Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 imachavel
Stranger
 
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 8,847
Loc: Florida - not listed
Last seen: 8 hours, 8 minutes
|
 Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.?  [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16339238 - 06/06/12 03:05 AM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
He isn't Obama, who is well on his way to snatching the crown of "worst economic disaster" from FDR. He has no understanding of economics and I have seen no reason to believe that he gives a shit about anybody but himself.
If you consider FDR the "worst ecomomic disaster", then I would hope that Obama snatches the new crown, as FDR was one of the greatest success stories in American history, and is considered one of our top 3 presidents of all time, if not the best.
If you want a reason to believe Obama gives a shit about anyone, here are a few:
Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it
Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty in health insurance
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Overhauled the credit card industry, making it more consumer-friendly
Started re-regulating the financial sector
Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Overhauled the food safety system
Please back up your comments.
true enough, he did do all that. Fair enough my friend, fair enough
--------------------
|
imachavel
Stranger
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 8,847
Loc: Florida - not listed
Last seen: 8 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16339265 - 06/06/12 03:24 AM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
FDR:
Soc Sec Ponzi scheme. His big spending policies prolonged the effects of the depression.
Obama:
I lost my insurance plan when he promised I would get to keep it. Company after company is dropping health care. I am not allowed to purchase the health insurance I want because it is illegal.
Pre-existing conditions is not a travesty. Do you think you should be allowed to buy collision insurance AFTER you get in an accident? His bullshit has increased costs for almost everybody.
What women's rights?
I give almost no shit about "don't ask don't tell" but I note that he was against gay marriage before he was for it and says it's a state's rights issue anyway. What a mensch.
The financial industry was badly damaged by regulation (CRA and Sarbanes Oxley, to name two).
Idiots who can't read the contracts they sign with credit card agency deserve to get fucked. Now it costs me more.
As far as I can tell he hasn't done a fucking thing with food safety.
He is pandering to the loser and lazy bum constituency at the expense of achievers.
Incredibly damaging things he has done:
Huge debt
Demonization of earners
Hideous health care debacle.
as with many presidents, he made several promises. Then kept them, obviously in the most ass way possible. It's so hard to distinctuate between a president who says good things, and one who does good things. Almost every single president says they are going to shoot for the moon, and almost every one of them in some way achieves their promises. The problem is how they go about it. They come up with wild promises then they completely destroy that "the ends must justify the means and vice versa"
For example, if G.B. wanted to give water to Rwanda, no one is saying he could do it. He blew the shit up out of so many parts of Iraq and Afghanistan, if he could have stolen a gallon of water for every person killed in those countries, and given it to Rwanda, Rwanda would have had one hundred thousand gallons of water, not substantial, but it goes a little ways. No president in that sense has been a complete failure, or a complete hero. I personally liked Bill Clinton quite a lot, forget the left and forget the right and forget the senate and congress and all that shit for a moment. He made some bad decisions, and helped a lot of companies that ended up in this 'security pool' get bigger and better. But in my mind he was a much different person then Obama and/or George Bush. He to me had a spot of integrity, but albeit it for me to judge him on that, because I never met him so how the fuck would I know his true intentions.
Anyway, none the less, I liked his decision making, and feel he is one the top ten best presidents of all time in our country. Now back to future presidents, I don't want Obama to win in the primaries, I don't want Romney to win(although his wife is going out on an arm and a leg to prove his honesty), so we'll see who gets nominated, before we see who gets elected. Anyway, I'd like to say, that many people feel that state legislature does way more for specific decisions for your state then national legislature. I can't say I agree.
Clearly New York and Washington D.C. control the world. Really though, I think it'd be cool if there was a way to prove that people made more decisions for the country, then any politician(even employees even though Zappa seems to think only a business owner makes important decisions, never employees, although I'd say a person who owns a mechanic shop makes much less decisions then for example the CFO of Ford, but let's not get into the talk of responsibility right now.)
So I really believe it's over rated, politics. For example, despite whatever president helped insurance companies who are backed by stock brokers who borrow money from the treasury, etc. etc. etc. invest in some loan decision to bums who don't have the money to buy a house, I must say, despite that it is a persons personal decision to decide to partake in some loan ponzi ish scheme to pay for a house through mortgage when they clearly don't have the money.
So how could voting be a positive thing? How could it be positive when every person every Romney every whoever seems to be the next person people want to just 'FIX' things? It is just not fucking possible. What could possibly be done? Who could be voted for who puts the power of the country back in the hands of the people for the people by the people? What decisions could be made to get people to get off their ass and make wise decisions instead of letting the next guy come in with a fix it no decision scheme that plows itself into a rolling snow ball down a hill before you know it? Is it even slightly possible?
--------------------
|
imachavel
Stranger
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 8,847
Loc: Florida - not listed
Last seen: 8 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16339415 - 06/06/12 04:24 AM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You think it's so hard to invest? While it may take a little research, it doesn't compare to people working 40-60 hours a week.
