The timing is great, he even linked to newsbusters
Hilarious and sad at the same time
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
I dont understand this comment. I cant link to New york times as they dont archive their stuff unless you pay... I do, however, have the article.
"Kiddo, let me tell you about cause and effect. The poor start suffering more, they elect people that represent their interests more. The economy keeps going down because it is out of control of the mayors (stuff like NAFTA)."
Um.... english please??? I think you are TRYING to say that the democrats are taking control of city that is already corrupt / deteriorating? Please describe the drastic decline during the 8 years while he was the mayor?? Hell, I'll even disregard the fact that he is involved in gang activity to the extent of theft, drugs, and murder. Please. Why did he buy his wife a brand new hummer with 26 inch chrome rims, fully equiped..... WITH TAX MONEY???
Um.... english please??? I think you are TRYING to say that the democrats are taking control of city that is already corrupt / deteriorating? Please describe the drastic decline during the 8 years while he was the mayor?? Hell, I'll even disregard the fact that he is involved in gang activity to the extent of theft, drugs, and murder. Please. Why did he buy his wife a brand new hummer with 26 inch chrome rims, fully equiped..... WITH TAX MONEY???
It's also " hilarious and sad at the same time " that his comments are somewhat on par with the OP's video.
I wonder if he watched it or just decided to randomly interject his skewed view point into this thread ?
I wonder if he watched it or just decided to randomly interject his skewed view point into this thread ?
Actually... I saw the video a while ago. I'm going to assume it is the lady that sounds like she just dosed up. People like that make me sick, and I'm glad they are normally on the "left." Goto bonnaroo and have a political discussion with ANYONE.
Also, I hate bush. He is a terrible person and a terrible leader, I hope he dies.
As for the attempt to discredit the link I posted, I have no clue what newsbusters is, I just did a quick google search for the article I know is real, and that was the first link that popped up. You can do some more research on the topic if you want.
You mean like finance deregulation followed by financial market collapse followed by $700B bailout followed by recession? Or do you mean a misguided $200B/yr war?
That's really too bad that those democratic mayors killed a few small cities. But if we're blaming the executive branch, I can't help but point out a Republican president AND congress killed the whole country.
I know what it refers to, but the problem with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is that it removes regulation set up by Glass-Steagall, not because of minorities.
Um, you mean the reason we are having to bailout (250 billion with X increments of 100 billion with a max of 700 billion that HAS TO BE ALLOWED BY CONGRESS?? please read the bill) is NOT due to the deregulation in the loan market pushed, and allowed, by the clinton administration as suggested in the New York Times? Or are you too young to remember 1999?
To understand where the ORIGINS of this crisis are, please take a look at the september 30, 1999 article in the new york times. Search for the date, it's everywhere. Hell, I'll take a picture with my camera and post it up here.
Wow, that statement is so misinformed it makes my eyes hurt to read it.
Rednecks are almost exclusively conservative and vote Republican.
And how do I know you might ask ? Because I've lived in the mountains of Western NC and my whole family is from the hills of VA and TN.
You're siting a music festival that draws a liberal crowd of visitors to a traditionally conservative area.
The GLBA was veto-proof by the way, the Dems and Republicans that passed it are at fault.
Easy on the CAPS there, tough guy. You might hurt yourself.
I read your NYT article. You really should try harder before posting. It's almost as if nothing happened in the 9 years since that article was written, or that the original push wasn't in the midst of an economic boom driven by tech. I may be too young to remember 1999 (or was just too drunk for most of the year), but you've apparently been in coma since then.
I think you're confusing some things.
read this, found the article
"....will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. "
You dont buy bikes from people who dont deliver, why should the banks give money to those who dont pay back...
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. "
Clintons were repbulicans?? Low and moderate people deserve a 100,000 dollar house?
"....But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites. "
Equality..... Less racism..... right....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I went to bonnaroo the last 3 years. trust me, it's a LIBERAL event in a REDNECK town. There were about 50 "sign up to vote" stations, each with anti-bush signs / shirts, and no information about republican candidates.
also, do a search about pearl jams' speech.
heh-heh, did you apply those same comprehension steeze to your NYT article?
english??? I'm going to go with the urban dictionary definition, since I speak amhurican.
The NY times article was not edited, which is why it's in quotes and cited correctly. There were more like 5-10 vote stations and, yes, they were all equipped with ATLEAST one anti- bush person, and no info on republican candidates.
Do you understand what you read ?
All you just did was repeat part of one of my statements in an attempt to illustrate your misinformed point.
you are a ****ing dumbass.
the problems in africa are not because of a black leader. it also sounds like you are assuming most of the leaders in africa have been democratically elected, you are quite wrong if that is the case.
Last edited:
do you understand what you wrote??
Rednecks are almost exclusively conservative and vote Republican.
And how do I know you might ask ? Because I've lived in the mountains of Western NC and my whole family is from the hills of VA and TN.
maybe you didnt mean to come across like you did? Maybe you dont know what the "left" is??
