Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >
Offlineresonant111
left ∞ right


Registered: 03/02/11
Posts: 1,952
Loc: IL
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
US presidential election 2012: will you vote?
    #16152167 - 04/28/12 05:32 PM (12 years, 22 days ago)

i'm not. total waste of time, both parties cater to the corporations and couldn't give a fuck about anyone's "personal liberties."

i voted for that hack obama when i was 19 and naive...luckily it only took one presidental cycle for me to figure out what this whole political game is really about.

i got a bunch of "obama supporting" friends who think the guy still gives a shit about the people...makes me laugh.
will you vote in the presidential election?
You may choose only one


Votes accepted from (04/28/12 04:32 PM) to (No end specified)
View the results of this poll



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: resonant111]
    #16152188 - 04/28/12 05:38 PM (12 years, 22 days ago)

Yes, I do vote every chance I get.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineresonant111
left ∞ right


Registered: 03/02/11
Posts: 1,952
Loc: IL
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16152216 - 04/28/12 05:44 PM (12 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Yes, I do vote every chance I get.




i only go and vote now if it's for local decisions that our community is voting on (conserving wildlife, school funding etc.)

at the federal level i don't give two shits...whoever has the power is gonna fight wars and cater to corporate interests, end of story.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesetb
10th level beer nerd
Registered: 01/30/11
Posts: 2,580
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: resonant111]
    #16152247 - 04/28/12 05:50 PM (12 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

resonant111 said:
i'm not. total waste of time, both parties cater to the corporations and couldn't give a fuck about anyone's "personal liberties."

i voted for that hack obama when i was 19 and naive...luckily it only took one presidental cycle for me to figure out what this whole political game is really about.

i got a bunch of "obama supporting" friends who think the guy still gives a shit about the people...makes me laugh.




You're smarter than most Americans if you figured it out that quickly. Well, I guess times are pretty insane right now but still- impressive.

The America that most people think about has been dead for 100 years. It was strangled out by the cancer that is progessivism; this cancer infected both parties- make no mistake about it. They cater to their friends and they are slowly turning the people into serfs. They keep us dumbed down and divided over stupid issues that really don't matter in the scheme of things. 

I just hope that one day more Americans figure this out and do something about it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: setb] * 1
    #16152283 - 04/28/12 05:59 PM (12 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

The America that most people think about has been dead for 100 years.




You think America was better in 1912?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: resonant111]
    #16153580 - 04/29/12 12:00 AM (12 years, 22 days ago)

Quote:

resonant111 said:
i'm not. total waste of time, both parties...




Wow.  Which parties are "both"?  The socialists and greens? 

How does your disenchangtment with two popular parties justify your conclusion that not voting is a reasonable decision?  All you do is grant those who do vote more power over you- power that will go towards the parties you don't like as a result of your abstention when you could have harmed them.

Quote:

resonant111 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Yes, I do vote every chance I get.




i only go and vote now if it's for local decisions that our community is voting on (conserving wildlife, school funding etc.)

at the federal level i don't give two shits...whoever has the power is gonna fight wars and cater to corporate interests, end of story.





dumb

The wars are popular otherwise they wouldn't have been started.  You admit yourself you voted for a lieing ass of a candidate (Obama) who broke pretty much all his major promises before he even took office/was elected, yet you decide the things Obama does is inevitable.  No, its only inevitable if the people who disagree go pout in a corner rather than voting for their interests.

Most of the people I see bitching that their interests aren't catered to are the ones who actively sabotage those interests by voting against them or failing to do anything to support their views.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVisionary Tools
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16154862 - 04/29/12 10:29 AM (12 years, 21 days ago)

not his fault Obama told congress to go fuck themselves. Or that no formalised proceedings are being conducted to see if he's fit for office.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Visionary Tools]
    #16156050 - 04/29/12 04:04 PM (12 years, 21 days ago)

I will, but only because it gives me an easy comeback against people who claim that people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on policy decisions.  In general, I don't think it is an activity that is worth my time.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesnoot
look alive ∞
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,644
Loc: 45ΒΊ parallel Flag
Last seen: 6 days, 15 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16156548 - 04/29/12 05:54 PM (12 years, 21 days ago)

I will most likely vote. No idea who I want to vote for, maybe myself.


--------------------


∞
I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
- Simone de Beauvoir -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewildernessjunkie
Reshitivest
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/13/10
Posts: 8,118
Loc: HTTP 404 Not Found
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: snoot] * 3
    #16158317 - 04/30/12 01:02 AM (12 years, 21 days ago)

Not going to vote.

Every politician is a puppet of large corporation and big banking. Further, the president cannot change policy without the house and Senate approval. Any promise that any presidential candidate makes is an empty promise. The whole concept of checks and balances guarantees that anything that is not directly in the interests of the individual politician, will not pass.

The system is broken.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: wildernessjunkie]
    #16158513 - 04/30/12 02:08 AM (12 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

wildernessjunkie said:
Not going to vote.

Every politician is a puppet of large corporation and big banking.




what's this based on?  Sounds awfully like some made up crap to console yourself.  What "big banking" is ralph nader a puppet of?  The socialist/communist leaning candidates?  Many of them would destroy much if not all of the banking industry in the US.

It seems utterly impossible you have any rational reason to believe this.

Quote:


Further, the president cannot change policy without the house and Senate approval.




Same question, though this one is self-evidently false.  There's a constantly expanding apparatus that the administration has control over, and those agencies promulgate a ton of administrative law that has real force of law (sometimes criminal law) behind it.

This is quite ignorant a statement.

Quote:

Any promise that any presidential candidate makes is an empty promise. The whole concept of checks and balances guarantees that anything that is not directly in the interests of the individual politician, will not pass.





No.

Quote:

The system is broken.




Gee, do you think that might be because some unmentioned people don't even know what the office they're voting for does?

Its no surprise that Presidents can get away with lieing to people during campaigns if they have such radically incorrect views on the nature of the office.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: snoot]
    #16158531 - 04/30/12 02:14 AM (12 years, 21 days ago)

Look up ron paul guys.

the media / political establishment hate him because hes not a shill.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Shins]
    #16158775 - 04/30/12 04:42 AM (12 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
Look up ron paul guys.

the media / political establishment hate him because hes not a shill.




uh, is he even running?

Are we going to have the same nonsense we did in 08 with all these people claiming they were voting for someone who wasn't even a candidate :flowstone:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: wildernessjunkie] * 1
    #16160824 - 04/30/12 02:59 PM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

wildernessjunkie said:
Not going to vote.

Every politician is a puppet of large corporation and big banking. Further, the president cannot change policy without the house and Senate approval. Any promise that any presidential candidate makes is an empty promise. The whole concept of checks and balances guarantees that anything that is not directly in the interests of the individual politician, will not pass.

The system is broken.



If you don't like banks and other corporations don't use the products they offer.  Grow a pair.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewhatsgrimace
Stranger
Male

Registered: 02/03/08
Posts: 5,239
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16160863 - 04/30/12 03:08 PM (12 years, 20 days ago)

2012; electoral college still in charge. does our vote matter? lol, no.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: whatsgrimace]
    #16161310 - 04/30/12 04:42 PM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Without the electoral system there would never have been a United States.  Get over it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: setb]
    #16163296 - 04/30/12 10:50 PM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

setb said:
The America that most people think about has been dead for 100 years.



I think most Americans would argue things were best when there was a very strong middle class; from post World War II until the late 70's.  Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #16163543 - 04/30/12 11:48 PM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think most Americans would argue things were best when there was a very strong middle class; from post World War II until the late 70's.  Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




Thats a myth and a very distorted view of reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: whatsgrimace]
    #16164196 - 05/01/12 06:02 AM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

whatsgrimace said:
2012; electoral college still in charge. does our vote matter? lol, no.



The electoral college is only for the presidential election...and the president doesn't make laws...so your vote counts plenty...maybe not in terms of president...but it does count...

The worst type of citizen/voter is the guy who only thinks that presidential elections matter...Those are the LEAST important elections...Voting for you state legislature is far more important in terms of policy decisions that actually affect you...


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: whatsgrimace]
    #16164219 - 05/01/12 06:15 AM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

whatsgrimace said:
2012; electoral college still in charge. does our vote matter? lol, no.




lol, you don't know what the electoral college is.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewhatsgrimace
Stranger
Male

Registered: 02/03/08
Posts: 5,239
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16164315 - 05/01/12 07:08 AM (12 years, 20 days ago)

it's the thing that makes us believe we have a choice even though the presidents have been selected before they even go to office


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: whatsgrimace]
    #16164332 - 05/01/12 07:16 AM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

whatsgrimace said:
it's the thing that makes us believe we have a choice even though the presidents have been selected before they even go to office




Of course they are selected before they even go to office. They are selected months before they actually go to office.

I don't think that is what you're trying to say though. Are you implying that the presidents are selected by the Electoral College before people even vote for them?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: whatsgrimace]
    #16164341 - 05/01/12 07:21 AM (12 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

whatsgrimace said:
it's the thing that makes us believe we have a choice even though the presidents have been selected before they even go to office





I blame the jews :tinfoil:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepresident elect
Stranger
Registered: 05/01/12
Posts: 1
Last seen: 12 years, 12 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: resonant111]
    #16165748 - 05/01/12 01:32 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

I will most definitely vote I think there are now two good candidates to choose from, both representing very different political visions.

The presidential election of the USA 2012 will be much more exciting than back in 2008. Romney has much more stronger case than McCain back in the time and ObamaΒ΄s economical reforms have not been working well enough.

But I wonder if Romney is really able to show a better solution for the current problem

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: president elect]
    #16167024 - 05/01/12 05:42 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

president elect said:
I will most definitely vote I think there are now two good candidates to choose from, both representing very different political visions.




:mygoditsfullofstars:

Defend yourself, good sir.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJoieDeVivre
Hippie Babysitter
Female User Gallery


Registered: 10/13/11
Posts: 5,751
Loc: Gamehenge
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: resonant111]
    #16167707 - 05/01/12 08:00 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

resonant111 said:i got a bunch of "obama supporting" friends who think the guy still gives a shit about the people...makes me laugh.



What is your basis for this evaluation that he doesn't give a shit about the people?


--------------------
Sapere aude

"We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results."


UBUNTU- I am because we are.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #16168069 - 05/01/12 09:00 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Without the electoral system there would never have been a United States.  Get over it.




true, but do you know why I'm NOT going to vote? I today watched inside job the film. Very crazy stuff

yes houses used to be paid off at times by companies that lent money to people to give to banks to pay off their house to the real estate companies. Then Clinton came out and allowed big wall street policies, so that insurance companies and companies like AIG could give money to loan companies, and then wall street could buy stock of AIG, private trading and investment, billion dollar a year business, people never paying off the houses, everyone going bank rupt, etc.

what's fucked up, is that every single administration in the last 20 years, clinton, bush, obama, have all been involved in allowing wall street fat cats who get bonuses to fund their campaigns, none of them have been straight. Watch the movie. Also when it's found out these companies have performed fraud, no one has gone to jail, been tried, no justice. In fact instead billions of dollars of bail outs have been given out.

What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell. The price of a snickers bar hasn't gone up in 30 years. But a house every year will go up in value five thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand, a year. You name it. Now in 30 years what does that equal? It's fucking sad, and no I'm not going to trust the next administration to do what the last administration has gone, it's fucking pathetic, they are all liars, George Bush and warren Buffet and Bernanke and all the fucking liars had no problem with a four hundred billion bail out, no republican is going to be less corrupt then a democrat.

And so Clinton left with a surplus in the treasury, guess what, probably the president before his eight year two terms reign set that up. I don't know, I could care less about a republican controlled congress, lobbyists, people who need registered broker ship to help companies get loans for commission, everyone is getting screwed from the top all the way down. And now even honest people are screwed, who get a tiny percentage to help other people out and make their company stronger. So really, at this point, the world can kiss my ass, and everyone can burn in hell. We are all taking a big bite out of the big shit sandwich.

Have fun voters, I will probably never vote again in my life. And fuck Rick Scott, and fuck Jeb Bush, I don't care how many people like them, they haven't done Florida any god damn favors. All favors done to society have been done by:

the works, the providers, the honest people. No god damn politician has helped a god damn thing. And when I say workers, I'm not with Zappa discluding floor workers, hey, you can work for AIG and make a hundred million, and be a lying piece of shit like anyone else? You think with a registered broker ship I'd get even a 10% commission? I'd get screwed, and probably have to sue, and probably lose a lawsuit. Look it up, AIG profited way more then 10% commission. And a stock broking company makes even less, a broker should make a 1% commission out of the stock profits he makes for the company, and the companies that buy and sell the stock. God damn wall street bonuses equaling 19 million? Fuck that, way more then any 10%, and most people get fucked for 3%, and if you expect to get paid under the table, you are going to get fucked completely

They are all liars, and I'm not voting for any of them. As Gordon Gekko said at the end of Wall Street:

"you aren't Nieves enough to think we are living in a democracy do you?"


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16168106 - 05/01/12 09:08 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16168793 - 05/01/12 11:13 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think most Americans would argue things were best when there was a very strong middle class; from post World War II until the late 70's.  Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




Thats a myth and a very distorted view of reality.



What exactly is a myth?  That we had a strong middle class from post World War II until the late 70's?  That the middle class was stronger during that time than 100 years ago?  That most families lived on a single income during that time?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16168870 - 05/01/12 11:29 PM (12 years, 19 days ago)

This part,

Quote:

Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




There are more homeowners, more car owners, more college students and a richer middle class than ever.  The difference is in expectations and standards of living.  People need two incomes to pay for luxuries above and beyond anything the myth of americana offers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16169337 - 05/02/12 01:53 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
There are more homeowners, more car owners, more college students and a richer middle class than ever.  The difference is in expectations and standards of living.  People need two incomes to pay for luxuries above and beyond anything the myth of americana offers.



Here is a graph of homeowner rates since 1965 (when the data was first collected annually):



Prior to 1965, decennial Census data "show a large increase in homeownership in the 1940s and 1950s, from from about 45 percent of all households in 1940 to 63 percent in 1960. Between 1900 and 1940, the homeownership rate fluctuated between about 45 and 48 percent"  So the increase in homeownership started in the 1940's and continued until 1980, when there was a large decline in homeownership.  A large bubble began shortly after the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed, but that bubble collapsed in 2007 and is continuing its rapid decline.

Yes, there are more college students than ever, but that's not a result of them being able to afford it better.  It's required for them to make the same income that people used to make without a college degree.  In fact, college is more difficult to afford than ever.

Are the middle class richer than ever?  As you can see from this graph of average family income in 2008 inflation-adjusted US dollars, there was a decline in 1980:



I'll admit, the spike under Clinton from '93 to '99 is a surprise to me, but that's been going down since 2000 and is almost back to the 1979 level.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesetb
10th level beer nerd
Registered: 01/30/11
Posts: 2,580
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16169814 - 05/02/12 06:36 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

'll admit, the spike under Clinton from '93 to '99 is a surprise to me, but that's been going down since 2000 and is almost back to the 1979 level.




Dot com boom.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16169820 - 05/02/12 06:41 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
There are more homeowners.



Here is a graph of homeowner rates since 1965 (when the data was first collected annually):




DieCommie said nothing about homeownership rates...he said there are more homeowners...do you have a graph or data showing the amount of homeowners?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16170182 - 05/02/12 09:16 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...



La der.  Most house sales are of existing homes.  Private individuals selling their property in an open market to other private individuals.  What a concept.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16170198 - 05/02/12 09:21 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think most Americans would argue things were best when there was a very strong middle class; from post World War II until the late 70's.  Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




Thats a myth and a very distorted view of reality.



What exactly is a myth?  That we had a strong middle class from post World War II until the late 70's?  That the middle class was stronger during that time than 100 years ago?  That most families lived on a single income during that time?



You want to go back to a time when women were all but compelled to working in a limited range of occupations?  What the fuck do you think was going to happen when they doubled the available work force?:facepalm:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16170316 - 05/02/12 10:00 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...





that's bullshit. I actually happen to know a few real estate agents. It IS expensive in some cases to buy the house then flip it, and in some cases they don't flip it for much, but saying it is ALWAYS like that is total garbage. I've heard of houses going for 20 million dollars. Now a person selling the house gets a 5% commission. You are telling me the real estate company would buy the house for 19 million and sell it for 20 million? In that case 5% would be 1 million all together and the real estate agent would get the entire commission and the company would get nothing.

Give me a break. I know construction companies contract out their work for high prices to realtor's who will buy and flip the property, but no construction company will build a property and sell it for 19 million, unless it's a huge building for example empire state building, selling condos, in which case 19 million might be very small of a price for what they will sell the building for.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170323 - 05/02/12 10:02 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

So what are you saying?  That you're against free market in real estate?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16170343 - 05/02/12 10:10 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think most Americans would argue things were best when there was a very strong middle class; from post World War II until the late 70's.  Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




Thats a myth and a very distorted view of reality.



What exactly is a myth?  That we had a strong middle class from post World War II until the late 70's?  That the middle class was stronger during that time than 100 years ago?  That most families lived on a single income during that time?




yeah no kidding. Most people don't believe me when I say now that practically no middle class exists. They say "me and dozens and dozens of people make a yearly income of about what classifies middle class." Sure, it's not non existent. But every year the middle class dies and dies an dies a little more, the rich get richer, and the poor get a little poorer. You may say that middle class wages exist, but in low low numbers. And dropping. Go to the bank and ask for a loan now days, and I'm not saying this off the top of my head either, these are real accounts of people I've heard going to a bank and asking for loans.