I want to say you are damn right. It is very very fucking hard to work 40-60 hours a week, being a hard working sweating slave, and making well under $20,000 a year. But saying "hard to invest" is not very clear. Let's determine it like this, stock broking, buying stock of a company and selling it to someone else, wealth management as they call it. To me it's a joke, a way of gambling and betting legally, with a pen. But to a company, why not throw in some bets. Is it hard to invest in a company when they make so much money, hundreds and hundreds of millions, but when not a dime they ever made was not really borrowed? Why does a company that makes so much need to borrow every dollar? They repay a smaller loan with interest, then get a bigger loan. Sure it's great to own land, and be rich. Is it fair? Well they can do whatever the fuck they want with their money.
On the other hand, start up, companies that get capital seed, and then take the money, work their ass off, then pay back the loan with interest. And continue to support the business with only their own money. This is a different story, this is hard work, and such people usually work 40-60 hours a week, as any employee, and can't just leave the job for a new whenever they want like you can if you are an employee. This to me spells bum, not in the least. It spells hard worker. And it spells a person putting his own shit on the line. To me a person who owns a business, and never really makes any of their own money, at least they do but just enough to repay a loan is a bum, as much as a bum wants to borrow to pay off a house.
Now do they work hard fair and square to repay their loan? Of course, the first few times. But when dozens of millions come in, and they just keep borrowing and borrowing, it makes you wonder who really owns the company? Them? Or the banks? Then people claim the banks are much more honest then the auto industry. As you claim Wolverine, how can it be so? Truthfully, it's hard for me to really really swallow. The banks allowed these major companies to get cocky, and not to be careful with their money. The guy however that starts his own restaurant, whether it goes bankrupt or not, is extremely careful, with every penny, every penny they earn, and spend.
Big fat cat investors don't buy stock of restaurants. Those stock broking companies to me are the biggest crooks in the world. They help contribute to the loaning cycle, and really it's bullshit. Fucking A, you give me one good guy that owns two restaurants and has made a shit ton of money with it, and wants to expand out into a chain, and I would MUCH rather invest in that and get 200% back, then gamble onto some stock, for some company up in the 7 time 8 time 9 time digits, but with a mile of paperwork longer then my arm, and more bullshit places to put my signature to get me screwed then you can believe.
For that why not just turn the U.S. into a lending company and the world just lends to itself. Oh wait, right, Obama helped with that. He took money we didn't have, and gave billions to other countries, so they could repay us, to solve a debt problem 
Anyway I'll stop giving myself a headache, but I agree with one thing. What the fuck is it with Zappa and this idea that Republicans are fucking fairy angels prudent and full of purity? Like they said nothing about health care? They said about as much as democrats, which is "let's rig it into a ponzi scheme that supposedly helps the sick, but then they end up paying more because we loopholed the shit out of it to our benefit." The only difference they wanted it to fit their diagram instead of the democrat one, it didn't benefit their interest. But in reality, obama care has done nothing like taking from social security to pay companies that will repay us because they already owe us so we want to clear debt by creating more debt has done nothing.
When was the last time you went to the hospital and it's cheaper? Oh right Obama care won't do that. It's another scam. Like all these other fucking cons. Just like Romney. He is a fucking scam. Every fucking president tries to say they will help one class. The truth is, no matter how you cut it, the rich get the help. The 1% get the help. Every time. It's all a cycle to cycle back into the rich man's account. It's a scheme to take from them, it's like taking tips from bartenders, then giving it back to waiters, or lowering tips, then raising the hourly wage. Or creating a way that the workers can eat cheaper at the restaurant, then paying them hour, but making them work longer hours, then spend more on food.
You see how the restaurant owner will always be the one to benefit? This scheme, is completely not comparable to our countries status pyramid. But the point is the same, the concept is the same. When people own all the money the government spends, the government takes it away, and finds different ways to spend it, in the end it always ends back up in the hands of the rich. The rich own the country. Our economy scheme gives us vast amounts of power, which we exercise in competition with other countries. What really happens to a rich person, when they get the shit taxed out of them?
That money is then used to give loans to stock broking companies that invest in security funds, to invest in insurance companies, to get loans from banks. Oh wait so the less a rich person spends, the less they are burdened. The more they are taxed, the more money in the treasury for them to be given loans and bail outs. How can you lose a game of cards when you own the company that sells every card in the world? You lose game after game after game, and yet every game of poker you play and bet on, is another guy who buys the cards from your place to play the game. Every penny comes back to you.
While we argue over this, we un realistically don't see that any president that tries to hit one class harder to help another, is full of shit. We don't need a president that favours the rich, or the poor, or the middle class. We need a president that treats everyone fairly dammit! Can people not see that?