The people at bonnaroo are crazy as hell. Talk to someone there and you will most likely hear a story similar to the crazy redneck in the original video.... except towards bush.
TO the guy who said he was too drunk to remember 1999. I'm not saying things didnt happen between then and now, everyone knows they did. I'm saying that irresponsible leadership leads to crisis, much like the one we have now. The ORIGINS of the crisis were during the Clinton Admin. Back in the day you used to be required to have a substantial down payment for the types of loans that led to the current crisis, because of shortsightedness on Clinton's part, the down payments were no longer needed. Couple this with a housing boom, partly due to increased GDP, partly inflated due to the ease of getting loans, and you have an issue. People who have no money want to "get rich quick" by "flipping a house or two" or living in a house that they expect to sell for more than they paid for it in a few years. These are the risky behaviors that led to the current crisis. My dad's house nearly doubled from 300-510 thousand dollars during this time. Of course it's only worth about 350 now, but people were taking out loans, living in houses with payments not much higher than average rent, and expecting to sell them at a profit when the homes increased in value.
you are a ****ing dumbass.
thanks for sharing your opinion! please provide a valid counter argument? Perhaps a case in which my statement is incorrect?
There is a difference between racism and factual evidence.
Once again, there is a difference between racism and factual evidence. Would you be surprised to find out that I am in an interracial relationship? Because I am.
As you can see, due to the stupidity of the average negro, they cannot be trusted in public office or with a vote!
Just like the standard "leftist," when presented with facts that disprove your argument you resort to attacks. This is evident throught this thread.
I'm just curious trebor, how old are you and what region of the country do you hail from ?
where would we get the idea that you are raci...
oh.
If you have proof that black people or democrats are the cause of economic downfall, present it. The argument is so ridiculous that treating it seriously is a waste of time. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that it is the case. All you have done is show that Kwame Kilpatrick is corrupt and that Democrats are elected when the economy is failing.
oh.
If you have proof that black people or democrats are the cause of economic downfall, present it. The argument is so ridiculous that treating it seriously is a waste of time. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that it is the case. All you have done is show that Kwame Kilpatrick is corrupt and that Democrats are elected when the economy is failing.
Thank you for that insightful lesson in economics and history. I had no idea that was the case. Our present situation makes so much more sense to me now. I've learned something here today. Bravo to you, sir.
I'm 22 and I am from Louisville, Ky. My grandfather is 1 of 11 kids who grew up in the german cinci ghetto. His father didnt speak english, and he got his first pair of "new" clothes (not handed down) at 24?? He worked 2 jobs through college, became a doctor and is now rich. True american dream achieved. This is why people like Jessie Jackson, Obama, Kwame, and other people who "give to those that "need" it" piss me off so much. They do nothing but reinforce the idea that everything is given to you and there is no reason to push yourself. This is not the case, my grandfather was one of the 3 that actually made themselves into something better than "average." Not everyone succedes, and where you come from doesnt mean a thing. As I said earlier, he worked 2 jobs. My father grew up "wealthy" but still had to work himself through college, working as a welder and a cab driver. Things arent just "given to you" nor should they be.
I am a born again conservative, after having had a stint with the "left" crowd.
Anything else?
The addition of "black" was probably not the "right" thing to do, as there isnt a correlation between blacks and failing economy.
There is a correlation between democratic policy (regulation, income transfers, increased taxes) and decrease in GDP. Just look at the unemployment rate of other contries vs ours. 4% is our average.... it goes up to 13% in some european countries. Our GDP, althought it does have down points, steadily increases at 3% per year. Higher than most other countries. As a matter of fact, the only places that grow faster than us have LESS regulation than we do.
Real quick lesson here, since someone wants one. If you were starting a business and could choose between two places to startup, would you choose one with a 35% business tax or a 15% business tax??
If you look throughout history, the greatest presidents we have had are republicans.
read up on these folks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
Ya, great choice of leaders you chose to use to exemplify economic strategies. Any economist will tell you that Reaganomics was perhaps the absolute worst economic policy ever created. 
Reagan spent more money (about 68% more, on average) than Carter.
Reagan sent the debt skyrocketing through deficit spending. $200 billion a year vs about 40-50 from Carter.
Reagan's "tax cuts" in 1981 did nothing to actually cut taxes. On average taxes rose for everyone but the very wealthy (sound familiar?)
Rangan's protectionist policies were exactly opposite his claims of free trade and openness during the campaign.
Economic regulation actually went UP during Reagan's term, not down. The major gas and oil industry deregulation he tried to take credit for actually started to take place under Carter, but were not fully in place until Reagan was in office.
Roosevelt did great things. Only the world in 1901 was a very different place than the world in 2008. Also, the Republican party was a VERY VERY different entitiy in 1901 than it is now. It has been taken over by right wing religious lunatics who care only about hot button issues, and not the original tenets of the Republican party. Hell, even Regan's policies were exactly opposite of the original Ideals of the republican party (small govt, limited spending etc.)
