[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

On the Senate floor today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) unveiled a twelve point economic plan that if enacted would break the backs of the Koch fueled oligarchs.


Sen. Sanders said, “Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?…Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the median male worker earned $783 less last year than he made 41 years ago. The median female worker made $1,337 less last year than she earned in 2007. Since 1999, household income for the median middle-class family is less than it was a quarter century ago. We once led the world in terms of the percentage of our people who graduated college, but we are now in 12th place. Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is collapsing. Real unemployment today is not 5.8 percent, it is 11.5 percent if we include those who have given up looking for work or who are working part time when they want to work full time. Youth unemployment is 18.6 percent and African-American youth unemployment is 32.6 percent.”

Sanders detailed a 12-point economic program to,

  • Invest in our crumbling infrastructure with a major program to create jobs by rebuilding roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools.

– Transform energy systems away from fossil fuels to create jobs while beginning to reverse global warming and make the planet habitable for future generations.

– Develop new economic models to support workers in the United States instead of giving tax breaks to corporations which ship jobs to low-wage countries overseas.

– Make it easier for workers to join unions and bargain for higher wages and benefits.

– Raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour so no one who works 40 hours a week will live in poverty.

– Provide equal pay for women workers who now make 78 percent of what male counterparts make.

– Reform trade policies that have shuttered more than 60,000 factories and cost more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs.

– Make college affordable and provide affordable child care to restore America’s competitive edge compared to other nations.

– Break up big banks. The six largest banks now have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product, over $9.8 trillion. They underwrite more than half the mortgages in the country and issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards.

– Join the rest of the industrialized world with a Medicare-for-all health care system that provides better care at less cost.

– Expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs.

– Reform the tax code based on wage earners’ ability to pay and eliminate loopholes that let profitable corporations stash profits overseas and pay no U.S. federal income taxes.

There is a little something in the Sanders agenda for oligarchs of all stripes to hate. Wall Street hates the idea of breaking up the big banks. The conservative billionaires and millionaires use avoiding paying their fair share of taxes as the motivation for their political activities. A Medicare for all system would put the for-profit insurance companies out of business while challenging the Big Pharma’s practice of overpricing their drugs in the United States. The thought of a large green energy sector terrifies Big Oil. Republicans oppose equal pay, raising the minimum wage, and any public project that might create jobs.

What Sen. Sanders laid out is an agenda that Democrats and the left should aspire to. Some the points in the Sanders plan are more immediately obtainable than others. Things like tax and trade policy reforms along with infrastructure investment are realistic possibilities. While issues like equal pay, and making it easier to join a union would require a Democratic president and Congress to get done.

Bernie Sanders provided the left with a rallying cry in 2016. This isn’t an economic plan full of promises that will happen. Instead, Sen. Sanders is suggesting the direction that he believes the country ought to be moving towards.

Democrats have accomplished a great deal during the Obama years, but if they can come together in victory in 2016, the Sanders agenda could provide a roadmap for the future.



[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Jesus God damn fucking Christ you morons. What the hell will it take to get through to you? Can't you understand even the most basic principles of economics or human nature? What the hell do you think led to so much government, business, and societal corruption to begin with?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to make even the slightest difference for the lower majority, the people you CLAIM to care about without addressing the OBSCENE and GROWING share of private wealth held by the INDIVIDUALS who make up the 1%?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to make even the slightest difference for the lower majority, the people you CLAIM to care about without addressing their own IDIOTIC spending habits which INCLUDE handing over HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of DOLLARS and POUNDS to celebrity pigs?

Where in the holy fuck do all of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS think the 'corporations' got most of their money to begin with? Have any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS even bothered to do any research into his HYPOCRITE PIG background?