Now we are in the middle of a recession, who should be getting a loan? Nobody right? Wrong. Go to a bank with a huge business that rakes in hundreds of thousands a years, you'll practically get your loan that day. Fuck it go in as a registered broker for someone else, they'll get on the phone and give the guy his loan that day. Banks are spending money these days buck o, what 8% nationwide unemployment will stop that? I wish so many things weren't non disc losable, or I'd give real life examples and details of cases this is true. Now go to a bank and ask for a loan for your tiny restaurant? Tell them it's been going for 20 years and you have impeccable credit and want to take out a loan to start a new restaurant to make your existing restaurant a chain, tell them it's a small loan. Forget about it, they might even have you removed from the office at the bank.

Middle class exists sure, but let me tell you, the middle class the exists is from a previous time the economy stabilised and made middle class members a foundation. These days no in is interested in strengthening the middle class, it just doesn't exist. Banks want to bet on sure things, to avoid risk, and are doing so. Mean while the idea of a business to them existing in a small chain is a joke. People have their little Cuban coffee shops they maintain with their own money, and ford sells cars, and to them there might as well be no in between.

Sure exceptions are made but take my word for it these days the middle class is dwindling and dwindling and dwindling.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170380 - 05/02/12 10:21 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...





that's bullshit. I actually happen to know a few real estate agents. It IS expensive in some cases to buy the house then flip it, and in some cases they don't flip it for much, but saying it is ALWAYS like that is total garbage. I've heard of houses going for 20 million dollars. Now a person selling the house gets a 5% commission. You are telling me the real estate company would buy the house for 19 million and sell it for 20 million? In that case 5% would be 1 million all together and the real estate agent would get the entire commission and the company would get nothing.

Give me a break. I know construction companies contract out their work for high prices to realtor's who will buy and flip the property, but no construction company will build a property and sell it for 19 million, unless it's a huge building for example empire state building, selling condos, in which case 19 million might be very small of a price for what they will sell the building for.





If the company bought it for $19 million, but then refused to sell it for $20 million, even though that was what the market could deliver, then that is an example of a sunk cost.  A company that did that wouldn't last for long.

In the real estate market, people sell their houses for as much as they can get and people buy them for as little as they can pay for it.  The fact that people somtimes lose money doesn't change that equation at all.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16170383 - 05/02/12 10:22 AM (12 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
So what are you saying?  That you're against free market in real estate?




NO I'M MAKING A POINT! I'M NOT AGAINST THE FREE MARKET! I am simply saying that all this AIG shit and lack of old policies that loan companies used to sell houses where they got money from an insurance company that had private investors and traders trading bonds of the insurance company, and wall street making 19 million a year profits, while house prices continued to rise and rise, while the price of a candy bar has remained the same for the past 35 years, really destroyed the economy! The free market is fine, the government is corrupt. We should have a free market, but government policies that allow heavy private stock trading of very large public companies, while small businesses die and die and die and die is totally a hefty amount of bullshit.

Of course free market should exist! But you know something is wrong when the free market exists in the sense that people will take your tax dollars and gamble them on the stock market! And when others claim we didn't go broke until Obama was in office, and when other people claim republicans will fix the problem! The government is like the goodfellas:

"we paid off everyone, everyone had their hands out for the taking"

So a little political corruption never hurt anyone. People made their money fair and square and under legal conditions. Ok so what can you do? If you were getting 10% commissions of heavy trading who would you be to deny it? You work hard to connect people and make them way more money then what you get which is a tiny piece of what they are making. Fine. But when a hundred million houses aren't paid for, and the insurance company owes the lending companies every dollar by contract, and the insurance company is the biggest thing on the stock market, and the cabinet has decided to bail these companies out with your hard worked tax dollars, it doesn't seem like a 'free' market any more. What type of government takes all the money made by citizens and gives it away to large companies that went broke on their own venture?

Sound like democracy? 95% of the wealth owned by less then 5% of the population. Pretty soon middle class will be less then 10% of the people. Does shell lose money? How can you not buy their gas? When bio fuel ethanol replaces gasoline and we are all using it instead? Are people going to say "it's the free market let the dems and repubs take our money and sink it into the stock market under efi ethanol fuel incorporated" or whatever they'll call it at that time. These companies are mega corporations! They are already going to get all your money!

Why does the government need to take hard earned tax dollars and blow it on the stock market! It's god damn unconstitutional! When everyone is buying shell gas, how can they NOT make money? You give them EVERY DAMN DOLLAR YOU MAKE! And they deserve a bail out? Fuck when a company like that goes under, they file for bank ruptcy, then with the remaining cash they didn't sink bank into the business they retire in Nassau. How is our tax money going into the stock market the free market?!


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16170394 - 05/02/12 10:26 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
This part,

Quote:

Families could live comfortably on a single income, most families could afford a house, car, and college education.  The middle class has never been as strong before or after that period.




There are more homeowners, more car owners, more college students and a richer middle class than ever.  The difference is in expectations and standards of living.  People need two incomes to pay for luxuries above and beyond anything the myth of americana offers.




why the late 70s were much better. The middle class really consists of two departments, if you want to call it in such a way. The richer part and the lower part. Under the lower part is the poor, and above the richer part is the rich. Now almost no lower middle class exists. Simply poor, higher middle class, and super rich. And no poor or lower middle class can afford to feed a family of 5 on a single income any more, like they could in the 60s and 70s. So for super higher middle class, awesome! They can do it with two incomes. And yes as you said there are more rich people now then ever in HISTORY! There were NEVER so many upper middle class and rich. Only problem is we were better off in 80s when 80% of the population was middle class, made less but then everyone lived on a single income, people would have 6 kids and feed them all on a single income!

Don't believe the formula? Look at the state of our nation right now! Here is proof!

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/02/12 10:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16170407 - 05/02/12 10:31 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
There are more homeowners, more car owners, more college students and a richer middle class than ever.  The difference is in expectations and standards of living.  People need two incomes to pay for luxuries above and beyond anything the myth of americana offers.



Here is a graph of homeowner rates since 1965 (when the data was first collected annually):



Prior to 1965, decennial Census data "show a large increase in homeownership in the 1940s and 1950s, from from about 45 percent of all households in 1940 to 63 percent in 1960. Between 1900 and 1940, the homeownership rate fluctuated between about 45 and 48 percent"  So the increase in homeownership started in the 1940's and continued until 1980, when there was a large decline in homeownership.




That looks like a large decline to you?  From just under 66% to just under 64%  That's 2%
Quote:

  A large bubble began shortly after the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed, but that bubble collapsed in 2007 and is continuing its rapid decline.




The bubble had nothing to do with Glass-Steagal and everything to do with vast expansion of Fannie and Freddie, which government agencies vastly increased their market share as a result of Clinton policies.
Quote:


Yes, there are more college students than ever, but that's not a result of them being able to afford it better. 




No, it is a result of fraudulent credential demands and opening the gates of academia to vastly unqualified students.
Quote:

It's required for them to make the same income that people used to make without a college degree.  In fact, college is more difficult to afford than ever.




"Affordable" is a floating word with just about no meaning in this context.  Affordability varies.  College is more expensive now because liberal nitwits have pressed the idea that it is necessary to get a good career and thus increased the size of the hordes clamoring to get.  And get in they did.  Just about any retard can find some college that will take him these days.  In many cases it is detrimental to spend 4 years accumulating liberal grievance studies.  Learn a fucking trade.  You will be better off.
Quote:



Are the middle class richer than ever?  As you can see from this graph of average family income in 2008 inflation-adjusted US dollars, there was a decline in 1980:



I'll admit, the spike under Clinton from '93 to '99 is a surprise to me, but that's been going down since 2000 and is almost back to the 1979 level.




But what do those dollars buy?  When I was a middle class kid growing up nobody had AC.  Dishwashers, too.  Now most everybody does.  Long distance phone calls were expensive.  Families have two cars now, not one.  The dollar buys a lot more of that kind of stuff than it used to.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16170414 - 05/02/12 10:34 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...





that's bullshit. I actually happen to know a few real estate agents. It IS expensive in some cases to buy the house then flip it, and in some cases they don't flip it for much, but saying it is ALWAYS like that is total garbage. I've heard of houses going for 20 million dollars. Now a person selling the house gets a 5% commission. You are telling me the real estate company would buy the house for 19 million and sell it for 20 million? In that case 5% would be 1 million all together and the real estate agent would get the entire commission and the company would get nothing.

Give me a break. I know construction companies contract out their work for high prices to realtor's who will buy and flip the property, but no construction company will build a property and sell it for 19 million, unless it's a huge building for example empire state building, selling condos, in which case 19 million might be very small of a price for what they will sell the building for.





If the company bought it for $19 million, but then refused to sell it for $20 million, even though that was what the market could deliver, then that is an example of a sunk cost.  A company that did that wouldn't last for long.

In the real estate market, people sell their houses for as much as they can get and people buy them for as little as they can pay for it.  The fact that people somtimes lose money doesn't change that equation at all.




:rolleyes:

look I'm not trying to be sarcastic but do you actually believe that a house that goes for twenty million was bought for 18 million. I understand the 'idea' is to buy the house as low as possible and sell it as high as possible. But that's just the issue. You try and buy the cheapest house and sell it at the highest price! Now the problem is that in certain times someone is going to say: "I'm not buying your house for that much! Lower the cost or it doesn't get sold"

But when insurance companies are paying for your house, then you can buy whatever you want. This is the issue, in another time, you might say "I can't afford that house", and therefore people would lower the standard of what it could be sold for. But not today, it's screwed up the entire market and the entire economy.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170432 - 05/02/12 10:37 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

more bullshit. My grandfather had 4 cars, 5 kids, and worked at a lumber mill. Learn a trade you are better off? People who learn a trade get knocked off, for someone else with a 6 year college degree, who gets the lower level position as ENTRY level and knocks off the person doing the trade his whole life. You are so living in 2004 my friend


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16170447 - 05/02/12 10:40 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...





that's bullshit. I actually happen to know a few real estate agents. It IS expensive in some cases to buy the house then flip it, and in some cases they don't flip it for much, but saying it is ALWAYS like that is total garbage. I've heard of houses going for 20 million dollars. Now a person selling the house gets a 5% commission. You are telling me the real estate company would buy the house for 19 million and sell it for 20 million? In that case 5% would be 1 million all together and the real estate agent would get the entire commission and the company would get nothing.

Give me a break. I know construction companies contract out their work for high prices to realtor's who will buy and flip the property, but no construction company will build a property and sell it for 19 million, unless it's a huge building for example empire state building, selling condos, in which case 19 million might be very small of a price for what they will sell the building for.




He wasn't saying that at all.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Nobody gets 5% on a 20M listing.  And I'm married to a top real estate agent in a town that has multi-million dollar homes.  And almost no realtors buy and sell properties.  They just represent in the sale.

Flipping is expensive.  You have a broker's commission, lawyers and bank fees.  Even if you don't do a fucking thing there is a 15% requirement.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170471 - 05/02/12 10:44 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
more bullshit. My grandfather had 4 cars, 5 kids, and worked at a lumber mill. Learn a trade you are better off? People who learn a trade get knocked off, for someone else with a 6 year college degree, who gets the lower level position as ENTRY level and knocks off the person doing the trade his whole life. You are so living in 2004 my friend




What does your grandfather have to do with anybody else?  Nothing.  Most families then, if they had a car at all, had one.  Apparently he had a trade?????????

I don't want to break your heart but I wouldn't hire somebody with a six year degree to work in my trade.  Aside from the fact that they wasted six years of their life learning something utterly useless to their actual performance I wouldn't want to hire anybody who was so stupid as to think that was a good idea.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16170519 - 05/02/12 10:56 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
So what are you saying?  That you're against free market in real estate?




NO I'M MAKING A POINT! I'M NOT AGAINST THE FREE MARKET! I am simply saying that all this AIG shit and lack of old policies that loan companies used to sell houses where they got money from an insurance company that had private investors and traders trading bonds of the insurance company, and wall street making 19 million a year profits, while house prices continued to rise and rise, while the price of a candy bar has remained the same for the past 35 years, really destroyed the economy! The free market is fine, the government is corrupt. We should have a free market, but government policies that allow heavy private stock trading of very large public companies, while small businesses die and die and die and die is totally a hefty amount of bullshit.




What are you talking about?  "Lack of old policies"?  Wall Street firms making only $19 million a year in profits?

House prices have fallen recently, if you didn't notice.  Also, I don't know about the last 35 years, but I pay more now for a candy bar than I did a decade ago.

If you want an entirely free market, then you can't be against the trading of stock, or in fact against the prevention of any economic activity whatsoever.

Quote:

Of course free market should exist! But you know something is wrong when the free market exists in the sense that people will take your tax dollars and gamble them on the stock market!




Are you talking about the stock market crash?  Because, no, Lehman Bros. et al were gambling their own money, not tax dollars.

Quote:

And when others claim we didn't go broke until Obama was in office, and when other people claim republicans will fix the problem!




So you know something is wrong when...people think that a change in elected officials will fix a problem?  Is that what you're saying?  It's really hard to make anything coherent out.


Quote:

The government is like the goodfellas:

"we paid off everyone, everyone had their hands out for the taking"




Ah, well, you've compared the government to people in a movie, I can now completely see how your argument is supported.

Quote:

So a little political corruption never hurt anyone. People made their money fair and square and under legal conditions. Ok so what can you do? If you were getting 10% commissions of heavy trading who would you be to deny it? You work hard to connect people and make them way more money then what you get which is a tiny piece of what they are making. Fine. But when a hundred million houses aren't paid for, and the insurance company owes the lending companies every dollar by contract, and the insurance company is the biggest thing on the stock market, and the cabinet has decided to bail these companies out with your hard worked tax dollars, it doesn't seem like a 'free' market any more.




No, that sounds pretty much exactly how a free market works.  Or is it only a free market if the government isn't allowed to spend money?

We made money off of the bank bailout, btw.  Sound investment.

Quote:

What type of government takes all the money made by citizens and gives it away to large companies that went broke on their own venture?




Pretty much all of them, it seems like.  Standard practice.

Quote:

Sound like democracy? 95% of the wealth owned by less then 5% of the population.




Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.

Quote:

Pretty soon middle class will be less then 10% of the people.




I'll fix that: define the "middle class" as anyone who lives in a household that makes less than $1 million a year.  Bam.  Instantly healty and large middle class.

Quote:

Does shell lose money?




Sometimes. Why do you want them to lose money anyway?

Quote:

How can you not buy their gas?




Go to a different gas station?

Quote:

When bio fuel ethanol replaces gasoline and we are all using it instead?




How can you not buy Shell's gasoline when bio ethanol replaces gasoline?  What?

Quote:

Are people going to say "it's the free market let the dems and repubs take our money and sink it into the stock market under efi ethanol fuel incorporated" or whatever they'll call it at that time.




I've actually put money down betting that that's going to be 2012's hottest catchphrase.

Quote:

These companies are mega corporations! They are already going to get all your money!




If you'll notice, sometimes corporations go broke, and if corporations had all the money then no one would buy their products.

Quote:

Why does the government need to take hard earned tax dollars and blow it on the stock market!




To avoid a global economic catastrophe?

Quote:

It's god damn unconstitutional!




Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Quote:

When everyone is buying shell gas, how can they NOT make money? You give them EVERY DAMN DOLLAR YOU MAKE! And they deserve a bail out? Fuck when a company like that goes under, they file for bank ruptcy, then with the remaining cash they didn't sink bank into the business they retire in Nassau. How is our tax money going into the stock market the free market?!




So, Shell is making gobs of profits, and yet they're actually going bankrupt?  What kind of world do you live in, where up is down and down is up all at the same time?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170532 - 05/02/12 10:57 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

But what do those dollars buy?  When I was a middle class kid growing up nobody had AC.  Dishwashers, too.  Now most everybody does.  Long distance phone calls were expensive.  Families have two cars now, not one.  The dollar buys a lot more of that kind of stuff than it used to.





Yea, those are my thoughts exactly.

When my mom was growing up they lived on one income.  They never went to restaurants, she never had fast food until she was in her 20s.  No cell phones, no cable, no ac, no dishwasher, no microwave, no computer, one car, no credit cards.  And also there was lots of work spent on the garden, canning and preparing food.  Even though there was only one income, both parents did work.

Its easy to have that kind of lifestyle these days on one income.  Super easy. 

Shit, my dad grew up the son of cotton pickers.  He didnt even have electricity and shared a two bedroom house with 6 siblings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170540 - 05/02/12 10:59 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
What also pisses me off, is companies that sell the houses, real estate companies, continue to raise prices while people aren't even paying them off for the houses they are already trying to sell.



You've never bought or sold a house, have you?

This is not at all how it works...people sell a house for as much as they can get for it...people buy a house for as little as they can pay for it...





that's bullshit. I actually happen to know a few real estate agents. It IS expensive in some cases to buy the house then flip it, and in some cases they don't flip it for much, but saying it is ALWAYS like that is total garbage. I've heard of houses going for 20 million dollars. Now a person selling the house gets a 5% commission. You are telling me the real estate company would buy the house for 19 million and sell it for 20 million? In that case 5% would be 1 million all together and the real estate agent would get the entire commission and the company would get nothing.

Give me a break. I know construction companies contract out their work for high prices to realtor's who will buy and flip the property, but no construction company will build a property and sell it for 19 million, unless it's a huge building for example empire state building, selling condos, in which case 19 million might be very small of a price for what they will sell the building for.




He wasn't saying that at all.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Nobody gets 5% on a 20M listing.  And I'm married to a top real estate agent in a town that has multi-million dollar homes.  And almost no realtors buy and sell properties.  They just represent in the sale.

Flipping is expensive.  You have a broker's commission, lawyers and bank fees.  Even if you don't do a fucking thing there is a 15% requirement.