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 42,723
Last seen: 4 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16340383 - 06/06/12 11:54 AM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
There would have been zero problem with credit default swaps if bums had made their loan payments.
That's true. Banks should not have been allowed to loan money to people that can't afford to repay, unless they held on to those loans, or resold them as subprime. The lack of Government regulation made it easy to sell bad mortgages and hide them.
 Government regulation is what led them to do it. The government also bought the loans they wrote. The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country with the possible exception of medicine.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I didn't claim Mitt Romney didn't make money. I claimed he screwed the working class in the process.
How did the working class people who got to keep their jobs get screwed? Every single one of those real working class people benefited.
You don't know what a corporate raider is, do you?
Of course I know what they are. I also have no problem with them. That isn't what Bain was. How can you call them corporate raiders when the company they took over survived for 9 years instead of, well, none? More
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You think Democrats were the ones against Medicare for all? 
They wrote the whole bill, the Republicans had no input. Anything you got to complain about that bill you can lay 100% at the feet of the Democrats
Bologna. If you watched the healthcare debate unfold, you'd have seen that Republicans had a lot of input.
They had zero input. They voted unanimously against it, it was passed under filibuster-proof legerdemain involving CBO book cooking and the only thing I heard Republicans say was that thuis sucks, it's stupid and I won't vote for it. And they didn't. It is a 100% Dem bill.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 42,723
Last seen: 4 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16340617 - 06/06/12 12:55 PM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
True, he didn't do enough. WWII showed the type of action that's required to get out of a depression.
Well then let's have another warQuote:
Did you even read the solution? It's to tax everyone EQUALLY and to STOP giving breaks to the rich.
How is that taxing them equally when they will be forced to pay much more? What is consistently ignored is that your soc sec benefits are determined by how much you have paid in. So if the rich pay in more (and it won't be 6%, it will be 12% because they get it double due to self employment tax and most of the rich are self employed) you will have to pay them more in benefits. You see a wallet and you want to take it, that's all you do.Quote:
Good. I don't want to pay for your mental health care when you need it, which is probably very soon. 
And yet you support the government forcing everybody to do so. Phony much?Quote:
No, sick people are not covered. And I answered your question - you live in a civilized society, where the poor shouldn't be left untreated.
Lie. Medicare and Medicaid covered poor and elderly sick people, as did many charities. Why do you feel the need to lie?Quote:
And the Fair Pay Act simply made the statute of limitations more reasonable.
Two years is plenty.Quote:
True, but businesses generally don't intentionally break laws.
Weren't the examples you used Enron and Worldcom and didn't they intentionally break laws?Quote:
There's nothing wrong with someone buying a nice home theater (as an example) on a credit card if they can pay it back at the current rate. There's something wrong if the bank decides to change the current rate just because they can.
The fuck there isn't something wrong with buying luxury shit you can't afford with a credit card. Do without if you can't afford it without going into hock. That's just irresponsible. And they signed the agreement regarding the credit card rates. You do not have a right to a credit card.Quote:
Still shows you're ignorant about who earns the most capital gains. And the previous chart basically just shows that the rich earn a lot more, which is why they pay a lot more (I'm not complaining that they earn more either).
I have always been fully aware of which percentile makes the most money from capital gains. Of course, most of the people in that percentile do not derive meaningful income from capital gains and yet you lump them all together. Why is that? Ignorance. And no, the first chart you posted does not show how much the top 1% make. It shows what their share of the tax burden is (around 40%) while neglecting to mention that they only make about 30% of the income.Quote:
You think it's so hard to invest? While it may take a little research, it doesn't compare to people working 40-60 hours a week.
Yes I think it is very hard to invest because it is risky as shit, If I invest $1M and make $200K on it in 2010 I pay capital gains taxes on the 200. If I let that ride and lose the $200K the next year does the government give me back the taxes I paid the year before even though I netted zero? And you continue to conflate the entire 1% as being financiers. They are not. Most of them are highly paid employees or small business owners who almost all, I can assure you, work a fuck of a lot harder and longer than their employees.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/07/06
Posts: 3,690
Last seen: 1 hour, 36 minutes
|
Re: Status of “succession” movement(s) anywhere in the U.S.? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16340785 - 06/06/12 01:49 PM (1 year, 11 days ago) |
|
|
"You think it's so hard to invest? While it may take a little research.."
I guess you may not be aware that stocks have been in a bear market since March of 2000, and calculated for inflation or gold, stocks have lost at least -50% of their purchasing power in the last 12 years, sounds easy doesn't it!!
Most peoples portfolios have had little growth or are down the last decade, and thousands of hedge funds are out of business after the 2008 crash, what happened to the smartest money managers in the world?
Nothing is easy about investing, and like Zap said, capital gains take of chuck of the profits. In today's environment, capital preservation is the most sought after result, capital gains are of lesser concern.
Edited by qman (06/06/12 01:51 PM)
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
1,250 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