Do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS have any idea how many powerful, corrupt, and GOVERNMENT INFLUENCING corporations he has VOLUNTARILY supported using the MILLIONS you and the rest of his IDIOT FANS have given him? Don't any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS realize that by praising him, you actually SAVE him and his CORPORATE GOVERNMENT INFLUENCING PRODUCT RETAILERS MILLIONS over the cost of traditional advertising thereby contributing to the 'paradigm' that Russell Brand has the GALL to run his multi-deca-millionaire hypocrite pig mouth about?

What in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to accomplish by taking his advice and allowing CONSERVATIVE VOTERS run of the political board from now on?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to reform ANYTHING within the corrupt 'system' without addressing the particular form of evil at the very heart of government corruption?


Wealth concentrating and poverty causing 1% pig entry level net worth. Approximately $9 million.

Wealth concentrating and poverty causing 1% pig average net worth. Approximately $16 million.



[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

^ This folks is what a meltdown looks like when someone realizes that they bash celebrity culture, but it is that type of "looking up to" ideology that gets them to actually endorse war, corruption and the status quo.

Brand's money looks like chump change in comparison to the people you look up to.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Wrong theory slick. I'm simply posting entries that you don't want others to read in response to your deliberately diversionary and repetitive crap about the 'duopoly'. I will do so as often as I see fit. Say that reminds me.

The following members of Congress voted AGAINST the Iraq war.


Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Barbara Boxer (D-California) Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Bob Graham (D-Florida) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) Patty Murray (D-Washington) Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)


Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee) Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

Mark mark mark!


[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

And how about the Afghan war, the pakistan war, the yemen war, the Libya war, the New Iraq war, the Syrian war, the Sudan war, or the Mail war?

Oh yeah, Dems and Reps dont consider bombing people an act of war anymore.

Unfortunately, neither do their brain dead supporters.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Yep = Support the population and not the parasite of/on the population.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

turboposer? How about turbowhimp?How about turbosuckinghindend? how about turboshrimp?turbogimp?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

You're still not explaining how you hope to prevent ANYTHING by convincing others not to vote.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

There are plenty of choices to vote for outside of the war parties if you prefer a representative democracy.

That, and the amendment process (while currently pretty rigged by the two Wall St/War Parties) is a perfectly acceptable path to go for self governance as well.

Funny how you too old nutty boomers always take people's disgust with what you have done to the country and continue to do, as meaning people don't want to participate.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The following entry is just one of thousands which have been improperly flagged by a small army of die-hard conservative cowards working 24/7 on Craigslist to prevent others from understanding the truth or even getting a chance to read and judge for themselves.

Another round of improper flagging, misrepresentation, and ignorance. (Nationwide.)

All on the part of my die-hard partisan critics. Say that reminds me.

I fully expected you to go there little conservative. No, I didn't claim that the rich were paying 90% tax rates of any kind during or following the Great Depression. I never have. I know better. You see, I understand the difference between 'book rates' and 'effective rates'. I also understand the concept of a 'loophole'. So does everyone and their grandmother. Still, effective rates for the classes do rise and fall based on tax policy. They always have. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery at all.

Damn right the rich were paying much higher EFFECTIVE tax rates during the later years of and following the Great Depression. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery. Damn right they had no choice but to continue paying those much higher EFFECTIVE tax rates in spite of tweaks and fluctuations for approximately 40 years after resulting in the most just distribution of 'after tax' income and bottom line wealth in American history. Not equal in 1976 or even close. But reasonable.

If you still have the gall to stand by your 'no they didn't' argument, then I challenge you to answer the following five questions:

  1. Did Ronald Reagan's adviser Arthor Laffer understand the difference between a 'book rate' and an 'effective rate' when he introduced his 'Laffer Curve'?
  2. Did Ronald Reagan understand the difference between a 'book rate' and an 'effective rate' when he took the office of President?
  3. Why did Ronald Reagan drastically reduce the highest marginal tax rates?
  4. Why did Ronald Reagan drastically reduce the 'capital gains' tax rates?
  5. If you STILL have the GALL to stand by your 'no they didn't' argument, then what does that make Ronald Reagan? A dead liar or a dead moron? Wrong again little conservative. The timeline shatters your claim. (Nationwide.)