15%? So that is MUCH higher then 5%. That is HIGH in your area, in California the commission fee is 3% for real estate.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170546 - 05/02/12 11:01 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
more bullshit. My grandfather had 4 cars, 5 kids, and worked at a lumber mill. Learn a trade you are better off? People who learn a trade get knocked off, for someone else with a 6 year college degree, who gets the lower level position as ENTRY level and knocks off the person doing the trade his whole life. You are so living in 2004 my friend




What does your grandfather have to do with anybody else?  Nothing.  Most families then, if they had a car at all, had one.  Apparently he had a trade?????????

I don't want to break your heart but I wouldn't hire somebody with a six year degree to work in my trade.  Aside from the fact that they wasted six years of their life learning something utterly useless to their actual performance I wouldn't want to hire anybody who was so stupid as to think that was a good idea.




so you and me both think experience counts MUCH MUCH more then any stupid piece of paper. Well tell that to other millions of companies that is in the buyers market, they hire people with an education these days based almost solely on that, and throw everyone else away like paper.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170567 - 05/02/12 11:05 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

I dont agree.  Recent grads have a harder time getting a job than people with experience.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170569 - 05/02/12 11:05 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:

He wasn't saying that at all.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Nobody gets 5% on a 20M listing.  And I'm married to a top real estate agent in a town that has multi-million dollar homes.  And almost no realtors buy and sell properties.  They just represent in the sale.

Flipping is expensive.  You have a broker's commission, lawyers and bank fees.  Even if you don't do a fucking thing there is a 15% requirement.




15%? So that is MUCH higher then 5%. That is HIGH in your area, in California the commission fee is 3% for real estate.




:facepalm:  Not all costs are broker's commissions and not all houses are flipped at $19M.  Are you really that obtuse?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16170575 - 05/02/12 11:06 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont agree.  Recent grads have a harder time getting a job than people with experience.



Yep.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170602 - 05/02/12 11:09 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont agree.  Recent grads have a harder time getting a job than people with experience.



Yep.




QFT


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16170791 - 05/02/12 11:48 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:




What are you talking about?  "Lack of old policies"?  Wall Street firms making only $19 million a year in profits?

House prices have fallen recently, if you didn't notice.  Also, I don't know about the last 35 years, but I pay more now for a candy bar than I did a decade ago.

If you want an entirely free market, then you can't be against the trading of stock, or in fact against the prevention of any economic activity whatsoever.




where the fuck do you live? candy bar has been a dollar since I was born, maybe you are thinking of king size.

Quote:

Enlil said:

Are you talking about the stock market crash?  Because, no, Lehman Bros. et al were gambling their own money, not tax dollars.




:rolleyes: they were the only ones doing this? How many people were held accountable?

Quote:

Enlil said:

So you know something is wrong when...people think that a change in elected officials will fix a problem?  Is that what you're saying?  It's really hard to make anything coherent out.




yes change in elected officials will fix a problem. Definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results when it didn't work the first, second, or third time

Quote:

Enlil said:

No, that sounds pretty much exactly how a free market works.  Or is it only a free market if the government isn't allowed to spend money?

We made money off of the bank bailout, btw.  Sound investment.




:lol: very sound investment. Should I even start to argue with that one? :wink:


Quote:

Enlil said:

I'll fix that: define the "middle class" as anyone who lives in a household that makes less than $1 million a year.  Bam.  Instantly healty and large middle class.






up is down and down is up? On my side really? You are starting to sound like George Bush. "define middle class as anyone who lives in a household that makes less then $1 million a year. Bam. Instantly healthy and large middle class" Sure, I really believe a family making $900,000 a year is middle class. You sure fixed the problem there.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Sometimes. Why do you want them(shell) to lose money anyway?






I could give a shit less. They've had more money in their time then most people could count in a life time. They squander that it's their damn problem.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Go to a different gas station?






:lol: that'll fix the problem. Helping out the small guy now :lol: Why buy from Ford when you could buy from Chevrolet? Why buy from Chrysler when you could buy from BMW? :shrug:


Quote:

Enlil said:

How can you not buy Shell's gasoline when bio ethanol replaces gasoline?  What?






My point being one day it will be the same thing all over again. A company making billions, when oil runs out probably one of these algae bio fuel companies will be selling tons of ethanol to you at your local gas station when you own a car that runs on ethanol. It will be the same story then, the company may go bank rupt, lot's of bail outs, people crying over it "they are so hard working, they deserve the bail outs, how can you argue wahh!" I mean really what do these people do for you? They are like any other business, they have their chance, when they ruin themselves, it's their fault. No restaurant owner who ruins their restaurant gets a bail out, why in the world should a large company? Is it easier to lose lot's of money these days then small amounts of money? Up is down and down is up? No kidding


Quote:

Enlil said:

I've actually put money down betting that that's going to be 2012's hottest catchphrase.






:laugh2: I hope so :thumbup:


Quote:

Enlil said:

If you'll notice, sometimes corporations go broke, and if corporations had all the money then no one would buy their products.






As though no one wants to make more money when they already have more money then they could ever really need. Well if only that's what people really thought :foreheadslap:

Quote:

imachavel said:Why does the government need to take hard earned tax dollars and blow it on the stock market!





Quote:

Enlil said:

To avoid a global economic catastrophe?






They've done a great job with that. We already had a HUGE deficit, then we took tax payers money, and bailed out companies that BLEW billions of dollars simply earned by commission, instead of pursuing and charging them as criminals for fraudulent actions. Watch inside job, wasn't just Lehman Brothers and AIG, and the fraudulent actions weren't just them spending personal money in a prostitution ring. Lot's of people wanted to press charges, this was never pursued. Now on top of the deficit we had we have bailing out these BILLION dollar companies and people making $19 million as COMMISSION. I have nothing against commission, as a broker at times there is nothing more fair then giving a hard earned commission by helping companies make a gazillion and getting a tiny percentage and nothing more wrong then calling a broker lazy. But a $19 million bonus? So he is making 10% commission on a 190 million dollar sale? Sounds a little strange to me, as though maybe more then 10% commission was being received, those companies make money not just for themselves, but for thousands of people to be employed. Although this isn't stipulated, those companies were not a government service, there is no guarantee they have to employ anyone. If they could run the company with two people there is no legal stipulation they have to hire anyone. It is indeed private profit for private companies.

So now on top of an already large deficit the government bailed out all these companies who were by some definitions fraudulent. Now we have a 14 trillion debt. Great way to avoid global catastrophe.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that?






I guess that's the problem, it's not in the 16th amendment, it's not anywhere. Really, they can do whatever they want with your money. Remember F.D.R.'s quote of what a democratic government is supposed to be? He said fascism is when a group of people control everything instead of the people controlling the government. He said democracy is supposed to be the government is by the people for the people, not one group controlling everything. He said in such a scenario it's not democracy any more but fascism.

So it's not in the constitution? Maybe our constitution isn't based on democracy.


Quote:

Enlil said:

So, Shell is making gobs of profits, and yet they're actually going bankrupt?  What kind of world do you live in, where up is down and down is up all at the same time?




Didn't know they were going bankrupt. First time I've heard of that. I hate to quote another movie but as Gordon Gecko said:

"I make money on speculation, the illusion has become real. I create nothing, I own. You aren't naive enough to think we are living in a democracy are you?"

so democracy isn't a form of economy, it's a political system of government? Well what is in our constitution? What form of government is democracy supposed to represent anyway? Who is really not politically correct here?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16170816 - 05/02/12 11:51 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont agree.  Recent grads have a harder time getting a job than people with experience.




Not necessarily. Grads have a harder time getting a job then people with experience AND a graduate degree. Grads with no experience have an easier time getting a job then someone with experience and no graduate degree.

So someone is hiring, and out of these three people:

a) Johnny, 6 year degree, 10 years of experience

b) Micky, 6 year degree, no experience

c) Susan, 10 years experience, no degree.

People will hire in the following order:

Johhny

Then Micky

then Susan


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170839 - 05/02/12 11:55 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

I dont think those are real people.  Im talking about real people.  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170855 - 05/02/12 11:58 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:

He wasn't saying that at all.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Nobody gets 5% on a 20M listing.  And I'm married to a top real estate agent in a town that has multi-million dollar homes.  And almost no realtors buy and sell properties.  They just represent in the sale.

Flipping is expensive.  You have a broker's commission, lawyers and bank fees.  Even if you don't do a fucking thing there is a 15% requirement.




15%? So that is MUCH higher then 5%. That is HIGH in your area, in California the commission fee is 3% for real estate.




:facepalm:  Not all costs are broker's commissions and not all houses are flipped at $19M.  Are you really that obtuse?




never said that. The argument was that houses are always sold at the highest prices and bought for the lowest prices. My argument was that if a house goes for 19 million then how does that fit in? Of course if a house is sold for the highest price possible, and the lowest cost house is usually bought, then things should be fair right? Wrong. Because EVERYONE wants to sell their house at the highest cost.

So often times what happens is that the prices come out about even. In which case they are all expensive. Now They don't all cost 19 million. But let me ask you, in the 70s certain times a house could be found as low as $65,000, for a nice three bedroom house. Where are you going to find that now? And in the late 70s the minimum wage was about $3.50 an hour, it's only double that now, so equivalently $65,000 for a three bedroom house would be $130,000 for a three bedroom house now. See that much these days? I sure don't. Not even in Idaho, and I kid you not I'm not just speaking from Florida experience.

Now with all that money for a mortgage being paid off for a very expensive house to a loan company by an insurance company, who is going broke while stock market traders are making million dollars BONUSES at the end of the year, pretty much FRAUDULENTLY, off the insurance company. And then when the company goes bank rupt, an already broke government with a deficit bails them out adding to a HUGER deficit. A bad business model made worst. 14 trillion we owe now. Funny, I thought you agreed with me on this. I thought our main argument was who was mainly responsible a democratic party or a republican party.

My answer = unfixable in a corrupt society. But ideas and solutions clearly vary


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16170861 - 05/02/12 11:59 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont think those are real people.  Im talking about real people.  :tongue:




didn't realize it was different with real people. You seem to have a different experience and viewpoint? :confused:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170874 - 05/02/12 12:01 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

I'm not Enlil. :fuckyou:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170919 - 05/02/12 12:10 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:

He wasn't saying that at all.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Nobody gets 5% on a 20M listing.  And I'm married to a top real estate agent in a town that has multi-million dollar homes.  And almost no realtors buy and sell properties.  They just represent in the sale.

Flipping is expensive.  You have a broker's commission, lawyers and bank fees.  Even if you don't do a fucking thing there is a 15% requirement.




15%? So that is MUCH higher then 5%. That is HIGH in your area, in California the commission fee is 3% for real estate.




:facepalm:  Not all costs are broker's commissions and not all houses are flipped at $19M.  Are you really that obtuse?




never said that. The argument was that houses are always sold at the highest prices and bought for the lowest prices. My argument was that if a house goes for 19 million then how does that fit in? Of course if a house is sold for the highest price possible, and the lowest cost house is usually bought, then things should be fair right? Wrong. Because EVERYONE wants to sell their house at the highest cost.




Everyone wants to get the most when the sell and pay the least when they buy.  Duh.  Nobody gets to set any price.
Quote:

 

So often times what happens is that the prices come out about even. In which case they are all expensive. Now They don't all cost 19 million. But let me ask you, in the 70s certain times a house could be found as low as $65,000, for a nice three bedroom house. Where are you going to find that now? And in the late 70s the minimum wage was about $3.50 an hour, it's only double that now, so equivalently $65,000 for a three bedroom house would be $130,000 for a three bedroom house now. See that much these days? I sure don't. Not even in Idaho, and I kid you not I'm not just speaking from Florida experience.




In the seventies you could buy a 3 BR for $20K, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE.  I live in one of the richest towns in the country.  You can't buy a garage for $130K.  What are the three most important factors in real estate? 

People who make minimum wage are not going to be buying anything.  They are either children or losers.
Quote:



Now with all that money for a mortgage being paid off for a very expensive house to a loan company by an insurance company, who is going broke while stock market traders are making million dollars BONUSES at the end of the year, pretty much FRAUDULENTLY, off the insurance company. And then when the company goes bank rupt, an already broke government with a deficit bails them out adding to a HUGER deficit. A bad business model made worst. 14 trillion we owe now. Funny, I thought you agreed with me on this. I thought our main argument was who was mainly responsible a democratic party or a republican party.




I thought I was always clear on this.  The people to blame are the assholes who borrowed money and didn't pay it back.  Derivatively, the people who encouraged and coerced lending to assholes who don't repay the money they borrow are also to blame, although to a much lesser extent.

I can't address the first half of that paragraph because it is gibberish.  Nobody made anybody take out a loan or bid too much on a house.  Ever.
Quote:



My answer = unfixable in a corrupt society. But ideas and solutions clearly vary




Stop meddling in the money lending market.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16170949 - 05/02/12 12:16 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:




What are you talking about?  "Lack of old policies"?  Wall Street firms making only $19 million a year in profits?

House prices have fallen recently, if you didn't notice.  Also, I don't know about the last 35 years, but I pay more now for a candy bar than I did a decade ago.

If you want an entirely free market, then you can't be against the trading of stock, or in fact against the prevention of any economic activity whatsoever.




where the fuck do you live? candy bar has been a dollar since I was born, maybe you are thinking of king size.

Quote:

Enlil said:

Are you talking about the stock market crash?  Because, no, Lehman Bros. et al were gambling their own money, not tax dollars.




:rolleyes: they were the only ones doing this? How many people were held accountable?

Quote:

Enlil said:

So you know something is wrong when...people think that a change in elected officials will fix a problem?  Is that what you're saying?  It's really hard to make anything coherent out.




yes change in elected officials will fix a problem. Definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results when it didn't work the first, second, or third time

Quote:

Enlil said:

No, that sounds pretty much exactly how a free market works.  Or is it only a free market if the government isn't allowed to spend money?

We made money off of the bank bailout, btw.  Sound investment.




:lol: very sound investment. Should I even start to argue with that one? :wink:


Quote:

Enlil said:

I'll fix that: define the "middle class" as anyone who lives in a household that makes less than $1 million a year.  Bam.  Instantly healty and large middle class.






up is down and down is up? On my side really? You are starting to sound like George Bush. "define middle class as anyone who lives in a household that makes less then $1 million a year. Bam. Instantly healthy and large middle class" Sure, I really believe a family making $900,000 a year is middle class. You sure fixed the problem there.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Sometimes. Why do you want them(shell) to lose money anyway?






I could give a shit less. They've had more money in their time then most people could count in a life time. They squander that it's their damn problem.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Go to a different gas station?






:lol: that'll fix the problem. Helping out the small guy now :lol: Why buy from Ford when you could buy from Chevrolet? Why buy from Chrysler when you could buy from BMW? :shrug:


Quote:

Enlil said:

How can you not buy Shell's gasoline when bio ethanol replaces gasoline?  What?






My point being one day it will be the same thing all over again. A company making billions, when oil runs out probably one of these algae bio fuel companies will be selling tons of ethanol to you at your local gas station when you own a car that runs on ethanol. It will be the same story then, the company may go bank rupt, lot's of bail outs, people crying over it "they are so hard working, they deserve the bail outs, how can you argue wahh!" I mean really what do these people do for you? They are like any other business, they have their chance, when they ruin themselves, it's their fault. No restaurant owner who ruins their restaurant gets a bail out, why in the world should a large company? Is it easier to lose lot's of money these days then small amounts of money? Up is down and down is up? No kidding


Quote:

Enlil said:

I've actually put money down betting that that's going to be 2012's hottest catchphrase.






:laugh2: I hope so :thumbup:


Quote:

Enlil said:

If you'll notice, sometimes corporations go broke, and if corporations had all the money then no one would buy their products.






As though no one wants to make more money when they already have more money then they could ever really need. Well if only that's what people really thought :foreheadslap:

Quote:

imachavel said:Why does the government need to take hard earned tax dollars and blow it on the stock market!





Quote:

Enlil said:

To avoid a global economic catastrophe?






They've done a great job with that. We already had a HUGE deficit, then we took tax payers money, and bailed out companies that BLEW billions of dollars simply earned by commission, instead of pursuing and charging them as criminals for fraudulent actions. Watch inside job, wasn't just Lehman Brothers and AIG, and the fraudulent actions weren't just them spending personal money in a prostitution ring. Lot's of people wanted to press charges, this was never pursued. Now on top of the deficit we had we have bailing out these BILLION dollar companies and people making $19 million as COMMISSION. I have nothing against commission, as a broker at times there is nothing more fair then giving a hard earned commission by helping companies make a gazillion and getting a tiny percentage and nothing more wrong then calling a broker lazy. But a $19 million bonus? So he is making 10% commission on a 190 million dollar sale? Sounds a little strange to me, as though maybe more then 10% commission was being received, those companies make money not just for themselves, but for thousands of people to be employed. Although this isn't stipulated, those companies were not a government service, there is no guarantee they have to employ anyone. If they could run the company with two people there is no legal stipulation they have to hire anyone. It is indeed private profit for private companies.

So now on top of an already large deficit the government bailed out all these companies who were by some definitions fraudulent. Now we have a 14 trillion debt. Great way to avoid global catastrophe.


Quote:

Enlil said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that?






I guess that's the problem, it's not in the 16th amendment, it's not anywhere. Really, they can do whatever they want with your money. Remember F.D.R.'s quote of what a democratic government is supposed to be? He said fascism is when a group of people control everything instead of the people controlling the government. He said democracy is supposed to be the government is by the people for the people, not one group controlling everything. He said in such a scenario it's not democracy any more but fascism.

So it's not in the constitution? Maybe our constitution isn't based on democracy.


