Politics

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,755 Responses
  • ********
    0

    It gives me Goosebumps to watch you greedy, pompous, arrogant Americans suffer. I am looking forward to watching your entire economy collapse and go bankrupt so that China and the other third-world countries that own all of worhtless junk bonds can collect and outright own your lame country.

    • We're taking you all down with us, or haven't you noticed. Except for like maybe Sweden.TheBlueOne
    • *coming from a jackass who named himself not gheyBonSeff
    • You mean "not (underscore) gay".TheBlueOne
  • BonSeff0

    i love how you spelled ghey, so clever and original

  • ********
    0

    ^^ As the USA goes, so goes you Not_Ghey. In other words, if the US economy collapses, the world economy collapses.

    BTW, what country do you live in?

    • .. if USA, what country did you originally come from?
      ********
  • TheBlueOne0

    @GetRefresh

    Look brother, you seem to have swallowed whatever koolaid the rightwing media dishes out about all these people "swooning over Obama" and think there's some kind of messiah complex going on here. Typical rightwing redirect crapolla.

    The Left (the actual Left and not what the media thinks is the left) is far, far more critical of Obama within the first three months of his administration than ANYBODY on the Right was critical of Bush for nearly his entire administration (they only ran away from him at the bitter end, claiming he "really wasn't a conservative" to help their election chances.)

    Obama is getting as much criticism on his financial policies from his left as he is from the right, and more pointed and sticky ones at that.

    Look, if you have beef with Obama's policies, great. So do I. We probably differ on the origins of them, and the answers to them, but seriously, the whole "Obama lovefest" meme is pure propaganda. The more you cite it, the less weight your arguments have. It's like if I said "Bush IZ Hitlerz!!" and then tried to say something cognizant about his policies. It's an unserious place to start from.

    Not to say that a) Obama's canidacy wasn't invested in a lot of hope for a change of direction in the country, because it was and b) that his election was historic because of his race, because it is. But this whole "libruls will do anything for Obama..." is just a false premise to start arguments from.

    • Again, well said, and makes sense. Thanks for your patience, and willingness to explain. I agree... >
      ********
    • ... Fuck, when TBO and GR can agree, there's hope for the world after-all.
      ********
    • .. and thanks for referring to me as "brother", and not asshat, cunt, moron, fuck-face, etc. :-)
      ********
    • those are other terms for "brother" ;)
      ********
    • Hey, I call my real blood brother an asshat and a moron too...TheBlueOne
    • Oh, now I feel much, MUCH better. :-)
      ********
  • tommyo0

    ^^ But if you go back about 120 pages on this thread there are still some Obama lovefest cum stains on the walls. This is true. I've seen it.

    ;-P

    • LOL!!!
      ********
    • True..it was the the hubub around the election really. And byproduct of Bush fatigue perhaps? :)TheBlueOne
  • BattleAxe0


    "For Obama, being “rich” begins with $250,000 in annual income, the bottom rung of the top 5 percent. Compare this “rich” income to that of, for example, Hank Paulson, President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary when he was the head of Goldman Sachs.

    In 2005 Paulson was paid $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. That is 153 times the annual income of the “rich” $250,000 person.

    Despite his vast income, Paulson himself was not among the super rich of that year, when a dozen hedge fund operators made $1,000 million. The hedge fund honchos incomes were 26 times greater than Paulson’s and 4,000 times greater than the “rich” man’s or family’s $250,000.

    For most Americans, a $250,000 income would be a godsend, but envy can make us blind. A $250,000 income is not one that will support a rich lifestyle. In truth, those with $250,000 gross incomes have more in common with those at the lower end of the income distribution than with the rich. A $250,000 income is ten times greater than a $25,000 income, not hundreds or thousands of times greater. On an after-tax basis, the difference shrinks to about 6 times."
    http://www.counterpunch.org/robe…

  • ********
    0

    ^ Obama sealed a book deal prior to taking office though. This should provide him with a windfall of CASH— likely many millions of dollars.