In one of your early remarks on the issue, you made a reference to 'static' wealth. Your point being that wealth isn't just transferred from one party to another. It's expanded as well. It's a common argument. True in some cases. Dead wrong in others. Yet your latest claim with regard to the growth of the American middle class following the Great Depression is that it was due essentially, to a transfer of wealth from the rest of the world. Not from the rich.

No little conservative. You see, there was in fact, a massive infusion of new US currency along with a massive public works program enacted prior to WWII. Taxes were raised significantly on the majority but DRASTICALLY on the rich prior to WWII. This began to shift the transfer of actual buying power back in favor of the lower majority.

The Great Depression was officially ended in 1939. GDP had been restored to it's previous high. Unemployment rates, although still high, were already well on their way back down prior to WWII. The middle and lower classes were already on their way to a recovery prior to WWII. The necessary, the VITAL transfer of wealth from rich back to poor was already under way. Again, the Great Depression was officially ended in 1939 under FDR, the most fiscally liberal President in American history.

When our troops finally joined the war effort OVER TWO YEARS LATER, millions of American women took the places of men on the production lines. Because the US government was the primary employer of men AND the primary customer of US manufacturing, the lower majority ended up with huge economic gains. As a direct result, again because of those drastically increased taxes and the infusion of new currency, the rich, although still rich, ended up with a net loss in actual buying power.

In other words, WWII resulted in a continued transfer of wealth from rich Americans back to poor Americans. This was the recovery for the American middle class. A NECESSARY and VITAL transfer of wealth from rich to poor.

I'll never deny that we've imported the raw materials of our wealth from all over the world but that was going on before the Great Depression. Still, the economy tanked because of a record high concentration of wealth. Although much of the growth following WWII was related to rebuilding, that growth continued to benefit the US middle class, in terms of relative (actual) buying power, specifically because of those higher taxes on the rich. Higher taxes, which like many a real world fact, blow conservative economic theories right out of the water.

Say that reminds me.

Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National debt. That was one of his 'stated goals'. Instead, he nearly tripled it. Meanwhile, in the midst of his 'economic growth' (bad growth, you need to learn the difference), consumer debt skyrocketed as billions of dollars were transferred from poor back to rich on his watch and that of his little partisan puppet and your conservative hero, Milton Freedman.

So much for 'trickle down' or 'supply side', the thoroughly dis-proven theory of Reaganomics. So much for Ronald Reagan's 'stated goals'. Like I've been saying all along, both parties are horribly corrupt. The difference being that because of pressure from voters, Democrats act in the interests of the lower majority more often than Republicans. For that reason, I intend to help get a Democrat elected in 2016 as I did in 2008 (with over 10,000 web entries and hundreds of phone calls) UNLESS a solid Republican with a proven willingness to compromise ends up running in which case, I MAY support him or her depending on the circumstances.

Regarding Obama: Of course, his stated goals have not been met. They never will be. I've already admitted that he is at best, a cheap copy of FDR. Of course, the 'shovel ready' jobs, for the most part, didn't materialize. Welcome to the real world of unrealistic campaign promises, government/business corruption, and relentless die-hard partisan obstructionism.

By the way, I'm posting every single one of my improperly flagged SF entries on OWS from now on.

Go ahead. Make my day.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

Make sure you check under your bed for Republican spies tonight before you go to sleep.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago
[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What it is not explaining - but is still obvious - is that - what it hopes to prevent - is - things getting better for the 99%. Funny that - except that it must have it's own personal gains involved somehow.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

That's my belief as well.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Pretty obvious - HEY ?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Republicans Launch Another Wall Street Gimmie: HR 185, the “Tie Regulators in Knots” Act

Posted on January 14, 2015 by Yves Smith

The Republicans are not wasting any time in their ongoing campaign to make sure nothing stands in the way of Wall Street’s rapacious quest for more profits.