Quote:

Enlil said:

So, Shell is making gobs of profits, and yet they're actually going bankrupt?  What kind of world do you live in, where up is down and down is up all at the same time?




Didn't know they were going bankrupt. First time I've heard of that. I hate to quote another movie but as Gordon Gecko said:

"I make money on speculation, the illusion has become real. I create nothing, I own. You aren't naive enough to think we are living in a democracy are you?"

so democracy isn't a form of economy, it's a political system of government? Well what is in our constitution? What form of government is democracy supposed to represent anyway? Who is really not politically correct here?



LOL...WTF?  I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS STUFF.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16170971 - 05/02/12 12:21 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
I'm not Enlil. :fuckyou:




I replied to you in a completely separate post :bitchplease:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16170976 - 05/02/12 12:21 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

oh crap. How in the world did I end up quoting you?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16170988 - 05/02/12 12:25 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:




What are you talking about?  "Lack of old policies"?  Wall Street firms making only $19 million a year in profits?

House prices have fallen recently, if you didn't notice.  Also, I don't know about the last 35 years, but I pay more now for a candy bar than I did a decade ago.

If you want an entirely free market, then you can't be against the trading of stock, or in fact against the prevention of any economic activity whatsoever.




where the fuck do you live? candy bar has been a dollar since I was born, maybe you are thinking of king size.

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

Are you talking about the stock market crash?  Because, no, Lehman Bros. et al were gambling their own money, not tax dollars.




:rolleyes: they were the only ones doing this? How many people were held accountable?

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

So you know something is wrong when...people think that a change in elected officials will fix a problem?  Is that what you're saying?  It's really hard to make anything coherent out.




yes change in elected officials will fix a problem. Definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results when it didn't work the first, second, or third time

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

No, that sounds pretty much exactly how a free market works.  Or is it only a free market if the government isn't allowed to spend money?

We made money off of the bank bailout, btw.  Sound investment.




:lol: very sound investment. Should I even start to argue with that one? :wink:


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

I'll fix that: define the "middle class" as anyone who lives in a household that makes less than $1 million a year.  Bam.  Instantly healty and large middle class.






up is down and down is up? On my side really? You are starting to sound like George Bush. "define middle class as anyone who lives in a household that makes less then $1 million a year. Bam. Instantly healthy and large middle class" Sure, I really believe a family making $900,000 a year is middle class. You sure fixed the problem there.


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

Sometimes. Why do you want them(shell) to lose money anyway?






I could give a shit less. They've had more money in their time then most people could count in a life time. They squander that it's their damn problem.


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

Go to a different gas station?






:lol: that'll fix the problem. Helping out the small guy now :lol: Why buy from Ford when you could buy from Chevrolet? Why buy from Chrysler when you could buy from BMW? :shrug:


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

How can you not buy Shell's gasoline when bio ethanol replaces gasoline?  What?






My point being one day it will be the same thing all over again. A company making billions, when oil runs out probably one of these algae bio fuel companies will be selling tons of ethanol to you at your local gas station when you own a car that runs on ethanol. It will be the same story then, the company may go bank rupt, lot's of bail outs, people crying over it "they are so hard working, they deserve the bail outs, how can you argue wahh!" I mean really what do these people do for you? They are like any other business, they have their chance, when they ruin themselves, it's their fault. No restaurant owner who ruins their restaurant gets a bail out, why in the world should a large company? Is it easier to lose lot's of money these days then small amounts of money? Up is down and down is up? No kidding


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

I've actually put money down betting that that's going to be 2012's hottest catchphrase.






:laugh2: I hope so :thumbup:


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

If you'll notice, sometimes corporations go broke, and if corporations had all the money then no one would buy their products.






As though no one wants to make more money when they already have more money then they could ever really need. Well if only that's what people really thought :foreheadslap:

Quote:

imachavel said:Why does the government need to take hard earned tax dollars and blow it on the stock market!





Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

To avoid a global economic catastrophe?






They've done a great job with that. We already had a HUGE deficit, then we took tax payers money, and bailed out companies that BLEW billions of dollars simply earned by commission, instead of pursuing and charging them as criminals for fraudulent actions. Watch inside job, wasn't just Lehman Brothers and AIG, and the fraudulent actions weren't just them spending personal money in a prostitution ring. Lot's of people wanted to press charges, this was never pursued. Now on top of the deficit we had we have bailing out these BILLION dollar companies and people making $19 million as COMMISSION. I have nothing against commission, as a broker at times there is nothing more fair then giving a hard earned commission by helping companies make a gazillion and getting a tiny percentage and nothing more wrong then calling a broker lazy. But a $19 million bonus? So he is making 10% commission on a 190 million dollar sale? Sounds a little strange to me, as though maybe more then 10% commission was being received, those companies make money not just for themselves, but for thousands of people to be employed. Although this isn't stipulated, those companies were not a government service, there is no guarantee they have to employ anyone. If they could run the company with two people there is no legal stipulation they have to hire anyone. It is indeed private profit for private companies.

So now on top of an already large deficit the government bailed out all these companies who were by some definitions fraudulent. Now we have a 14 trillion debt. Great way to avoid global catastrophe.


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that?






I guess that's the problem, it's not in the 16th amendment, it's not anywhere. Really, they can do whatever they want with your money. Remember F.D.R.'s quote of what a democratic government is supposed to be? He said fascism is when a group of people control everything instead of the people controlling the government. He said democracy is supposed to be the government is by the people for the people, not one group controlling everything. He said in such a scenario it's not democracy any more but fascism.

So it's not in the constitution? Maybe our constitution isn't based on democracy.


Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

So, Shell is making gobs of profits, and yet they're actually going bankrupt?  What kind of world do you live in, where up is down and down is up all at the same time?




Didn't know they were going bankrupt. First time I've heard of that. I hate to quote another movie but as Gordon Gecko said:

"I make money on speculation, the illusion has become real. I create nothing, I own. You aren't naive enough to think we are living in a democracy are you?"

so democracy isn't a form of economy, it's a political system of government? Well what is in our constitution? What form of government is democracy supposed to represent anyway? Who is really not politically correct here?



LOL...WTF?  I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS STUFF.




:lol: FIXED :laugh2:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16170997 - 05/02/12 12:26 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:


Stop meddling in the money lending market.




as little as possible, believe me. If I'm within a loan it's between other people and I just want a commission. I don't want the type of debt other people have believe you me


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16171317 - 05/02/12 01:31 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
where the fuck do you live? candy bar has been a dollar since I was born, maybe you are thinking of king size.




Maybe it has there.  Around here regular-sized snickers cost about 50 cents to 65 cents depending on where you bought it from a decade ago.  Now it's 79 cents to a dollar.

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

Are you talking about the stock market crash?  Because, no, Lehman Bros. et al were gambling their own money, not tax dollars.




:rolleyes: they were the only ones doing this? How many people were held accountable?




"et al" means "and others." 

Under a completely free market, stockbrokers aren't "held accountable" for losing money.  This is your problem: your idea of a "free market" is undefined, seemingly contradictory, and apparently is tied up in some weird definition of democracy.

Quote:

yes change in elected officials will fix a problem. Definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results when it didn't work the first, second, or third time




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

It appears that your method of electing new government officials to prevent recessions is insane.

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

No, that sounds pretty much exactly how a free market works.  Or is it only a free market if the government isn't allowed to spend money?

We made money off of the bank bailout, btw.  Sound investment.




:lol: very sound investment. Should I even start to argue with that one? :wink:




What part of "We made money" sounds like a bad investment?  Or was it the part the bailout prevented a full-out depression?

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:
I'll fix that: define the "middle class" as anyone who lives in a household that makes less than $1 million a year.  Bam.  Instantly healty and large middle class.





up is down and down is up? On my side really? You are starting to sound like George Bush. "define middle class as anyone who lives in a household that makes less then $1 million a year. Bam. Instantly healthy and large middle class" Sure, I really believe a family making $900,000 a year is middle class. You sure fixed the problem there.




How did you define the middle class when you pulled that 10% figure out your ass?  My point is that what counts as middle class is a matter of opinion.  Yammering about the growth or decline of the middle class is just wanking unless you can do a more sophisticated analysis than asserting that the middle class will shrink to less than 10% by argumentative fiat.

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:
Go to a different gas station?





:lol: that'll fix the problem. Helping out the small guy now :lol: Why buy from Ford when you could buy from Chevrolet? Why buy from Chrysler when you could buy from BMW? :shrug:




If you don't like a company, boycott its products.  If you don't like all companies, boycott all corporate-made products.  Why are you bitching about the fact that Shell, Exxon, etc. exist?  An oil market run entirely by "small business" would be chaos and completely unworkable on a national scale.

Quote:


My point being one day it will be the same thing all over again. A company making billions, when oil runs out probably one of these algae bio fuel companies will be selling tons of ethanol to you at your local gas station when you own a car that runs on ethanol. It will be the same story then, the company may go bank rupt, lot's of bail outs, people crying over it "they are so hard working, they deserve the bail outs, how can you argue wahh!" I mean really what do these people do for you? They are like any other business, they have their chance, when they ruin themselves, it's their fault. No restaurant owner who ruins their restaurant gets a bail out, why in the world should a large company? Is it easier to lose lot's of money these days then small amounts of money? Up is down and down is up? No kidding




What oil bailout was there?  What makes you think America's political climate would ever possibly allow for the bailout of an oil company?

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

If you'll notice, sometimes corporations go broke, and if corporations had all the money then no one would buy their products.






As though no one wants to make more money when they already have more money then they could ever really need. Well if only that's what people really thought :foreheadslap:




What the eff are you talking about?

Quote:


They've done a great job with that. We already had a HUGE deficit, then we took tax payers money, and bailed out companies that BLEW billions of dollars simply earned by commission, instead of pursuing and charging them as criminals for fraudulent actions. Watch inside job, wasn't just Lehman Brothers and AIG, and the fraudulent actions weren't just them spending personal money in a prostitution ring. Lot's of people wanted to press charges, this was never pursued. Now on top of the deficit we had we have bailing out these BILLION dollar companies and people making $19 million as COMMISSION. I have nothing against commission, as a broker at times there is nothing more fair then giving a hard earned commission by helping companies make a gazillion and getting a tiny percentage and nothing more wrong then calling a broker lazy. But a $19 million bonus? So he is making 10% commission on a 190 million dollar sale? Sounds a little strange to me, as though maybe more then 10% commission was being received, those companies make money not just for themselves, but for thousands of people to be employed. Although this isn't stipulated, those companies were not a government service, there is no guarantee they have to employ anyone. If they could run the company with two people there is no legal stipulation they have to hire anyone. It is indeed private profit for private companies.




I'm going through your argument, contradicting your points for shits and giggles, but damn if I haven't figured out what the hell your main point or argument is other than that you're experiencing heavy feelings of injustice.  I'll grant that.  The current political and economic situation is injust.

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that?





I guess that's the problem, it's not in the 16th amendment, it's not anywhere. Really, they can do whatever they want with your money. Remember F.D.R.'s quote of what a democratic government is supposed to be? He said fascism is when a group of people control everything instead of the people controlling the government. He said democracy is supposed to be the government is by the people for the people, not one group controlling everything. He said in such a scenario it's not democracy any more but fascism.




So you were just making stuff up when you said the bank bailouts were unconstitutional.

Quote:

So it's not in the constitution? Maybe our constitution isn't based on democracy.




:itwasgoodforme:

A democratic system is one that involves no bailouts?  Is that what you're saying?  That is not the definition of democracy.

Quote:

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:

So, Shell is making gobs of profits, and yet they're actually going bankrupt?  What kind of world do you live in, where up is down and down is up all at the same time?




Didn't know they were going bankrupt. First time I've heard of that.




That's funny, because the first time I heard of it was here:

Quote:

imachavel said:
When everyone is buying shell gas, how can they NOT make money? You give them EVERY DAMN DOLLAR YOU MAKE! And they deserve a bail out? Fuck when a company like that goes under, they file for bank ruptcy, then with the remaining cash they didn't sink bank into the business they retire in Nassau. How is our tax money going into the stock market the free market?!




Quote:

I hate to quote another movie but as Gordon Gecko said:

"I make money on speculation, the illusion has become real. I create nothing, I own. You aren't naive enough to think we are living in a democracy are you?"

so democracy isn't a form of economy, it's a political system of government? Well what is in our constitution? What form of government is democracy supposed to represent anyway? Who is really not politically correct here?




:mygoditsfullofstars:

What in the world are you on?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16171477 - 05/02/12 02:12 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

And how come he doesn't share?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShill
β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹β™‹

Registered: 11/23/11
Posts: 3,205
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16172415 - 05/02/12 05:38 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Shins said:
Look up ron paul guys.

the media / political establishment hate him because hes not a shill.




uh, is he even running?

Are we going to have the same nonsense we did in 08 with all these people claiming they were voting for someone who wasn't even a candidate :flowstone:





Well, yeah Ron is staying in the Race.

And it probably will be the same turnout as '08.


--------------------
The countdown to the break up of the euro has officially begun.

A great financial crisis is going to erupt in Europe, and it is going to shake the world to the core.

If you were frightened by what happened back in 2008, then you are going to be absolutely horrified by what is coming next.

"You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again."
- William Blake

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16174151 - 05/02/12 10:08 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:

:itwasgoodforme:

A democratic system is one that involves no bailouts?  Is that what you're saying?  That is not the definition of democracy.



:mygoditsfullofstars:

What in the world are you on?




why don't you define it for me? As long as you think what the government is doing is fucking justice, how about we legalize all drugs, and allow anyone to taxably sell them. Then you'd hear people complaining for damn sure. "Oh my god kids are selling crack legally and shit, oh my god!! How is it possible?

Fucking free market man. I guess what me and everyone else at this site argue about, are peoples rights to dignity, a person who works their ass off their whole damn life and gets no retirement in Zappa's eyes is a complete total idiot dip shit. Then people complain about racism all over this forum. Yet where is respect and dignity for people who make choices not to fit in and do what everyone else does, and to make their own choices? Where is that? What else can I say, me arguing here is like playing chess with someone's rights. Can't really say much more. Forget me voting, not for liars, that's for damn sure.

I'll tell you what, you call democracy whatever you want. You call it the best government in the world, you say comparing it to Communism and Socialism that it's awesome. So it wins by default, just like the next fucking president :wink:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/02/12 10:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16174542 - 05/02/12 11:19 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
There are more homeowners.



Here is a graph of homeowner rates since 1965 (when the data was first collected annually):




DieCommie said nothing about homeownership rates...he said there are more homeowners...do you have a graph or data showing the amount of homeowners?



Are you serious?  Homeownership rates is all that matters.  If 100 million people own homes in a population of 100 million people, that's 100% homeownership rate.  If 50 years later, 110 million own homes in a population of 220 million people, then that's a 50% homeownership rate.  That's NOT an improvement even though the number went up.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16174582 - 05/02/12 11:28 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)



--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16174585 - 05/02/12 11:29 PM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You want to go back to a time when women were all but compelled to working in a limited range of occupations?  What the fuck do you think was going to happen when they doubled the available work force?:facepalm:



If the workforce is doubled, then the amount of money spent should be doubled.  Would you argue that as population increases, wages necessarily go down?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Shill]
    #16175143 - 05/03/12 02:25 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Shill said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Shins said:
Look up ron paul guys.

the media / political establishment hate him because hes not a shill.




uh, is he even running?

Are we going to have the same nonsense we did in 08 with all these people claiming they were voting for someone who wasn't even a candidate :flowstone:





Well, yeah Ron is staying in the Race.

And it probably will be the same turnout as '08.





What do you mean "staying in"?  Has he announced or registered his intention to run for President as an independant?  Do you have some data for this?  In the states I'm familiar with they just through away your ballot if you vote for someone who isn't a candidate- which seems to be what Shins is advocating for some reason.

Last election, in 08, we had all these morons coming in this forum and trying convince people to vote for someone who wasn't a candidate as well- it was ron paul again.  Its gotta be embarrassing when your supporters don't even know what races your in.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214] * 1
    #16175173 - 05/03/12 02:40 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have similar views. One big difference is Gary isn't crazy anti-abortion. Johnson is still in though, libertarian national convention starts today and I expect he'll get the nomination Monday. Seriously guys, especially you Ron Paul freaks, check him out.


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16175627 - 05/03/12 07:30 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:


why don't you define it for me? As long as you think what the government is doing is fucking justice, how about we legalize all drugs, and allow anyone to taxably sell them. Then you'd hear people complaining for damn sure. "Oh my god kids are selling crack legally and shit, oh my god!! How is it possible?




What makes you think it wouldn't be licensed?  Alcohol sales are licensed.
Quote:



Fucking free market man. I guess what me and everyone else at this site argue about, are peoples rights to dignity, a person who works their ass off their whole damn life and gets no retirement in Zappa's eyes is a complete total idiot dip shit.



Aside from the the fact that almost nobody works their ass off any more, don't you think if they weren't having approximately 12% of their earnings taken by the government specifically under the rubric of funding retirement they might actually be able to use that money to fund a retirement account that would leave them with a million dollars in the bank at retirement, the interest from which they could live on without ever touching the principal?  And if they don't fuck 'em.  There's some dignity for you.  Personal responsibility and the opportunity to accept the consequences of their own actions.
Quote:



Then people complain about racism all over this forum. Yet where is respect and dignity for people who make choices not to fit in and do what everyone else does, and to make their own choices? Where is that? What else can I say, me arguing here is like playing chess with someone's rights. Can't really say much more. Forget me voting, not for liars, that's for damn sure.