Reagan spent more money (about 68% more, on average) than Carter.
Reagan sent the debt skyrocketing through deficit spending. $200 billion a year vs about 40-50 from Carter.
Reagan's "tax cuts" in 1981 did nothing to actually cut taxes. On average taxes rose for everyone but the very wealthy (sound familiar?)
Rangan's protectionist policies were exactly opposite his claims of free trade and openness during the campaign.
Economic regulation actually went UP during Reagan's term, not down. The major gas and oil industry deregulation he tried to take credit for actually started to take place under Carter, but were not fully in place until Reagan was in office.
Roosevelt did great things. Only the world in 1901 was a very different place than the world in 2008. Also, the Republican party was a VERY VERY different entitiy in 1901 than it is now. It has been taken over by right wing religious lunatics who care only about hot button issues, and not the original tenets of the Republican party. Hell, even Regan's policies were exactly opposite of the original Ideals of the republican party (small govt, limited spending etc.)
Last edited:
where are you going to school???Ya, great choice of leaders you chose to use to exemplify economic strategies. Any economist will tell you that Reaganomics was perhaps the absolute worst economic policy ever created.
he got rid of stagflation
Last edited:
Wow I am amazed.
You were political conscious at age 13.
You have some issues kid.
bigotry |ˈbigətrē|
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself : the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry. See note at bias .
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from bigot , reinforced by French bigoterie.
First off, as a member of a wealthy family, as stated before, I do remember that time. I was 14, but that doesnt matter much. I remember enron, arnold anderson, and the fact that I'm in the field should account for something
. Maybe you didnt goto college, and dont understand the fact that you learn about the history that goes along with the subject you study, not just "3 +3 = 6." Why do you think I have the article?? it was part of one of my classes.
If we use your logic, then we should just discredit those who believe in evolution. After all, they were not there during the time, and therefore they are incorrect.
Actually, all of history is probably wrong. After all, noone teaching me about it now was alive back then, IT MUST BE FAKE!!!
Why isn't FDR on that list of greatest presidents? 
The Republican Party since the neocon hijack is completely different than how it was before. Republicans tend to raise the debt massively, especially Reagan.
The GDP only shows how much the rich are benefiting, not how much the people of the country is benefiting.
I would prefer to live in a country with a better Gini Coefficient or higher Human Development Index than a country where the GDP is high.
Reaganomics was a disastrous economic policy.
The Republican Party since the neocon hijack is completely different than how it was before. Republicans tend to raise the debt massively, especially Reagan.
The GDP only shows how much the rich are benefiting, not how much the people of the country is benefiting.
I would prefer to live in a country with a better Gini Coefficient or higher Human Development Index than a country where the GDP is high.
Reaganomics was a disastrous economic policy.
Through gigantic economic stimulus and gov't debt spending...which US citizens are still paying for. Fantastic policy, it worked for a few years, and then failed miserably.
Also, of all the goals Reagan cited, this is the ONLY one that was even moderately achieved, and even then only for a brief period of time. It also lead to the 82 recession.
Trickle down economics and debt spending do not work in the long term. You need to pay more attention in your classes (or move on to something other than political economy 101.)
Why isn't FDR on that list of greatest presidents?
The Republican Party since the neocon hijack is completely different than how it was before. Republicans tend to raise the debt massively, especially Reagan.
The GDP only shows how much the rich are benefiting, not how much the people of the country is benefiting.
I would prefer to live in a country with a better Gini Coefficient or higher Human Development Index than a country where the GDP is high.
Reaganomics was a disastrous economic policy.
Actually, you are wrong. GDP is the BEST indicator of our standard of living.
why would you want to live in a place like that (based off gini coefficient)? they generally have higher unemployment and lower gdp / income. What comes with the high benefits for not working?? high taxes for those that do work. Income transfers = bad.
I'm a little higher than that
but I'm not an economics major, not even minor, so I dont think I will be taking anymore, I'm just pretty good at it. If were going to talk about "fantastic ideas that fail miserably" let's not get started on welfare
The HDI is the absolute best index for quantifying standard of living (at the moment.) It takes into account GDP, life expectancy, literacy rate/education index and purchasing power (a much more important factor to individuals than GDP).
On this scale, the USA sits 12th. Iceland kicks your ass. As does Norway, France, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands etc. Pure GDP is a horrible indicator of this as it puts the USA first, when it clearly lags far behind places like sweden and norway.
The UN uses the HDI to calculate Standard of living.
I remember HDI from macro. HDI includes things like "I like having fun when I only work 30 hours a week" and stuff right?? That's crap.
Know what HDI DOESNT include? "I like having fun with things that AMERICA created / made better working 40-50 hours a week while I was drinking at the bar on my 8 week vacation."
Know what HDI DOESNT include? "I like having fun with things that AMERICA created / made better working 40-50 hours a week while I was drinking at the bar on my 8 week vacation."
No, it doesn't. The HDI is a fairly quantitative formula developed by some of the worlds best socio-economists working for the UN.