The latest example is a bill that is going largely under the radar was tabled last week, HR 185. It has yet another Orwellian name, “Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015.” It’s basically a requirement that regulators do the research of anti-regulation lobbyists on the public dime. I’m not making that up. From the summary of the bill at the Library of Congress:

The bill requires agencies to publish advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for major rules and for high-impact rules (rules having an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or $1 billion or more, respectively) and for negative-impact on jobs and wages rules and those that involve a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates. The notice must include a written statement identifying the nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule, the legal authority under which the rule may be proposed, the nature of and potential reasons to adopt a novel legal or policy position, and a solicitation for written data, views, or arguments from interested persons.

Additionally, the bill: (1) sets forth criteria for issuing major guidance (agency guidance that is likely to lead to an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in cost or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability to compete) or guidance that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates; and (2) expands the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking by allowing immediate review of rulemaking not in compliance with notice requirements and establishing a substantial evidence standard for affirming agency rulemaking decisions.

This is far more sweeping than it appears. The language “those that involve a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates” covers almost all of what regulators do in the course of new rulemaking. And notice how in (2) in the second paragraph how it increases the ability of Federal judges, when the Federal bench is increasingly populated with jurists skilled at making strained readings to defend big business interests, to force agencies to go through these hoops and uses these studies and reports as the basis for not implementing new regulations.

The effect will be to delay the implementation of new rules, divert resources to preparing these analyses, which cuts into budgets that would otherwise be devoted to oversight and enforcement, and most perverse of all, forcing agencies to gin up talking points against regulation. It’s hardly a surprise that rules often result in lower revenues or profits to the regulated. That’s a feature, not a bug. Regulation is a response to market defects, that parties to a transaction either unfairly impose costs on one party through information asymmetries or outright deceptive practices, or parties to a transaction impose costs on innocent third parties. Regulation is meant to limit anti-social behavior, either by proscribing it, or by imposing costs on it so that the costs to the parties to a transaction reflect the damage that it does to bystanders.*

To use the banking example, we have bank regulations because the cost of periodic crises on the community at large is too high to let financial firms carry on without having some curbs on their behavior, particularly given their well-established propensity to run off cliffs all together. HR 185 seeks to create a new fiction: that the only costs that matter when imposing new regulations are those borne by the potential or actual perps, and not society as a whole.

Better Markets weighed in on this noxious bill. From their letter:

HR 185 is nothing more than a disguised pro-Wall Street deregulation bill.  It is as if people – in just a few short years – forgot the crisis of 2008, which was the worst financial crash since 1929 and caused the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  H.R. 185 also ignores the fact that the crash, which is going to cost the U.S. more than $12.8 trillion plus untold human suffering by tens of millions of Americans who lost their jobs, savings, homes, retirements, and so much more, was largely caused by lack of regulation and de-regulation, not by too much regulation or bad regulation.

A key example of a dangerous provision in H.R. 185 is the requirement that would force financial protection agencies to undertake an exhaustive and quantitative so-called “cost-benefit analysis” for every major rulemaking.  Don’t be misled by the labeling.  As has been repeatedly shown over the years, such so-called “cost benefit analysis” is little more than “industry cost only analysis” that prioritizes Wall Street’s interests over the public interest.  As Better Markets detailed in an extensive report, the type of “industry cost only analysis” required by H.R. 185 would effectively kill financial reform, take down key rules that protect Main Street from Wall Street, and possibly lead to another devastating financial crash. 

In effect, H.R. 185 would hand a lethal club to Wall Street, the very industry that crashed the financial system – and cost tens of millions of Americans their jobs, savings, homes, retirements, and economic security.  Armed with this bill, Wall Street can beat back rules by arguing that the costs imposed on them to prevent them from crashing the financial system again should be more important than the benefit to the public of preventing such a crash.  This shamelessly turns the world upside down, effectively re-victimizing the American people who have suffered and continue to suffer from the last crisis.