What specifically are you whining about here?  Who makes anyone "fit in and do what everyone else does"?  Do whatever the fuck you want.  Just don't demand I feed you.
Quote:



I'll tell you what, you call democracy whatever you want. You call it the best government in the world, you say comparing it to Communism and Socialism that it's awesome. So it wins by default, just like the next fucking president :wink:




Awwwwww, poor baby, doesn't get to appoint his own puppet.  :bitch:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16175630 - 05/03/12 07:32 AM (12 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You want to go back to a time when women were all but compelled to working in a limited range of occupations?  What the fuck do you think was going to happen when they doubled the available work force?:facepalm:



If the workforce is doubled, then the amount of money spent should be doubled.  Would you argue that as population increases, wages necessarily go down?



If the work force is doubled there is more competition for jobs which drives down wages.  Duh.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16176439 - 05/03/12 12:25 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Are you serious?  Homeownership rates is all that matters.  If 100 million people own homes in a population of 100 million people, that's 100% homeownership rate.  If 50 years later, 110 million own homes in a population of 220 million people, then that's a 50% homeownership rate.  That's NOT an improvement even though the number went up.




I agree, but your graph clearly shows that home ownership rates are, and have been, higher during my generation than the generation or two before.  Just like I claimed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16176477 - 05/03/12 12:36 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

A democracy is a form of government where everyone in a society gets a say in determining governmental policy.  The US has too many people to be a pure democracy, so we are a democratic republic.  Whether or not a country is a democracy has almost nothing to do with the social or economic policies of that country, nor does it has any necessary connection to any idea of "justice."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16176521 - 05/03/12 12:48 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

I don't think high homeownership is necessarily a good thing.  Homeownership creates a workforce that is stuck wherever it is, which pretty much guarantees structural unemployment.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16176594 - 05/03/12 01:13 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Interesting theory.  Bunk, of course.  I can sell my house easier and faster than I could get out of a lease.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16176610 - 05/03/12 01:19 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Interesting theory.  Bunk, of course.  I can sell my house easier and faster than I could get out of a lease.




But not with less cost.  When leasing I can move every 6 months or year with little cost above my monthly rent.  Selling a house costs hundreds or thousands of dollars.  Poor people cant do that every couple of years.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16176621 - 05/03/12 01:23 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Interesting theory.  Bunk, of course.  I can sell my house easier and faster than I could get out of a lease.




But not with less cost.  When leasing I can move every 6 months or year with little cost above my monthly rent.  Selling a house costs hundreds or thousands of dollars.  Poor people cant do that every couple of years.




If you are itinerant OBVIOUSLY you should not be buying property.  Selling a house also realizes capital gains which more than defray the costs of selling.  Unless you were a fucking idiot.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16176704 - 05/03/12 01:41 PM (12 years, 17 days ago)

I think, economically, Zappa is right.  Houses are easier to get out of than leases.  But I think houses not only are a signal that you have decided to settle down and stick in one spot (also a signal that you've got kids, which creates a ton of same-city inertia), but that they also cause that mentality.  When I have a lease, I'm constantly thinking about what I'll do when it ends, whether I should stay or go, etc.  I imagine if I had a house I would not be thinking about packing up and heading for wherever the economy needs me.

Furthermore, houses require that your income remain relatively steady for a longer period of time, which means you have to pick a decently-paying job and stick with it.  Of course, if your house becomes too expensive you can just sell it and rent somewhere, but I think people have a strong psychological aversion to "trading down" like that - and also sometimes it can take months to sell a house.

On the other hand, if I rent, I can afford to pick a riskier but higher-payoff career trajectory because I know if I fuck up and lose a job or if in my eternal job search I hit a dry spot I won't be up shit creek.  In that case, maybe home-ownership has little to do with causing structural unemployment, but has a ton to do with how damaging a dip in the economy is to people.  Isn't that what basically happened in 2008/09?  People lost their jobs at the same time their mortgages went underwater and upped monthly payments.  If everyone had been renting everyone would have just crapped out on their leases instead and we'd have a nation of people with shitty credit instead of a nation of people with shitty credit and debt.

Edited by sonamdrukpa (05/03/12 01:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa] * 1
    #16180815 - 05/04/12 08:55 AM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Your mortgage debt can be disposed in bankruptcy.  Student loan and tax debt not so much.

I remember an artice in the front page of the NY Times from the beginning of the mortgage crisis.  They were bemoaning the fact that these people who had been living in their house for decades were underwater and couldn't pay the mortgage because they had had financial setbacks.  It wasn't the original mortgage, they had refinanced at a much higher valuation than they originally bought the house for.  They said they didn't know where the cash they got went.  I thought, "fuck these people".  They got greedy.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16181005 - 05/04/12 10:19 AM (12 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I thought, "fuck these people".  They got greedy.





What's greedy about that?  They got money by selling an interest they owned. 
Quote:


They were bemoaning the fact that these people who had been living in their house for decades were underwater and couldn't pay the mortgage




Yeah, that stuff really puzzles and irritates me.  The people who can't afford a house- fucke em.  Those who can but don't pay or latter cannot afford their loan, somehow they deserve the house?

This is ridiculous- its almost classist: suggesting those who live in homes they own, albeit mortgaged, have some right to be homeowners and not rent or get an apartment.  Meanwhile, the slobs who never got a mortgage and can't afford buy outright are just trash who are owed nothing.  Something's wrong with this picture. 

Moreover, its the people who didn't get a home they can't afford who are being harmed- by stopping foreclosures and rewriting contracts they drive market prices up and decrease availability for those who might like to buy a home.

The suggestion you here often that these people are going to be on the street is similarly bullshit.  None of the proposals, even the most radical, will allow someone without means to stay in their home.  It is only those who can pay a substantial amount, but not fulfill the contract, that are getting the benefit of government force.  These people could just as easily get an apartment or rent a home they could afford.  Once again- the people who don't own get crapped on for the benefit of those who are squatting in homes they can't afford.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214] * 1
    #16181126 - 05/04/12 11:01 AM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I thought, "fuck these people".  They got greedy.





What's greedy about that?  They got money by selling an interest they owned.




They're greedy because they are whining that they shouldn't have to pay and should get to keep their home
Quote:


Quote:


They were bemoaning the fact that these people who had been living in their house for decades were underwater and couldn't pay the mortgage




Yeah, that stuff really puzzles and irritates me.  The people who can't afford a house- fucke em.  Those who can but don't pay or latter cannot afford their loan, somehow they deserve the house?

This is ridiculous- its almost classist: suggesting those who live in homes they own, albeit mortgaged, have some right to be homeowners and not rent or get an apartment.  Meanwhile, the slobs who never got a mortgage and can't afford buy outright are just trash who are owed nothing.  Something's wrong with this picture.




They don't own the home.  The bank does
Quote:

 

Moreover, its the people who didn't get a home they can't afford who are being harmed- by stopping foreclosures and rewriting contracts they drive market prices up and decrease availability for those who might like to buy a home.




I agree.  Let the foreclosure carousel run full tilt.
Quote:



The suggestion you here often that these people are going to be on the street is similarly bullshit.  None of the proposals, even the most radical, will allow someone without means to stay in their home.  It is only those who can pay a substantial amount, but not fulfill the contract, that are getting the benefit of government force.  These people could just as easily get an apartment or rent a home they could afford.  Once again- the people who don't own get crapped on for the benefit of those who are squatting in homes they can't afford.




Indeed.  Fuck them.  They need to get the fuck out so responsible people can have a chance


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16182183 - 05/04/12 03:08 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
A democracy is a form of government where everyone in a society gets a say in determining governmental policy.  The US has too many people to be a pure democracy, so we are a democratic republic.  Whether or not a country is a democracy has almost nothing to do with the social or economic policies of that country, nor does it has any necessary connection to any idea of "justice."




well then people can stop arguing that this country has fucking "justice." People stop arguing that, and I'll stop complaining that it isn't democratic. And by the way, since you reply to Zappa, make him cross reference his fucking graphs. Coming up with one graph for his sig and calling it fucking reality showing that Bush had a rising economy and it CRASHED when Obama came in is horse shit, I found a few good graphs online that show the true curb of the housing market in 2008 and 2009, 2009 WASN'T MUCH WORST


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16182197 - 05/04/12 03:12 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
I think, economically, Zappa is right.  Houses are easier to get out of than leases.  But I think houses not only are a signal that you have decided to settle down and stick in one spot (also a signal that you've got kids, which creates a ton of same-city inertia), but that they also cause that mentality.  When I have a lease, I'm constantly thinking about what I'll do when it ends, whether I should stay or go, etc.  I imagine if I had a house I would not be thinking about packing up and heading for wherever the economy needs me.

Furthermore, houses require that your income remain relatively steady for a longer period of time, which means you have to pick a decently-paying job and stick with it.  Of course, if your house becomes too expensive you can just sell it and rent somewhere, but I think people have a strong psychological aversion to "trading down" like that - and also sometimes it can take months to sell a house.

On the other hand, if I rent, I can afford to pick a riskier but higher-payoff career trajectory because I know if I fuck up and lose a job or if in my eternal job search I hit a dry spot I won't be up shit creek.  In that case, maybe home-ownership has little to do with causing structural unemployment, but has a ton to do with how damaging a dip in the economy is to people.  Isn't that what basically happened in 2008/09?  People lost their jobs at the same time their mortgages went underwater and upped monthly payments.  If everyone had been renting everyone would have just crapped out on their leases instead and we'd have a nation of people with shitty credit instead of a nation of people with shitty credit and debt.




of course rent is less risky. If lenders were so damn honest, we wouldn't be in the mess. Too bad AIG doesn't agree. I mean it'd be the same risk as house mortgages maybe in 1985 :rolleyes:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16182206 - 05/04/12 03:14 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I thought, "fuck these people".  They got greedy.





What's greedy about that?  They got money by selling an interest they owned. 





hard to argue with


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16182245 - 05/04/12 03:26 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

As I said in my response, it is that they were whining that they shouldn't lose their house.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16182254 - 05/04/12 03:27 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
A democracy is a form of government where everyone in a society gets a say in determining governmental policy.  The US has too many people to be a pure democracy, so we are a democratic republic.  Whether or not a country is a democracy has almost nothing to do with the social or economic policies of that country, nor does it has any necessary connection to any idea of "justice."




well then people can stop arguing that this country has fucking "justice." People stop arguing that, and I'll stop complaining that it isn't democratic. And by the way, since you reply to Zappa, make him cross reference his fucking graphs. Coming up with one graph for his sig and calling it fucking reality showing that Bush had a rising economy and it CRASHED when Obama came in is horse shit, I found a few good graphs online that show the true curb of the housing market in 2008 and 2009, 2009 WASN'T MUCH WORST




That isn't what the graph shows.  It shows a huge increase in deficit spending.  Do you ever know what you're talking about?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16182281 - 05/04/12 03:34 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:


of course rent is less risky. If lenders were so damn honest, we wouldn't be in the mess. Too bad AIG doesn't agree. I mean it'd be the same risk as house mortgages maybe in 1985 :rolleyes:




The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline4896744
Small Town Girl
Female User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16182380 - 05/04/12 04:03 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:


of course rent is less risky. If lenders were so damn honest, we wouldn't be in the mess. Too bad AIG doesn't agree. I mean it'd be the same risk as house mortgages maybe in 1985 :rolleyes:




The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).




Humans are driven by emotion and constantly seek to hoard more resources for themselves. I think the people who are smart enough to be in charge of the loaning policies would have some idea that many of the people they were lending to were short-sighted greedy retards.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: 4896744]
    #16182388 - 05/04/12 04:05 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

iThink said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:


of course rent is less risky. If lenders were so damn honest, we wouldn't be in the mess. Too bad AIG doesn't agree. I mean it'd be the same risk as house mortgages maybe in 1985 :rolleyes:




The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).




Humans are driven by emotion and constantly seek to hoard more resources for themselves. I think the people who are smart enough to be in charge of the loaning policies would have some idea that many of the people they were lending to were short-sighted greedy retards.



So what?  Fuck em.  Take the house and let somebody else buy it at a bargain.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline4896744
Small Town Girl
Female User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16182396 - 05/04/12 04:08 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

iThink said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

imachavel said:


of course rent is less risky. If lenders were so damn honest, we wouldn't be in the mess. Too bad AIG doesn't agree. I mean it'd be the same risk as house mortgages maybe in 1985 :rolleyes:




The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).




Humans are driven by emotion and constantly seek to hoard more resources for themselves. I think the people who are smart enough to be in charge of the loaning policies would have some idea that many of the people they were lending to were short-sighted greedy retards.



So what?  Fuck em.  Take the house and let somebody else buy it at a bargain.




But didn't the fact that so many people took out loans that they couldn't pay contribute to the housing market crash, which then made it impossible for the banks to make back their money?


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: 4896744]
    #16182402 - 05/04/12 04:10 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

iThink said:


But didn't the fact that so many people took out loans that they couldn't pay contribute to the housing market crash, which then made it impossible for the banks to make back their money?


  Contribute?  It caused it.  Fuck them they should have nothing left.  Nothing.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 24 days, 10 hours
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16182406 - 05/04/12 04:11 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Who in the world is arguing that the US has "fucking justice"?

You can keep arguing that the U.S. isn't democratic.  That won't change the fact that it is.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline4896744
Small Town Girl
Female User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16182412 - 05/04/12 04:12 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

iThink said:


But didn't the fact that so many people took out loans that they couldn't pay contribute to the housing market crash, which then made it impossible for the banks to make back their money?


  Contribute?  It caused it.  Fuck them they should have nothing left.  Nothing.




I don't see the point in getting pissed off at them. They are just a bunch of scared animals trying to make themselves feel better. It seems to me like the only way to fix it is not lend to them in the first place.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: 4896744]
    #16182462 - 05/04/12 04:26 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

iThink said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

iThink said:


But didn't the fact that so many people took out loans that they couldn't pay contribute to the housing market crash, which then made it impossible for the banks to make back their money?


  Contribute?  It caused it.  Fuck them they should have nothing left.  Nothing.




I don't see the point in getting pissed off at them.




I do.  Deadbeats are scum
Quote:

They are just a bunch of scared animals trying to make themselves feel better.



Bullshit.  They are fully aware humans.
Quote:



It seems to me like the only way to fix it is not lend to them in the first place.



Yes.  Be sure to tell your Congressman to stop telling banks who they should lend money to (CRA) and allowing them to get off the hook by buying the bad paper (Fannie and Freddie).  Government meddling did this.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: 4896744]
    #16182468 - 05/04/12 04:30 PM (12 years, 16 days ago)

WHY DO THEY DESERVE A BAIL OUT? I DON'T GET IT! AIG got WHAT as a bail out? Some companies needed to be bailed out to prevent global catastrophe, an insurance company that helps lending companies? :facepalm: and yes of course deficit spending, WASTING tax payer money. ENCOURAGED by OBAMA, supported by THE TAX PAYER THAT WILL VOTE TWICE FOR HIM :lol:

O.k. back to the original topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/politics-playground-game-four-square-200113560--abc-news-politics.html

take a look, strange obversations


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekenny57028
Doctor Green Thumb
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 417
Loc: Dark side of the Moon.
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16197070 - 05/07/12 09:12 PM (12 years, 13 days ago)

Ya probably for obama


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16202586 - 05/08/12 10:58 PM (12 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).



If you think people were smart enough to know that they couldn't afford what the banks were loaning them, this crash obviously proved you wrong.

If you think banks were too dumb to know that the people they loaned the money to couldn't afford them, the fact that they resold the loans proved you wrong.

On the other hand, if you already knew that the general population is stupid, and banks are not, then this crash shows regulation is needed.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDrew7
Drew
Male

Registered: 05/08/12
Posts: 28
Loc: SoCal
Last seen: 11 years, 14 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16202799 - 05/08/12 11:34 PM (12 years, 12 days ago)

Yes, I'm voting. As the saying goes, "If you don't vote, you can't complain."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16203792 - 05/09/12 08:14 AM (12 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The lenders didn't do anything dishonest.  The terms of the loans are spelled out in the contract.  There is no such thing as predatory lending.  You can't make people take out loans (unless you're the government running huge fucking deficits to fund toxic waste site production).



If you think people were smart enough to know that they couldn't afford what the banks were loaning them, this crash obviously proved you wrong.




Just because you are stupid doesn't mean you don't have the right to take a risk
Quote:


If you think banks were too dumb to know that the people they loaned the money to couldn't afford them, the fact that they resold the loans proved you wrong.




The banks weren't stupid.  The government was.  The government chose to guarantee and/or purchase the loans.  The banks would have to be stupid not to take advantage, especially since they could be sued under the CRA if they didn't lend to bums.  The government coerced them and then indemnified them.  Who's stupid?  Government.
Quote:



On the other hand, if you already knew that the general population is stupid, and banks are not, then this crash shows regulation is needed.




Maybe I should crawl all up in your life and decide what risks you can take.  Do you think you would like that?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16208120 - 05/10/12 12:40 AM (12 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Just because you are stupid doesn't mean you don't have the right to take a risk

The banks weren't stupid.



I agree.  And you will never see me argue that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to do anything.  What I'm arguing for is laws that Govern what banks and business that aren't stupid can do.  What I'm arguing is that what Bernie Madoff did should be illegal, not that the stupid people he screwed over shouldn't have been allowed to buy his product.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The government chose to guarantee and/or purchase the loans.  The banks would have to be stupid not to take advantage, especially since they could be sued under the CRA if they didn't lend to bums.  The government coerced them and then indemnified them.  Who's stupid?  Government.



Only 6% of subprime loans were CRA.  CRA subprime loans actually defaulted less than other subprime loans.  If you think Goverment backing led to the crisis, here is a chart showing that Government guarantees went DOWN right before the bubble, not up, proving these weren't the driving factor:


Share of mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie, other government agencies and the private market.