    • Oh god, not a president with millions of dollars. Like we haven't had that before.TheBlueOne
    • Bush, Clinton, Reagan...TheBlueOne
    • TBO, I'm ok with this. Not a problem here.
      ********
    • ... but I think it may be a first that a President enters a book deal PRIOR to taking office.
      ********
    • ... although it is obviously NOT his Presidential memoir.
      ********
    • Kennedy, Profiles in Courage pops into my head immediately. Definitely nowhere near the first
      TheBlueOne
    • McCain wrote a book years ago as well...so if he had been elected..TheBlueOne
    • Ok, you win (this time).
      ********
    • Ha!TheBlueOne
  • ********
    0

    What is the GOP alternative to Obama?

    Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, McSame or maybe that the 12 year old brainwashed kid, hahahaha.

    • Gingrich, Jindal, Palin and others TBD.
      ********
    • I don't know. Good question. My money would be on TBD. Someone new, not one of the usual names...TheBlueOne
  • ********
    0

    ^ If Obama gets his act together, it won't matter either way.

    • Even if Obama skins by, probably won't matter. Only if O really f**ks up..which is possible...TheBlueOne
    • Budwiser=TRUE.
      ********
  • ukit0

    LOL


    • Reminds me of the DOW chart.
      ********
    • hahaha!!!TheBlueOne
    • NEWS FLASH:
      GR made TBO laugh. I repeat, GR made TBO laugh. News at 11.
      ********
  • TheBlueOne0

    We're really all subprime now. Bloomberg reporting:

    "Thornburg Mortgage Inc., the “jumbo” residential loan specialist battling a slump in home sales and the collapse of mortgage markets, plans to file for bankruptcy protection and shut down.
    ...
    Thornburg specialized in mortgages of more than $417,000, typically used to buy more expensive homes."

    Meanwhile, more record unemployment figures coming this week:

    "Nonfarm private employment decreased 742,000 from February to March 2009 on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the ADP National Employment Report®."

    • FUCK! Thornburg used to be a solid outfit. Nonfarm hit is ugly".
      ********
  • ukit0

    "What is the GOP alternative to Obama?
    Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, McSame or maybe that the 12 year old brainwashed kid, hahahaha."

    GOP should totally run the kid.

  • ********
    0

    Fuck it! I say Kid Rock for President!!!

    • I'd go with Iggy Pop myself...TheBlueOne
    • this explains everythingDrBombay
    • ok, I will now pretend you don't exist.
      ********
  • ********
    0

    VP Pop— I like that.

  • ********
    0

    Absolutely Classic!!! Please let me know how you feel about this exchange.

  • lowimpakt0

    ^ i think the Fox guy is mis-interpreting the facts and scope of the bill.

    ?? or am i missing something?

    He doesn't seem to understand the way policy works.

    "give me the numbergive me the numbergive me the numbergive me the number" ...... "fuck off you thick shit"

  • TheBlueOne0

    I really, really don't understand what the problem is, the key words in this bill being "federally rescued". You know, the companies have a choice - go bankrupt or take government money. If you take the money, then you play by our rules. How is this "anti-capitalistic" or "Orwellian"?

    You don't want the money, don't fucking take it. Ford didn't take it. If you don't take it and go bankrupt, well, there you go. Your choice. The companies OWN actions put them in the position of that choice, not the government.

    In the private sector if you buy controlling interest in a company you have say on the procedures and whatnot of that company, if the government does it, why don't they get the same thing?

    And secondly, the government is not looking to run these failed institutions in finitum, they're going to try to get them back to health as efficiently and quickly as possible and turn them back over to private management.

    The Fox Tool is just playing semantics on a useless point.

    • what if they get deemed to big to fail? who labels them that?BattleAxe
    • and you would think they would have wrote that into the Bill that gave them the money to begin withBattleAxe
    • As the Bard says, "Aye, that's the rub."TheBlueOne
  • TheBlueOne0
  • TheBlueOne0

    And here you go GR, "Obama says Bankruptcy likely best course for GM, Chrysler":

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne…

    Now, if he'd only get religion about the banks.

    • Hmmm... interesting. I am so conflicted about GM's plight. Chrysler, not so much.
      ********
    • ... I maintain that GM should file BK, although the pain will be so severe to so many.
      ********
    • It's going to suck. And maybe a "test case" for the O administration on "too big to fail"?TheBlueOne
  • TheBlueOne0

    @BattleAxe

    "On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants in the nine largest American banks. The shares would qualify as Tier 1 capital and were non-voting shares. In order to qualify for this program, the Treasury required participating institutions to meet certain criteria, including: "(1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAR…

    Was there from the begin pretty much I think.