Please call your Congressmen and tell them “Hell no” to HR. 185. Follow these links for contact information for your Senators and Representative here.

  • In the case of externalities, there’s a robust literature on the topic, which Andrew Haldane summarized in a seminal 2010 paper, The $100 Billion Question. Key section:

The taxation versus prohibition question crops up repeatedly in public choice economics. For centuries it has been central to the international trade debate on the use of quotas versus subsidies. During this century, it has become central to the debate on appropriate policies to curtail carbon emissions. In making these choices, economists have often drawn on Martin Weitzman’s classic public goods framework from the early 1970s.

Under this framework, the optimal amount of pollution control is found by equating the marginal social benefits of pollution-control and the marginal private costs of this control. With no uncertainty about either costs or benefits, a policymaker would be indifferent between taxation and restrictions when striking this cost/benefit balance.

In the real world, there is considerable uncertainty about both costs and benefits. Weitzman’s framework tells us how to choose between pollution-control instruments in this setting. If the marginal social benefits foregone of the wrong choice are large, relative to the private costs incurred, then quantitative restrictions are optimal. Why? Because fixing quantities to achieve pollution control, while letting prices vary, does not have large private costs. When the marginal social benefit curve is steeper than the marginal private cost curve, restrictions dominate.

The results flip when the marginal cost/benefit trade-offs are reversed. If the private costs of the wrong choice are high, relative to the social benefits foregone, fixing these costs through taxation is likely to deliver the better welfare outcome. When the marginal social benefit curve is flatter than the marginal private cost curve, taxation dominates. So the choice of taxation versus prohibition in controlling pollution is ultimately an empirical issue.

And Haldane was also clear that the more aggressive remedy, prohibition, was the right response to practices that lead to financial crises, based on the broader costs, such as unemployment, business failures, reduced government services, particularly at the state and municipal level:

….these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five times annual GDP. Put in money terms, that is an output loss equivalent to between $60 trillion and $200 trillion for the world economy and between £1.8 trillion and £7.4 trillion for the UK. As Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed, to call these numbers “astronomical” would be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. “Economical” might be a better description.

It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming that a crisis occurs every 20 years, the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs would be in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation of the largest global banks is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output costs of financial crises would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs, with the levy playing the role of the meteorite.



[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

On Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2014, former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell was indicted along with his wife on charges of accepting illegal gifts. It is a 14 count indictment, following a lengthy investigation that alleges fraud, false statements, and obstruction.

In light of these recent allegations, we have compiled a list of 20 other notable politicians who have been arrested, indicted or convicted since 2000.



[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

as john stewart told another fool - "i am not your monkey"

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

everybody knows you're the GOP's monkey

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

In other words, you agree with but won't back up turbocharger's 6 trillion dollar attack on Democrats.

He won't back it up either.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

from your comments i can only assume that neither of you idiots know about the democratic parties bail out of the banks. i should not be surprised at your ignorance but it is stunning none the less. look it up - do some research - let me know what you find out. i have much better things to do than to try to educate people who "cannot handle the truth!"

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Already did. I stand by every word. Say that reminds me.

The entries posted by johannus are for the time being, included for relevance only. However, the timing is worth considering.

Without further adieu:

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 23 hours ago Amazing. All seven of the current top rated comments here on OWS were posted for no reason whatsoever but to complain about those of us who still believe in voting. Meanwhile, those of us who do believe in voting continue to get our comments marked down regardless of the view. What a pathetic and infested excuse this site has become for legitimate protest. It's all about the 'non vote' and user ratings thanks to a few users who post and rate using multiple IDs.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 21 hours ago i think once again you have it wrong. all the comments do not complain about voting but about voting for a war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat. give it a rest - your taken over post is nonsense - look up ows on wiki and maybe you will get why this happens to you ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by johannus (224) from Newburgh, NY 19 hours ago I agree, if someone likes "war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat[s]" as SMC does, they should not be surprised if they feel persecuted on an Occupy forum. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 18 hours ago Right. Seems to me that he is being treated very well here. He is the more aggressive one and the one who is not capable of rational discourse. He would not be able to last more than a few minutes in the park ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 18 hours ago I was on the cause long before either of you pretended to be.