Of course, now they're going back up in an effort to help the housing market recover.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/10/12 01:54 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16208972 - 05/10/12 08:18 AM (12 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Just because you are stupid doesn't mean you don't have the right to take a risk

The banks weren't stupid.



I agree.  And you will never see me argue that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to do anything.  What I'm arguing for is laws that Govern what banks and business that aren't stupid can do.  What I'm arguing is that what Bernie Madoff did should be illegal, not that the stupid people he screwed over shouldn't have been allowed to buy his product.




Bernie Madoff is in prison for fraud.  He lied.  A contract is a clearly enumerated document.  Idiots who enter into the single largest agreement of their lives without reading, understanding and getting legal counsel for that transaction deserve the full cock.  And let us not forget the direction of money flow.  Money went FROM investors TO Madoff in hopes that it would come back greater.  In a mortgage contract money flows FROM the lender TO the borrower in the hope that it will come back greater.  Bad borrowers are actually the Madoffs and banks are the victims.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The government chose to guarantee and/or purchase the loans.  The banks would have to be stupid not to take advantage, especially since they could be sued under the CRA if they didn't lend to bums.  The government coerced them and then indemnified them.  Who's stupid?  Government.



Only 6% of subprime loans were CRA.  CRA subprime loans actually defaulted less than other subprime loans.  If you think Goverment backing led to the crisis, here is a chart showing that Government guarantees went DOWN right before the bubble, not up, proving these weren't the driving factor:


Share of mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie, other government agencies and the private market.




:facepalm:Just before the bubble?  Do you even know what the course of the bubble was?  It started before your graph does in 2000.  You still cannot understand a market force, which was created by the CRA and indemnified by the vast increase of Fannie and Freddie UNDER CLINTON.  1990s.  These agencies should not exist at all.
Quote:




Of course, now they're going back up in an effort to help the housing market recover.


  According to that graph, which ends 2 years ago, they are going down.:facepalm:

Do you know who made a fortune from the bubble and burst?  Homeowners who cashed out at the right time.  You want to claw back Grandma's huge profits?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16209137 - 05/10/12 09:25 AM (12 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Idiots who enter into the single largest agreement of their lives without reading, understanding and getting legal counsel for that transaction deserve the full cock.  And let us not forget the direction of money flow.  Money went FROM investors TO Madoff in hopes that it would come back greater.  In a mortgage contract money flows FROM the lender TO the borrower in the hope that it will come back greater.  Bad borrowers are actually the Madoffs and banks are the victims.



Wrong.  Because banks knew the loans were no good, and sold them almost immediately.  They weren't victims.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you even know what the course of the bubble was?  It started before your graph does in 2000.




According to the graph of housing prices, the bubble didn't get out of control until 2003.  Housing prices rose almost linearly until then, and are now back in line with that linear trend.



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You still cannot understand a market force, which was created by the CRA and indemnified by the vast increase of Fannie and Freddie UNDER CLINTON.  1990s.  These agencies should not exist at all.



Your right, I don't understand how the CRA, which was responsible for only 6% of subprime loans, was responsible for the bubble.  Care to explain why the other 94% of subprime loans are not significant?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
According to that graph, which ends 2 years ago, they are going down.:facepalm:



So?  Housing prices are stabilizing; it should go down.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you know who made a fortune from the bubble and burst?  Homeowners who cashed out at the right time.  You want to claw back Grandma's huge profits?



Ya, isn't it great how America's seniors are all wealthy now because they knew the bubble was going to burst?  :facepalm:  And even if that ridiculous statement were true, how do I want to "claw back" their profits?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #16209321 - 05/10/12 10:32 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Your right, I don't understand how the CRA, which was responsible for only 6% of subprime loans, was responsible for the bubble.  Care to explain why the other 94% of subprime loans are not significant?



This has been covered in great detail numerous times in this forum. Here is just one of the threads which covers it exhaustively.

No one is saying that it was ghetto dwellers alone defaulting on loans mandated by the CRA which caused the crash. The point is that there never would have been a subprime market of any significance without the CRA. The CRA (more accurately, the revisions to the CRA in the Clinton years) in combination with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's policy of buying up any and all mortgages, changed the basic lending paradigm.

Prior to this change, subprime mortgages were a very tiny boutique market. Only the boldest of lenders risked dealing in subprimes, and even then they did so as a very small percentage of their total business. But once government intervened with legislation forcing lenders to lend to people they normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, everything changed. Banks who resisted were hauled into court. Requests for acquisitions and mergers were rejected for those lending institutions who couldn't prove they had made enough "CRA compliant" loans. Eventually this "stick" approach was augmented by the "carrot" - government-backed companies with bottomless pockets (Fannie and Freddie) started buying up this risky paper, no questions asked. So now the banks could comply with the CRA mandates at no risk to themselves, so they stopped resisting. Why wouldn't they?

The thing is, if you are going to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to a first time buyer with zero credit history and zero down payment, you can't logically refuse to offer the same terms to long-time customers with an impeccable credit history stretching back decades. Because if you don't, your competitor gladly will. So even if the initial group which started it all was small (ghetto borrowers), it doesn't matter. What matters is that they opened the door for everyone else. If the whole process had been restricted to just ghetto borrowers, there never would have been a crash. 

The government's intervention in the mortgage market basically eliminated the whole concept of prudent lending. Tossed it right out the window. Without the beefed up provisions of the CRA, banks would have continued following their centuries-old framework of evaluating the risk involved in lending people money to buy houses through the use of tried and tested formulae: fifteen per cent or more down payment, monthly payments no larger than X fraction of verifiable monthly after-tax income, etc.

Quote:

Because banks knew the loans were no good, and sold them almost immediately.  They weren't victims.



Perhaps the word "victims" isn't the best we can find, but there is no way to claim they were free actors. First of all, for the loans they were forced to make in order to fulfill their CRA quotas, they had no choice. Make the loans or see your business destroyed by lawsuit. As for the rest, banks cannot be blamed for following the laws in place. They have an obligation to their owners to pursue profit. When the rules of the game are changed, it is rational to adjust your business plan accordingly. And again, we must never forget that if the borrowers had simply lived up to their contractual obligations, none of this would be problematical.

The fact of the matter is the whole mess came about because Democrats decided that home ownership was a civil right, and brought all the guns of government meddling to bear on the people who had the money to make that happen.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16209434 - 05/10/12 11:05 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I agree.  And you will never see me argue that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to do anything.  What I'm arguing for is laws that Govern what banks and business that aren't stupid can do.  What I'm arguing is that what Bernie Madoff did should be illegal, not that the stupid people he screwed over shouldn't have been allowed to buy his product.







agreed. To me it's unconstitutional, but I'm not a fucking lawyer so I don't want to tear up the 16th amendment or all other ones to prove that it shouldn't be illegal. How does loopholing a loophole that loopholes a loopholes that loopholes a loophole that loopholes a loophole that loopholes a loophole that loopholes a loophole in terms of loopholing a loophole that loopholes a loophole make it legal? If I loopholed into your house under a loophole of a loophole that loopholes a loophole loopholing a loophole loopholing into your place suddenly am I allowed to be on your property?

The world is so full of pussies these days, politicians control everything now. It's so pathetic and understandable that people question things with loop holes that are black and white as life and death, especially considering how wrong it is to perform something like murder. So people argue your freedom with stupid arguments like "so you don't believe in freedom to make laws and freedom of business and freedom of etc. etc."

Now it's loopholed back into what we were arguing against in the first place. Bullshit. And when you bring up how it's unconstitutional you get arguments that are pretty much "so you think we shouldn't be able to loophole the shit out of something so it's legal when it shouldn't be legal in the first place so then people could do xyz blah blah abc blah blah xyz a thousand million times over without being able to freely amend and make new policies to un glue the crap sewn together in the first place?"

This is what politics are to me, it doesn't seem anyone as a politician knows anything but survival, and in a politicians chair, manipulation equals survival.

without re quoting everything that wolverine said and needlessly bumping the thread I agree with everything he said. But in many ways you guys are contradicting well clarified points needlessly and in general agreeing with each other. Was Bernie Mad doff wrong? Yes of course, he was very much so. The argument here doesn't seem to be in favor of whether he was wrong but that could what he did happen again.

To fairly look at both sides of this argument fairly, it seems the law makes it very lenient for people to do insanely criminal acts such as launder billions of dollars in ponzi schemes etc., at the same time the law makes it so we are able to persecute them.

To me it's not a question of HOW MUCH money but HOW WRONG it is to TAKE THAT money which doesn't belong to you that is borrowed and then to lose and require a bail out. The fact that it's a big companies money and people say they give thousands of jobs seems to make people feel better. If it was thousands of small businesses and billions were given as bail outs equally would it be fair? I myself have said people with more money squander unfairly but let's put that aside.

Bernie Ma doff was the only one persecuted. So really it's not like our system of government caught up to the matter in time, if billions were lost, and others weren't persecuted. As said I don't want to re quote everything said in this thread, I just want to CLARIFY that I agree with wolverine. Although some points seem contradictive by argueing on the same side, over whether Mad off was wrong or not, I will say it seems obvious he is wrong, and also obvious that he was persecuted. But is the state of the country beyond that right? Forget violating the constitution, why was Mad off the only one persecuted?

Don't answer that, I'll re read zap pa and wolverines replies more in depth


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/10/12 11:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Phred]
    #16209631 - 05/10/12 11:49 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Phred said:

Perhaps the word "victims" isn't the best we can find, but there is no way to claim they were free actors. First of all, for the loans they were forced to make in order to fulfill their CRA quotas, they had no choice. Make the loans or see your business destroyed by lawsuit. As for the rest, banks cannot be blamed for following the laws in place. They have an obligation to their owners to pursue profit. When the rules of the game are changed, it is rational to adjust your business plan accordingly. And again, we must never forget that if the borrowers had simply lived up to their contractual obligations, none of this would be problematical.

The fact of the matter is the whole mess came about because Democrats decided that home ownership was a civil right, and brought all the guns of government meddling to bear on the people who had the money to make that happen.



Phred




It's not as though I disagree with this, I often get the feeling people read my replies and feel a strong disagreement towards this statement in my words


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/10/12 11:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Phred]
    #16210052 - 05/10/12 01:43 PM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
But once government intervened with legislation forcing lenders to lend to people they normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, everything changed.





Hmm, what do you mean by that? 


I knew a guy who was head of commercial lending for a smallish regional bank during the 70's/80's and he said they'd basically give anyone a loan and credit had not much to do with it except in borderline cases.  Basically everything was collateral, and the most well qualified applicant would get crap if they had none while the bankrupt guy who never had a checking account in his life could get a few million if he got a great deal in properties that were worth enough to guaentee the bank wouldn't loose money after any court battle (though those were rare).


He said the residential side of things was similar just with more bullshit and lawsuits/threats from podunk attorneys claiming racism and whatnot (which was dumb since the people who approved the loan never met the applicant and the forms didn't indicate race or have pictures et cet).  Then again, you had to have a decent amount of money to put down on the mortgage, and even if the market turned sour the bank wouldn't take a bath if they had to repossess.  The one problem was people who simply destroyed the property, but there wasn't much you could do about that.  (Well, in one case the city demolished one of their properties, but they got compensated pretty quickly.  Apparently it doesn't look good when the papers hear the city demolished a house illegally).


He did have a number of amusing stories about lawsuits/threats from people claiming racial bias.  He regularly had people who paid some ridiculous sum of money to some guy in a hotel conference center to teach them to be "real estate tycoons" come in and refuse to believe they just weren't qualified for a loan when their only assets were furniture and clothing.  (he had a number of stories about section eight et cet fraudsters as well- apparently that could be a very lucrative racket as the government guarenteed the rent).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16210567 - 05/10/12 03:34 PM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

I knew a guy who was head of commercial lending for a smallish regional bank during the 70's/80's and he said they'd basically give anyone a loan and credit had not much to do with it except in borderline cases.  Basically everything was collateral, and the most well qualified applicant would get crap if they had none while the bankrupt guy who never had a checking account in his life could get a few million if he got a great deal in properties that were worth enough to guaentee the bank wouldn't loose money after any court battle (though those were rare).



The problem with the CRA mandated loans is that the borrowers had no collateral other than the property they were mortgaging. Banks don't want to be in the house-selling business, they want to be in the money lending business. If you lend someone a hundred grand to buy a house with no money down, and he defaults when there is still ninety-nine grand left owing on the mortgage, then theoretically you are left with a hundred grand piece of collateral which you can sell and turn a one grand profit. But we don't live in a theoretical world. The reality is that by the time the bank engages a realtor, fixes any damages, pays any back taxes, advertises, and finds a buyer willing to pay the hundred grand price and pays its share of closing costs, it may have racked up another five or six thousand in expenses, not to mention the opportunity cost of money tied up in a house sitting unsold for months rather than earning interest.

That is precisely why the standard mortgage paradigm - particularly for first-time buyers - involved a hefty down payment: typically twenty per cent or more.

Quote:

He said the residential side of things was similar just with more bullshit and lawsuits/threats from podunk attorneys claiming racism and whatnot (which was dumb since the people who approved the loan never met the applicant and the forms didn't indicate race or have pictures et cet). 



In the 70's/80's when your friend was working in that field these threats might have been bullshit. But by the end of the Clinton years they weren't bullshit at all. Barack Obama, during his brief career as an actual working lawyer, was even a member of one team of lawyers who pressed a lawsuit against a bank for not meeting CRA standards. True story, brah. The link is in a post in that thread I linked above.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16210581 - 05/10/12 03:37 PM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Idiots who enter into the single largest agreement of their lives without reading, understanding and getting legal counsel for that transaction deserve the full cock.  And let us not forget the direction of money flow.  Money went FROM investors TO Madoff in hopes that it would come back greater.  In a mortgage contract money flows FROM the lender TO the borrower in the hope that it will come back greater.  Bad borrowers are actually the Madoffs and banks are the victims.



Wrong.  Because banks knew the loans were no good, and sold them almost immediately.  They weren't victims.




How did they know any better than Fannie and Freddie that the loans were no good?  Do you know who should have known the best that the loans were no good?  The borrowers.  They knew their financial situation better than anybody else possibly could.  If they weren't victims how come they lost billions?
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you even know what the course of the bubble was?  It started before your graph does in 2000.




According to the graph of housing prices, the bubble didn't get out of control until 2003.  Housing prices rose almost linearly until then, and are now back in line with that linear trend.




ORLY?  They were almost flat from '89 to '97, at which point a slow rise occurred which then accelerated.  The CRA is responsible for near 100% of subprime loans.  If lenders didn't fear lawsuits and didn't have a fannie freddie sucker they never would have lent money to almost all of the bums.
Quote:





Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You still cannot understand a market force, which was created by the CRA and indemnified by the vast increase of Fannie and Freddie UNDER CLINTON.  1990s.  These agencies should not exist at all.



Your right, I don't understand how the CRA, which was responsible for only 6% of subprime loans, was responsible for the bubble.  Care to explain why the other 94% of subprime loans are not significant?




Of course they are significant.  None of them would have been made without the government interference.  Left alone the lending market wouldn't have touched those fucks with a ten foot pole
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
According to that graph, which ends 2 years ago, they are going down.:facepalm:



So?  Housing prices are stabilizing; it should go down.




That wasn't what you said, is it?  You said they were going back up.  Pick one nostril and stay in there.
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you know who made a fortune from the bubble and burst?  Homeowners who cashed out at the right time.  You want to claw back Grandma's huge profits?



Ya, isn't it great how America's seniors are all wealthy now because they knew the bubble was going to burst?  :facepalm:  And even if that ridiculous statement were true, how do I want to "claw back" their profits?




Did I say "all," Strawboy?  People who got out of the housing market at the top of the bubble are the ones who banked huge.  People who got in earlier and are still in are unaffected.  People who got in late are fucked if they can't pay their agreed upon obligations.  If they hold and wait they will be fine.  This isn't the first housing upheaval in my life.  Shit happens.  The government needs to get the fuck out of the market entirely.  Entirely.  There are no wrongs to be redressed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16213157 - 05/11/12 12:48 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Your right, I don't understand how the CRA, which was responsible for only 6% of subprime loans, was responsible for the bubble.  Care to explain why the other 94% of subprime loans are not significant?



This has been covered in great detail numerous times in this forum. Here is just one of the threads which covers it exhaustively.



First of all, there were many compelling arguments in that thread showing CRA was not responsible.  But rather than recreate and repeat the arguments from an old thread, let's ignore those and ONLY look at the arguments supporting CRA as responsible.  The supporting argument was that CRA FORCED banks to make bad loans.  Fine, let's even assume that this is TRUE.  My question was if CRA was responsible for 6% of the subprime loans, can you explain why the other 94% of subprime loans aren't significant?  That was NOT addressed in the thread you pointed me to.

Quote:

Phred said:
No one is saying that it was ghetto dwellers alone defaulting on loans mandated by the CRA which caused the crash. The point is that there never would have been a subprime market of any significance without the CRA. The CRA (more accurately, the revisions to the CRA in the Clinton years) in combination with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's policy of buying up any and all mortgages, changed the basic lending paradigm.



You think 6% is "of any significance"???  :wtf:

Quote:

Phred said:
Prior to this change, subprime mortgages were a very tiny boutique market. Only the boldest of lenders risked dealing in subprimes, and even then they did so as a very small percentage of their total business. But once government intervened with legislation forcing lenders to lend to people they normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, everything changed.



CRA was around since 1977, FYI.

Quote:

Phred said:
Banks who resisted were hauled into court. Requests for acquisitions and mergers were rejected for those lending institutions who couldn't prove they had made enough "CRA compliant" loans.



Fine.  6% of subprime loans were "forced".