Http://OprahAngelinaBradBonoBill.Blogspot.com ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 17 hours ago really? and how would you know what i have been doing for the last 40 years? oh, i forgot - you have "the vision" - silly rabbit ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 13 hours ago This is very simple.

Post a link.


That's what I thought.


http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 hours ago Well for starters i wrote the port Huron statement. Then fought against the war in Vietnam. I predicted the end of the way to the day. Then -oh the hell with it - you are not worth the time. You are no fun ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 6 minutes ago 40 years huh? Well, the Port Huron statement was completed 52 1/2 years ago. It was written primarily by Tom Hayden.

Flip, you are a liar and a poser using multiple IDs to mark your own comments up and mine down. Now, you have the gall to claim the identity of Tom Hayden, an anti-war DEMOCRAT activist and former Senator, now 75, in a desperate attempt to compete with and discredit me.

You have reached a new low. It will be held against you and cited as often as I see fit.


[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

should i come over and tie your shoes for you also? there is no need to back it up - it is common knowledge. if you do not have that knowledge then look it up!

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

It is too bad that during campaigning for the 2014 midterm elections, many Democratic candidates ran away from President Obama’s economic achievements and did their level best to be Republicans. Yesterday the President briefly touched on his successful economic record that Democrats were terrified of and Republicans claimed was a major disaster.  Republicans ran on, and won big with, their claim that the GOP is “the party of solutions” founded on conservative pro-growth economic policies, deregulation, and tax cuts for the rich they claimed were more successful than anything “hapless” Democrats or Obama could ever hope to achieve. This is despite the President’s nearly five-year job growth record, world-leading GDP growth, and increased revenue paying down the nation’s debt at a record pace.

This column has given special attention to the trickle-down economic disaster in Kansas, but plenty of other Republican states’ economies are failing miserably; especially states with Republican governors held up as the model for the nation in hopes of winning the White House and running nation’s economy into the ground. Republicans said throughout 2014 that Democrats and the President consistently offer up “ineffective economic policies” responsible for the President’s failed economic policies leading to increased income inequality plaguing the poor and middle class. Republicans have no interest in addressing income inequality according to red states with failing economies due to their storied “pro-growth agenda” of tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

In New Jersey, Chris Christie campaigned on and entered office on a pledge of balancing the state budget and “replenishing the state’s pension program.” Instead, Christie’s “pro-growth agenda” of cutting corporate taxes drastically increased pension liabilities, created Kansas-style revenue shortfalls, and earned the state a record eight credit downgrades; a new mark for a sitting governor. New Jersey is also, like Kansas, lagging the rest of the nation in creating jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and while the national unemployment rate has been steadily dropping, New Jersey’s is growing just over the past year.

To save his failing pro-growth economy, Christie is following Brownback’s lead and cutting employee’s pension-fund payments and delaying property-tax relief for individuals. It has already adversely affected, and caught the attention of, public workers, senior citizens, and middle-class homeowners who likely voted for more trickle-down tax cuts for the rich. Christie’s pro-growth agenda has created a $1.7 billion revenue shortfall this year due to more than $600 million in corporate tax cuts that failed to deliver economic growth, increase revenue, or create job growth.

Christie tripled corporate tax cuts in less than three years with more coming this year and, like Brownback in Kansas and Republicans in Washington, he promised and still claims that more frequent and larger business tax cuts are absolutely necessary to grow the economy, create jobs, and most importantly; “benefit the big corporations.” The only part of Christie’s promise that reached fruition is the benefit to big corporations; the goal of all conservative “pro-growth reforms.”

Despite a flagging economy, poor job growth, revenue shortfalls, and eight credit downgrades, Christie has pledged that he will do nothing to endanger the still-growing corporate tax cuts to save the state’s economy. In fact, even raiding and cutting pension-fund payments is not enough to make up for the growing corporate tax cuts he has no intent of stopping.

In Louisiana, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal’s conservative economic policies have the state facing “a very large shortfall as we go into the spring session of 2015 because we’ve been relying too much on those onetime funds for recurring expenses” according to a fiscally conservative Republican state representative. Brett Geyman said Jindal has relied “too heavily on a non-replenishable pool of “onetime” funds that won’t be available next year.”

The “very large revenue shortfall” is in spite of “the steepest cuts to education ever proposed for the state” that the Republican speaker of the Louisiana House has vowed to block because they “will set us back generations.” The fact that Jindal is still in office is proof enough form semi-intelligent Americans that the state’s education system has already set the state back generations. Jindal claims the steep education cuts are necessary to balance the state’s budget even though with the drastic cuts, the state still faces a substantially large revenue shortfall. Jindal wants to completely eliminate corporate taxes completely and raise them on the bottom 80% of the population; a tactic that will exacerbate the revenue shortfall. However, like New Jersey’s Christie and Kansas’ Brownback claim, eliminating business taxes will be a “great benefit to big corporations.”

Republican Scott Walker of Wisconsin is also facing a “pro-growth agenda” revenue shortfall this year to the tune of $2.2 billion as well as a record “slower than average job and wage growth” compared to the national figures according to a recent analysis. Walker claims the facts are false, and that he will make up the $2.2 billion shortfall by “adjusting funding priorities” that in Republican economic parlance means steep cuts to domestic programs and pension payments. Walker already cut taxes for the rich and funded them partially with Medicaid cuts and still; the state faces a 2.2 billion revenue shortfall.

What is telling in all these Republican economic failures is that the national economy is and has been steadily growing, job growth is at record pace, manufacturing is growing, and gas prices are falling. There is a reason why these, and other, Republican-led states are not enjoying the same growth and recovery as the rest of the nation and it is down to the Republican ‘pro-growth agenda’ of tax cuts for the rich and corporations and cuts to pensions and domestic programs that help drive the economy whether at the state or federal level.

Democrats who ran away from the President’s economic record were fools, and voters in economically-failed red states were morons for either electing or re-electing ‘pro-growth’ Republicans who are not only decimating their state economies, they are dragging down the national economy as well. The real obscenity is that Democratic states are stuck bailing out the idiots in red states who continue electing Republicans who have no other intent than advancing their failed pro-growth agenda on the national level.


[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

FrF .... you are a GROUPIE !!! That's all there is to it .... you don't speak on issue's ... only on party alignment !!!

Therefore You DO NOT & CANNOT represent the 99% ....

Only the 49% ... because you picked a side.... and further try to place other 99% members into one side or the other ... (which IS Not Fact!! ) .... your un-wittingly actions are further trying to dismantle the 99% ....

YOU STILL do not understand Occupy at all ....

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I'm a groupie? because I care what actually happens? When the GOP are elected America is hurt if you don't know that you are a fool. it is not about "picking a side" it is about making a choice you don't make a choice and encourage others not to either you would let the 1% choose you are a fool, in the real world things happen and those things matter you would stick your head in the sand and do nothing while the GOP rape the land

no worries there will be many issues your friends the GOP will act on and each time I will remind you of the issues you support that you elect that you put into office

your attempts to co-opt OWS for your own political purpose will not go unopposed OWS is about wealth inequality you work to elect the GOP which make wealth inequality worse you work against the cause of OWS

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

you idiot !! .... I am NOT saying that the GOP is NOT bad for the country ....