Quote:

Phred said:
Eventually this "stick" approach was augmented by the "carrot" - government-backed companies with bottomless pockets (Fannie and Freddie) started buying up this risky paper, no questions asked. So now the banks could comply with the CRA mandates at no risk to themselves, so they stopped resisting. Why wouldn't they?



Ah, so CRA WASN'T actually responsible.  It was banks being able to easily get rid of their loans.

Quote:

Phred said:
The thing is, if you are going to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to a first time buyer with zero credit history and zero down payment, you can't logically refuse to offer the same terms to long-time customers with an impeccable credit history stretching back decades. Because if you don't, your competitor gladly will. So even if the initial group which started it all was small (ghetto borrowers), it doesn't matter. What matters is that they opened the door for everyone else. If the whole process had been restricted to just ghetto borrowers, there never would have been a crash.



You just agreed the banks are responsible for extending these terms beyond "ghetto borrowers".

Quote:

Phred said:
The government's intervention in the mortgage market basically eliminated the whole concept of prudent lending. Tossed it right out the window. Without the beefed up provisions of the CRA, banks would have continued following their centuries-old framework of evaluating the risk involved in lending people money to buy houses through the use of tried and tested formulae: fifteen per cent or more down payment, monthly payments no larger than X fraction of verifiable monthly after-tax income, etc.



That's only true for the 6% of subprime loans CRA "forced".  What about the other 94%?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16213224 - 05/11/12 01:10 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How did they know any better than Fannie and Freddie that the loans were no good?



Because the banks do the vetting.  When the loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the history isn't as transparent.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you know who should have known the best that the loans were no good?  The borrowers.  They knew their financial situation better than anybody else possibly could.  If they weren't victims how come they lost billions?



Sure, if they understood math and business like the banks.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
ORLY?  They were almost flat from '89 to '97, at which point a slow rise occurred which then accelerated.



Whether we agree on the start date or not, it doesn't matter.  The graph clearly showed the bubble went out of control when when the share of mortgages backed by the Govt went DOWN.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The CRA is responsible for near 100% of subprime loans.  If lenders didn't fear lawsuits and didn't have a fannie freddie sucker they never would have lent money to almost all of the bums.



CRA accounts for 6% of sub-prime loans.  Explain the other 94%.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
According to that graph, which ends 2 years ago, they are going down.:facepalm:



So?  Housing prices are stabilizing; it should go down.




That wasn't what you said, is it?  You said they were going back up.  Pick one nostril and stay in there.



Red herring; I'm not biting.  What they're doing today is irrelevant to the argument.  What's relevant is what they were doing during the bubble.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Did I say "all," Strawboy?  People who got out of the housing market at the top of the bubble are the ones who banked huge.



Ok what percentage made enough money to compel you to mention it?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
People who got in earlier and are still in are unaffected.  People who got in late are fucked if they can't pay their agreed upon obligations.  If they hold and wait they will be fine.



Another red herring.  Irrelevant.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/11/12 01:38 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16214239 - 05/11/12 09:09 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How did they know any better than Fannie and Freddie that the loans were no good?



Because the banks do the vetting.  When the loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the history isn't as transparent.

If they cannot do their job vetting loans they buy they shouldn't be in the business of buying loans, should they?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you know who should have known the best that the loans were no good?  The borrowers.  They knew their financial situation better than anybody else possibly could.  If they weren't victims how come they lost billions?



Sure, if they understood math and business like the banks.

:facepalm:Addition and subtraction aren't exactly higher math functions and I don't think anybody who can't do those things is going to be in any position to earn enough money to buy a house

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
ORLY?  They were almost flat from '89 to '97, at which point a slow rise occurred which then accelerated.



Whether we agree on the start date or not, it doesn't matter.  The graph clearly showed the bubble went out of control when when the share of mortgages backed by the Govt went DOWN.

Of course the start date matters.  It coincided with the increase in government mortgage involvement as a result of Clinton's policies.  By the way, don't think I didn't notice that the graph you cite to support the timing of the bubble is only of new homes.  Think Florida, Las Vegas, Arizona and California.  What of existing homes, which are by far the larger share of the market.  By far.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The CRA is responsible for near 100% of subprime loans.  If lenders didn't fear lawsuits and didn't have a fannie freddie sucker they never would have lent money to almost all of the bums.



CRA accounts for 6% of sub-prime loans.  Explain the other 94%.

How can a bank justify giving a loan under CRA rules and denying the same rules to anybody else?  CRA set the rules even if not every loan was directly in the program.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
According to that graph, which ends 2 years ago, they are going down.:facepalm:



So?  Housing prices are stabilizing; it should go down.




:facepalm:We weren't talking about housing prices, we were talking about government share of the mortgage market.

That wasn't what you said, is it?  You said they were going back up.  Pick one nostril and stay in there.



Red herring; I'm not biting.  What they're doing today is irrelevant to the argument.  What's relevant is what they were doing during the bubble.

Actually the most relevant thing is what they were doing before the bubble

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Did I say "all," Strawboy?  People who got out of the housing market at the top of the bubble are the ones who banked huge.



Ok what percentage made enough money to compel you to mention it?

I dunno, what percentage of the housing market downsized their homes during the bubble?  My guess would be quite a lot.   

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
People who got in earlier and are still in are unaffected.  People who got in late are fucked if they can't pay their agreed upon obligations.  If they hold and wait they will be fine.



Another red herring.  Irrelevant.




Not at all.  The entire point is that the fucking government needs to stop manipulating markets it doesn't understand in some benighted push to social justice, an oxymoron if there ever was one.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16214271 - 05/11/12 09:20 AM (12 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

First of all, there were many compelling arguments in that thread showing CRA was not responsible.



Arguments? Yep. Compelling? Nope. Not a one.

Quote:

My question was if CRA was responsible for 6% of the subprime loans, can you explain why the other 94% of subprime loans aren't significant?  That was NOT addressed in the thread you pointed me to.



It is very tedious to engage with someone whose prejudices are so strong they refuse to read. This has been explained in great detail, in the thread I linked and in my posts in this thread.

Once again:

The financial crash was largely due to loans going bad. Subprime mortgages, essentially. Not all loans, subprime mortgages. Are you with me so far?

In the absence of government meddling in the financial markets - specifically the CRA forcing lenders to abandon their prudent lending standards combined with Fannie and Freddie buying up virtually any imprudent mortgage, no matter how absurd the terms - the subprime mortgage market would have remained a very small segment of the total mortgage market. In the late seventies and early eighties, these mortgages were more a curiosity than anything else. Do you not grasp the significance of that fact? If they had remained a curiosity, there would have been no problem. But due entirely to government meddling, they didn't remain a curiosity. Essentially, the only reason there ever was such a thing as a subprime mortgage market is due to government interference. In an alternate universe lacking the CRA and FM & FM, even if every single subprime mortgage in existence had gone south simultaneously in 2008, the impact would have been far, far less, because there would have been so few of them.

It's not that the other 94% of the subprime mortgages weren't significant - of course they were significant! But they were significant only because subprime mortgages grew to become such a sizeable portion of the mortgage market. That wouldn't have occurred unless it made sense to issue them, and the only way issuing them makes any sense at all as a business strategy is if the substantial inherent risk they carry is mitigated. Fanny and Freddie provided that mitigation.  Before F and F got involved, the only way the typical lender would issue a subprime mortgage was if he was forced to by threat of legal action.

Quote:

You think 6% is "of any significance"???



Again, you fail to differentiate between what was and what should have been. The percentage of "ghetto-dweller" subprimes that existed by 2008 is almost beside the point. If there are almost no subprime mortgages then it doesn't matter whether 6% of them or 66% of them were held by ghetto dwellers. Instead, what matters is how many out of all outstanding mortgages were subprime. If just 4% of all the mortgages in existence are subprime, no big whoop. But if 44% of all outstanding mortgages are subprime, big problem.

The point is that there never should have been anywhere near that many subprime mortgages in the first place. And there wouldn't have been, absent government meddling.



Quote:

CRA was around since 1977, FYI.



Read what I write, please. I and others have stated repeatedly that the original CRA of 1977 was relatively toothless and more easily evaded by lenders. That is precisely why it was beefed up in the Clinton years. If it had stayed in its original form, lenders would have continued to just pay fines when they got caught ignoring its requirements rather than follow those requirements scrupulously and eat the losses when a CRA mortgage went south. And even the beefed up Clinton-years CRA alone wasn't enough: many banks still preferred to take their chances in court rather than lend to people they knew hadn't a hope in hell of completing a mortgage. But once Fanny and Freddie stepped in, banks stopped resisting. They didn't have to carry risky loans any more, they could dump them on government-backed entities.

Quote:

Ah, so CRA WASN'T actually responsible.  It was banks being able to easily get rid of their loans.



Do you think anyone sees your "argument" as clever? The banks would never have made the risky loans at all, absent the CRA. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? This is not rocket science, here.

Quote:

You just agreed the banks are responsible for extending these terms beyond "ghetto borrowers".



Only because the government had changed the entire lending paradigm, duh!

You are expending an enormous amount of effort here trying to avoid the obvious - if you are going to extend a loan with ridiculous terms to an obvious flake, you cannot refuse to do the same for a triple A creditworthy client. Because if you don't, he just might do the same thing the ghetto dwellers did - take you to court for discrimination. Or simply take his business elsewhere.

You seem to think that businesses should operate under some idealized unvarying strategy regardless of what government does. That is one of the surest ways known to man to bankrupt a business. You can't run your business as if you are operating in some fantasy world, you have to run it in the world as it exists. And in the world as it exists, government can change the rules at any time. If you don't adapt to each and every rule change, you die.

Quote:

That's only true for the 6% of subprime loans CRA "forced".  What about the other 94%?



Try to keep up. The rules of the game were changed! Not by "greedy bankers" but by meddling politicians. If Fanny and Freddie had bought up only CRA-forced mortgages, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they didn't. They bought up pretty much everything that was offered to them.

And - as zappaisgod keeps reminding people but no one ever seems to listen, if that other 94% of subprime mortgage borrowers had just continued paying their mortgages as they were contractually obligated to do, we wouldn't be where we are today. Do you not grasp the significance of that very simple statement? Even if fully half the ghetto dwellers defaulted, the system could have withstood the shock. What really set things off is when borrowers who could have continued honouring their commitments decided not to.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Phred]
    #16217586 - 05/11/12 11:28 PM (12 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
If they cannot do their job vetting loans they buy they shouldn't be in the business of buying loans, should they?




Businesses such as Fannie and Countrywide can do whatever the fuck they want. :shrug:

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
:facepalm:Addition and subtraction aren't exactly higher math functions and I don't think anybody who can't do those things is going to be in any position to earn enough money to buy a house



The recession proved you WRONG, didn't it?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Of course the start date matters.  It coincided with the increase in government mortgage involvement as a result of Clinton's policies.  By the way, don't think I didn't notice that the graph you cite to support the timing of the bubble is only of new homes.  Think Florida, Las Vegas, Arizona and California.  What of existing homes, which are by far the larger share of the market.  By far.



Fine, here is a all home ownership:



Same story.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How can a bank justify giving a loan under CRA rules and denying the same rules to anybody else?



If colleges lower admissions standards for certain minorities, does that mean they lower them for everyone?  No
If banks are forced to give loans under CRA rules are they forced to give them to everyone else?  No

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Actually the most relevant thing is what they were doing before the bubble



I showed an inverse relationship between housing prices and the number of Government backed mortgages.  If you can show a relationship, feel free.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
People who got in earlier and are still in are unaffected.  People who got in late are fucked if they can't pay their agreed upon obligations.  If they hold and wait they will be fine.



Another red herring.  Irrelevant.



Not at all.  The entire point is that the fucking government needs to stop manipulating markets it doesn't understand in some benighted push to social justice, an oxymoron if there ever was one.



Whether or not the Government should be involved in markets has nothing to do with who got in early or late.



Quote:

Phred said:
Once again:

The financial crash was largely due to loans going bad. Subprime mortgages, essentially. Not all loans, subprime mortgages. Are you with me so far?



So far, yes.

Quote:

Phred said:
In the absence of government meddling in the financial markets - specifically the CRA forcing lenders to abandon their prudent lending standards combined with Fannie and Freddie buying up virtually any imprudent mortgage, no matter how absurd the terms - the subprime mortgage market would have remained a very small segment of the total mortgage market. In the late seventies and early eighties, these mortgages were more a curiosity than anything else. Do you not grasp the significance of that fact? If they had remained a curiosity, there would have been no problem. But due entirely to government meddling, they didn't remain a curiosity. Essentially, the only reason there ever was such a thing as a subprime mortgage market is due to government interference.



Government "interference" led to 6% of the subprime market.  Big fucking deal.

Quote:

Phred said:
It's not that the other 94% of the subprime mortgages weren't significant - of course they were significant! But they were significant only because subprime mortgages grew to become such a sizeable portion of the mortgage market. That wouldn't have occurred unless it made sense to issue them, and the only way issuing them makes any sense at all as a business strategy is if the substantial inherent risk they carry is mitigated. Fanny and Freddie provided that mitigation.  Before F and F got involved, the only way the typical lender would issue a subprime mortgage was if he was forced to by threat of legal action.



Once again, this shows that CRA had nothing to do with the crisis; it was the ease at which banks could unload their bad mortgages.

Quote:

Phred said:
The percentage of "ghetto-dweller" subprimes that existed by 2008 is almost beside the point. If there are almost no subprime mortgages then it doesn't matter whether 6% of them or 66% of them were held by ghetto dwellers. Instead, what matters is how many out of all outstanding mortgages were subprime. If just 4% of all the mortgages in existence are subprime, no big whoop. But if 44% of all outstanding mortgages are subprime, big problem.



Agreed.  But only 6% of subprime were CRA loans.  That's insignificant.  The other 94% was extremely significant and you haven't showed the Government required those.

Quote:

Phred said:
The point is that there never should have been anywhere near that many subprime mortgages in the first place. And there wouldn't have been, absent government meddling.



The government didn't force the other 94%.  Only 6%.

Quote:

Phred said:
once Fanny and Freddie stepped in, banks stopped resisting. They didn't have to carry risky loans any more, they could dump them on government-backed entities.




They could also dump them on non-Government backed entities.

Quote:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006




Quote:

Phred said:
The banks would never have made the risky loans at all, absent the CRA. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? This is not rocket science, here.



I agree they were forced to make CRA laons.  They were NOT forced to make the other 94% of subprime loans.

Quote:

Phred said:
You are expending an enormous amount of effort here trying to avoid the obvious - if you are going to extend a loan with ridiculous terms to an obvious flake, you cannot refuse to do the same for a triple A creditworthy client.



Of course you can.  The government is only asking banks to extend "ridiculous terms" to a small number of people.

Quote:

Phred said:
Because if you don't, he just might do the same thing the ghetto dwellers did - take you to court for discrimination. Or simply take his business elsewhere.



Banks are not required to extend the same loans with "ridiculous terms" to everyone.  There's no case.

Quote:

Phred said:
The rules of the game were changed! Not by "greedy bankers" but by meddling politicians. If Fanny and Freddie had bought up only CRA-forced mortgages, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they didn't. They bought up pretty much everything that was offered to them.



So once again, it's not CRA that caused the problem, it's the banks ability to unload bad mortgages.

Quote:

Phred said:
And - as zappaisgod keeps reminding people but no one ever seems to listen, if that other 94% of subprime mortgage borrowers had just continued paying their mortgages as they were contractually obligated to do, we wouldn't be where we are today. Do you not grasp the significance of that very simple statement?



Agreed.  And banks were NOT required to make subprime loans to the other 94%.  Do YOU not understand that?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16218149 - 05/12/12 02:42 AM (12 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Fine, here is all home ownership:



Same story.






wow, for a minute I thought I was just imagining that. I guess my bad point of argument is to keep comparing the price of a snickers bar with everything else


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16218990 - 05/12/12 09:31 AM (12 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
If they cannot do their job vetting loans they buy they shouldn't be in the business of buying loans, should they?




Businesses such as Fannie and Countrywide can do whatever the fuck they want. :shrug:




No, they cannot do whatever the fuck they want and Fannie and Freddie are government agencies.  They have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayer to competently vet the loans they buy. 
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
:facepalm:Addition and subtraction aren't exactly higher math functions and I don't think anybody who can't do those things is going to be in any position to earn enough money to buy a house



The recession proved you WRONG, didn't it?




That the recession was caused by greedy fucks who borrowed money they knew they couldn't repay and government retards enabled them? 
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Of course the start date matters.  It coincided with the increase in government mortgage involvement as a result of Clinton's policies.  By the way, don't think I didn't notice that the graph you cite to support the timing of the bubble is only of new homes.  Think Florida, Las Vegas, Arizona and California.  What of existing homes, which are by far the larger share of the market.  By far.



Fine, here is a all home ownership:



Same story.




From 2005 to 2009 government loans went from around 30% of the market to over 90%.  How did that happen?  They bought up all the paper the private banks wrote, which the banks knew they were going to do.  Do you thikn the private banks would have written all that bad paper if they didn't know theer was a sucker waiting to buy it?  Especially Countrywide

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp120.pdf

Quote:

Close to 90 percent of Countrywide’s loan originations
were bought or guaranteed by some arm of the
federal government.33 Far from being a product
of the free market, Countrywide could
have only existed and prospered in an atmosphere
of government guarantees.




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How can a bank justify giving a loan under CRA rules and denying the same rules to anybody else?



If colleges lower admissions standards for certain minorities, does that mean they lower them for everyone?  No
If banks are forced to give loans under CRA rules are they forced to give them to everyone else?  No




There is no justification for colleges lowering standards either.  I'm still waiting for you make the justification for having different lending rules for some and not others.
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Actually the most relevant thing is what they were doing before the bubble



I showed an inverse relationship between housing prices and the number of Government backed mortgages. 