I am saying that if you want to BEAT the GOP....

you CANNOT do it by promoting support for their opposition the DEMS ....

the DEMS have been trying to beat them for ever ... and it has only gotten worse ....

the ONLY way to defeat the GOP ... is to do it within their own party ... you must dismantle them ...

which is done by dividing their own party by ISSUES ...

your constant attack on their party (the GOP) as a whole .... only makes them stronger (as a group)...

if instead ... you attack each GOP "INDIVIDUAL" position on an issue ....

you will find dissension in the party ... show them division in their party... and it will weaken them ...

same holds true for the DEMS ....

it's the ONLY way ... to build & unite the 99%

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

tell me how many GOP lost to non Dems? what the hell are you talking about? I support anybody who can actually beat the GOP candidate and win whatever seat is up, remember I work in the real world i am not talking about your made up one, where there are elections and people either win or lose, what has happened for decades is fools like you who walk around saying they're all the same because you don't want to be bothered actually learning anything, it is the disinterest and disinformation promoted by ego whores like Nader in 2000, that keep the GOP in power if the truth were told the GOP would fall and the Dems would be close behind but people like you run around throwing out bullshit to confuse people and keep the GOP and therefore the 1% in power. It is hard for me to imagine that you could be stupid enough not to know what you do elects the GOP and keeps this whole thing going, if Al Gore had followed Bill Clinton things would be very different today, but Nader was there to keep the GOP viable and now they have the biggest margin in 80 years when only a few years ago 70% or better of American said they thought the rich were getting to be too rich, it is as if people don't know that the GOP work to make the rich richer, but then why would they certainly OWS never speaks that truth.

Ok let's talk about the individual ideal of offsetting tax cuts with the projected growth to make it easier to pass tax cuts. Do you think that is a good ideal? I don't choose to do the personal attacks i know people are people, but policy i will discuss all day what do you think of that policy?

so your purpose in showing the dissension within the Dems is to weaken them? I see you do want to weaken the Dems now how about the Rs do ever think of weakening them? or are you ok if they win over a weakened Dem?

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

FRF.... Your HATRED towards the GOP ... is your demon ....

your HATRED keeps you from reading anyone else's posts ... because you think you already know what they are saying..

your HATRED keeps you from understanding anyone else's posts ...

your HATRED keeps you from communicating ... or learning ...

oh... that's right ... you can't learn anything... you already know it all !!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I didn't see where you explained why electing (or allowing to be elected, same thing) the GOP makes things any better, if you could do that maybe I would understand your position better.

Your acceptance of the GOP is why wealth inequality has grown ever since OWS took to the park.

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

quote: "Your acceptance of the GOP "

point proven : your HATRED keeps you from reading anyone else's posts ... because you think you already know what they are saying..

I have NEVER said I accepted the GOP .....

I am NOT a Groupie ....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you work very hard to elect the GOP that is your only mission it is all you do, you refuse to ever discuss how your post make the GOP stronger yet all of your comments and all of your posts are designed to elect the GOP!

Accept may very well be too soft a word you empower the GOP to do their will.

You are a "groupie" you are a Green Dem hating groupie you care nothing for the fact that you elect the GOP or the reality of what they do as long as you can, (in your mind) help your groupie group you stick you head in the sand and care nothing for what happens as a result of your actions the fact that the GOP are elected you are the worst kind of brainwashed fool.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

all the job calls for 5+ experience in igget

who knows igget ?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

like I been saying Matt I got a job for a smart guy like you, but it's not in San Diego, I think the problem isn't not enough, so much as they don't pay enough, I think a lot of Americans have said you can take this $8/hr job and shove it, me I'm busy creating new jobs in an industry that can't be exported, it is a complex situation, it's not zero sum but it's not magic either.....

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

we all no charging interest is a negative exponential game

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

what's compounding got to do with it?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

owing is owing compound or linear

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

a job is a job paid or not

[-] 1 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Great point imo.

This is the big problem, people have their own mindset, then don't have the skills or patience to solve our big problems. So corporations can write legislation in the dark like the trans pacific partnership.

The new proposal of the president on taxes anyway should get good support. Start with some common ground.