No you didn't. 
Quote:



If you can show a relationship, feel free.



Quote:


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not
simply follow the market, but also fueled its
expansion. During the recent housing bubble,
the largest jump in the subprime market
occurred from 2003 to 2004, when the level
of private-label securitizations increased by
over 50 percent, from $522 billion to $806
billion. Behind this explosion was more
than a 100 percent increase in private-label
mortgage-backed security purchases by the
GSEs. Almost 40 percent of these newly
issued private-label subprime securities were
purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
making the GSEs the largest single source of
liquidity for this market.


 
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp120.pdf

Read the whole thing.  Theer are charts and graphs galore.



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
People who got in earlier and are still in are unaffected.  People who got in late are fucked if they can't pay their agreed upon obligations.  If they hold and wait they will be fine.



Another red herring.  Irrelevant.



Not at all.  The entire point is that the fucking government needs to stop manipulating markets it doesn't understand in some benighted push to social justice, an oxymoron if there ever was one.



Whether or not the Government should be involved in markets has nothing to do with who got in early or late.




That is correct, it has nothing to do with that.  What it has to do with is who made money on the bubble.  It wasn't the banks.
Quote:



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16220677 - 05/12/12 05:12 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

If you go back through my previous posts, you'll see that my argument was (and still is) that CRA had nothing to do with the crisis.  I agreed with you that banks made so many subprime loans because they were easy to offload.

So please help me understand how CRA, which only contributed to 6% of the subprime market, was to blame.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16220697 - 05/12/12 05:16 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

It set the bar.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16220730 - 05/12/12 05:23 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

If banks are "forced" to make loans to certain people, how does that force them to make similar same loans to anyone else?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16220782 - 05/12/12 05:30 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
If banks are "forced" to make loans to certain people, how does that force them to make similar same loans to anyone else?




Keep moving them goalposts.  Are you ever going to even attempt to make an argument that justifies giving loans to some under different criteria than others? 

No banks were forced.  They were coerced.  Just like nobody is forced to buy health insurance under Obamcare.  You can just pay a penalty.  Do you understand the concept of market forces at all?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16220835 - 05/12/12 05:42 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Are you ever going to even attempt to make an argument that justifies giving loans to some under different criteria than others?



CRA was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods.  That's why.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/12/12 05:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16220907 - 05/12/12 06:01 PM (12 years, 8 days ago)

Because not giving loans to those who likely will be unable to repay them... is discriminatory?

It was our elected officials buying votes from those low income people that brought about the CRA.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16223659 - 05/13/12 10:24 AM (12 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Are you ever going to even attempt to make an argument that justifies giving loans to some under different criteria than others?



CRA was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods.  That's why.




Low income neighborhoods should be discriminated against in lending practices.  Because they are, wait for it, low income.  You have to be a blithering idiot to treat all credit risks as the same.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16225841 - 05/13/12 06:34 PM (12 years, 7 days ago)

What's a bigger risk?  Lending $100,000 to a low income family, or lending $1,000,000 to a middle income family?  If you exclude the lower class from home loans just because they're lower class, that's discriminatory.  And based on your statement above, you clearly feel that banks shouldn't be lending to low income families.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16226473 - 05/13/12 09:01 PM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Are you ever going to even attempt to make an argument that justifies giving loans to some under different criteria than others?



CRA was passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods.  That's why.




Low income neighborhoods should be discriminated against in lending practices.  Because they are, wait for it, low income.  You have to be a blithering idiot to treat all credit risks as the same.




who has worst credit, a person who had a shit ton of money at one point and owes a lot of money now? Or a person who never made too much money who owes practically no money? I find your republican ramblings a bit much at times. That mentality is what got George Bush catering to the richest 1% of the country. Thanks to him and Clinton, AIG took off like a fire storm, which is for all practical purposes, basically what AIG was, a HUGE fire storm, on the countries credit and finances. Fuck em already this is old news and pretty much garbage, the fact that they are still around and in business in sad and insulting.

I would have hoped they'd be a relic of a thought by now, and the last company we'd be speaking of in the hail storm of debt and money flying around by now. They aren't by far the only burden on this Babylonian country, but since they to me made the gravest mistake and there are dozens of other garbage money sucking institutes in existence to worry about in this fucked up debt deficit horse crap for me to want to remember them, I find it insulting that they still exist, in any way shape or form. I don't suppose now you are going to tell me what a great business they are, providing and giving to money hungry sucking bums, and those bums shouldn't insult AIG and should understand their importance in our society are you?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16226631 - 05/13/12 09:39 PM (12 years, 7 days ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16227387 - 05/14/12 01:19 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
What's a bigger risk?  Lending $100,000 to a low income family, or lending $1,000,000 to a middle income family?  If you exclude the lower class from home loans just because they're lower class, that's discriminatory.




No shit its discriminatory, your very question asks for such, and banks are in the very business of discriminating between good and bad risks.  Just how do you propose a bank operate- grant loans to whoever applies?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16227463 - 05/14/12 01:47 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
What's a bigger risk?  Lending $100,000 to a low income family, or lending $1,000,000 to a middle income family?  If you exclude the lower class from home loans just because they're lower class, that's discriminatory.




No shit its discriminatory, your very question asks for such, and banks are in the very business of discriminating between good and bad risks.  Just how do you propose a bank operate- grant loans to whoever applies?



No, I don't think banks should just grant loans to whoever applies.

But just because someone is low income doesn't mean they can't repay a loan or that they're a higher risk on a loan that's in line with their income.

Loans should be given based on ones ability to repay it.  CRA mandated that loans under CRA be made consistent with safe and sound operation:

Community Reinvestment Act
Quote:

Sec. 804.

In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shallβ€”

(1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution.




--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16227989 - 05/14/12 07:26 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

> But just because someone is low income doesn't mean they can't repay a loan or that they're a higher risk on a loan that's in line with their income.


If a person has a good credit rating, and they have the means to repay the loan, then the bank will most likely give them a loan that is in line with their income.  Does this mean that a low income family is going to get a $100,000 loan?  Probably not.  Does this mean that a low income family is going to get a $10,000 loan?  Given that the above assumptions about good credit and ability to repay are true, then yes.  In the same light, if a middle income family with bad credit, that is unable to repay a loan applies for a $100,000 loan, or even a $10,000 loan, then they are probably not going to get it.  Banks don't care about income.  They care about risk.  Unfortunately, the nature of the beast means that most low income families carry a higher risk than people with more wealth.  Most, not all.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Seuss]
    #16228131 - 05/14/12 08:40 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

What was the downpayment requirement for CRA loans?

http://www.firsthomeadvisor.com/index.php/first-time-home-buyer-loan-mortgage/cra-home-loans/

Quote:

Benefits of a CRA Home Loan
CRA home loan programs are not the same from one bank to the other and so the benefits of the various programs vary considerably as well.  In general, however, they are usually great home loan options for for first-time homebuyers to be know about and to research when considering their home loan options.

Here are just some of the typical benefits you will find with a CRA home loan:

    Lower down payment requirements
    Lower or no mortgage insurance premiums

    Don't need to be a first-time homebuyer
    No income limits if you buy in a low to moderate income area
    Seller can pay your closing costs
    Lower minimum credit score
    Flexible underwriting
    Compatible with down payment assistance programs
    Compatible with a gift from a family member or friend
    Available in all 50 states





I have bolded what I would consider normal disqualifications for safe and sound lending practices.  If someone is borrowing a million dollars on a 2 million dollar property I have no problem with it.  If somebody with a shit credit score and a 5% down payment made with a gift from a family member or receiving other down payment assistance is applying for a loan I wouldn't lend them a fucking nickel.  Not one nickel.  That is not safe and sound operation.

AIG is now turning a profit and in shape to repay.  Is GM?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Seuss]
    #16228283 - 05/14/12 09:41 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
If a person has a good credit rating, and they have the means to repay the loan, then the bank will most likely give them a loan that is in line with their income.



But the banks weren't making such loans to people with the means to repay.  That's exactly why CRA was enacted.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16228312 - 05/14/12 09:48 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
If a person has a good credit rating, and they have the means to repay the loan, then the bank will most likely give them a loan that is in line with their income.



But the banks weren't making such loans to people with the means to repay.  That's exactly why CRA was enacted.



No it wasn't.  It was enacted to get them to lend to people who were more likely not to repay.  See credit score and down payment nonsense.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16228377 - 05/14/12 10:04 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
What was the downpayment requirement for CRA loans?

http://www.firsthomeadvisor.com/index.php/first-time-home-buyer-loan-mortgage/cra-home-loans/

Quote:

Benefits of a CRA Home Loan
CRA home loan programs are not the same from one bank to the other and so the benefits of the various programs vary considerably as well.  In general, however, they are usually great home loan options for for first-time homebuyers to be know about and to research when considering their home loan options.

Here are just some of the typical benefits you will find with a CRA home loan:

    Lower down payment requirements
    Lower or no mortgage insurance premiums

    Don't need to be a first-time homebuyer
    No income limits if you buy in a low to moderate income area
    Seller can pay your closing costs
    Lower minimum credit score
    Flexible underwriting
    Compatible with down payment assistance programs
    Compatible with a gift from a family member or friend
    Available in all 50 states





I have bolded what I would consider normal disqualifications for safe and sound lending practices.  If someone is borrowing a million dollars on a 2 million dollar property I have no problem with it.  If somebody with a shit credit score and a 5% down payment made with a gift from a family member or receiving other down payment assistance is applying for a loan I wouldn't lend them a fucking nickel.  Not one nickel.  That is not safe and sound operation.

It was enacted to get them to lend to people who were more likely not to repay.  See credit score and down payment nonsense.



I'll agree with you that Lower minimum credit score isn't "safe and sound lending practices.  But as the article stated: "CRA home loan programs are not the same from one bank to the other and so the benefits of the various programs vary considerably".  There is no requirement from CRA that banks lend to people more likely not to repay.  Some banks have chosen to accept more risk; it's up to each bank.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
AIG is now turning a profit and in shape to repay.  Is GM?



GM posts record $7.6 billion profit


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16228405 - 05/14/12 10:10 AM (12 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

The government still owns 500million shares of GM, which it got in exchange for the $49.5billion bailout. Through earlier stock sales and loan repayments, the government recouped about $22.3billion. The remaining shares need to sell for around $53 each for the government to recoup the rest.




It is less than half of that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/aig-pays-more-funds-back-_n_833139.html

Quote:

AIG paid the Treasury $6.6 billion from the proceeds of its sale of shares in insurer MetLife (MET.N), shares it acquired when it sold its international unit Alico to MetLife last year. AIG paid Treasury another $300 million in funds it had retained for expenses related to the Alico deal.

After those payments, the Treasury still holds about $11.3 billion in preferred interests in AIG. It also owns about 92 percent of AIG's common stock.

At Tuesday's closing share price, the sale of that stock would generate a profit for the taxpayer of about $14.22 billion. The Treasury said it expects taxpayers to recover "every dollar" of AIG's bailout, which at one point swelled to $182 billion.





--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16228522 - 05/14/12 10:51 AM (12 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
If a person has a good credit rating, and they have the means to repay the loan, then the bank will most likely give them a loan that is in line with their income.



But the banks weren't making such loans to people with the means to repay.  That's exactly why CRA was enacted.



No it wasn't.  It was enacted to get them to lend to people who were more likely not to repay.  See credit score and down payment nonsense.




I've mostly agreed with wolverine, but in this case I agree with zappa on cra. AIG was originally created for the same purpose, lending companies were too careful who they gave loans too, but on top of it housing prices sky rocketed even when people couldn't afford the upgrades on house prices. But now on the other hand, nobody blamed the housing market, they were happy when companies like AIG came around to help a sub prime market.

Anyway me and everyone else have basically de railed this thread off topic. What current dip shits are the current candidates and what do they plan to change or re enhance all this crap. I always see the wheel turning around and around in the same direction, and whenever someone comes around to try and move it in a different direction they just end up derailing things with corrupt politics and fuck it up even worst. Clinton, GB, Obama, all tried to change these things and just made the current policies more standard and well structured. Like a bear trap, trying to pry one open then it snaps back on your hand your hand AND your foot are trapped.

Who is coming into the field, and what horse shit are they spewing? Anyone think it's ignorant that I've decided not to vote ever again? I don't think so.................


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16228869 - 05/14/12 12:08 PM (12 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

GM posts record $7.6 billion profit




Yes I'm so glad they got bailed out so they can make a HUGE profit while the rest of the country watches. Amazing that works that way


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16228885 - 05/14/12 12:10 PM (12 years, 6 days ago)

Actually "the rest of the country" owns GM.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16234255 - 05/15/12 09:28 AM (12 years, 6 days ago)

in stock?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16234272 - 05/15/12 09:34 AM (12 years, 6 days ago)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/22/when-will-gm-pay-us-back/

Quote:

That still leaves over $25 billion to be "repaid." But the government still holds 500 million shares of GM common stock, a 32% stake in the auto giant. At $25 a share, roughly where GM has been trading recently, that's $12.5 billion -- a bit less than half of what is needed to square accounts.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16234700 - 05/15/12 11:40 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

You honestly consider that the government owning most of GM's shares to mean the same thing as 'the people' already own most of GM because the government represents 'the people'?

Forget asking whether you will vote for Romney or not, I want to ask what the hell is wrong with your logic


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16234713 - 05/15/12 11:43 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Who else would the government represent?  Is there some shadowy group called "the government" that meets in secret?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16234778 - 05/15/12 11:58 AM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Who else would the government represent?  Is there some shadowy group called "the government" that meets in secret?




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16234915 - 05/15/12 12:38 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Who else would the government represent?  Is there some shadowy group called "the government" that meets in secret?




umm, do you not believe in politicians who give hand outs to people to do favors for them who aren't lobbyists? My point is that just because the 'government' has all that money, doesn't mean that they will 'represent the people' fairly. If that's what you truly believe, why in the world do you feel the need to vote for Romney instead of Obama, Obama has been doing a fine job, imho much better then GB :wink:

let's not even get into state or local county politics


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16234946 - 05/15/12 12:46 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Who else would the government represent?  Is there some shadowy group called "the government" that meets in secret?




umm, do you not believe in politicians who give hand outs to people to do favors for them who aren't lobbyists? My point is that just because the 'government' has all that money, doesn't mean that they will 'represent the people' fairly. If that's what you truly believe, why in the world do you feel the need to vote for Romney instead of Obama, Obama has been doing a fine job, imho much better then GB :wink:

let's not even get into state or local county politics



Huh?  The point is that the government (the public til) owns about a third of GM so one third of any GM profits goes to the government (the public til).  Of course that isn't going to help get the people's money back from GM since the shares will have to double in value.

Obama has been doing the worst job of any President in history.  For the first time ever there will have been fewer people with jobs at the end of his term as at the beginning.  The price of gas has doubled.  Businesses are sitting tight until he goes.  His signature legislation is not favored and he has been a foreign policy ghost.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16234996 - 05/15/12 12:59 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
why in the world do you feel the need to vote for Romney instead of Obama,



When did I say I was voting for Romney or Obama?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16235012 - 05/15/12 01:02 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

is George Bush was Hitler, Obama is Stalin. Do you think voting for Romney will help anything? Please explain why if not, because I know a shit ton of Romney supporters, and would love for them to shut the fuck up imho


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16235041 - 05/15/12 01:09 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Yes.
Quote:

imachavel said:
is George Bush was Hitler, Obama is Stalin.




What the fuck are you babbling about?  Building more strawmen? 
Quote:

Do you think voting for Romney will help anything? Please explain why if not, because I know a shit ton of Romney supporters, and would love for them to shut the fuck up imho




Yes.  As soon as we throw the incompetent socialist out of office businesses will breathe a huge sigh of relief and get back to doing what they do best.  The rich people who buy my services will no longer be endlessly attacked for succeeding and will get on with the consumption that has provided me with an excellent living.  I will be able to put more people to work, yes even the grandiose grunts who think that because they laid a block they are builders.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16235251 - 05/15/12 02:02 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

that will be just peachy


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16235301 - 05/15/12 02:12 PM (12 years, 5 days ago)

Yes, it will.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16246909 - 05/17/12 07:36 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

there have got to be some cons. Not just a one way win win situation. What are Romney's cons?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16246915 - 05/17/12 07:37 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

He's not really conservative.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsilynut
aka Patchraper

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16247819 - 05/17/12 10:40 PM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:



I will be able to put more people to work, yes even the grandiose grunts who think that because they laid a block they are builders.



        Laid millions  is a more accurate assesment.Thanks for the compliment homey. The stronger our middle class is the richer rich people will be.  I don't think it works the other way around.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16249107 - 05/18/12 08:11 AM (12 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
He's not really conservative.




with a 14 trillion deficit, that may just be a huge problem, no matter what class you are. Probly won't vote, not a big fan of voting for Homer Simpsons


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16253015 - 05/19/12 03:55 AM (12 years, 2 days ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
He's not really conservative.




with a 14 trillion deficit, that may just be a huge problem, no matter what class you are. Probly won't vote, not a big fan of voting for Homer Simpsons





What a ridiculous position.  The reason the people in power or seeking it do such stupid things isn't because of any inability to be consistant, its because people like you don't penalize them for doing so.  The electorate doesn't care: the majority don't pay attention and vote based on feel-good buzzwords uttered in speeches or some predetermined political allegance that the candidates are self selected to straddle.  Those who do notice the nonsense either vote for the idiots anyways or do as you do: go pout in a corner and then whine on some message board when the people you've empowered do exactly what is advantageous for them to do.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16253651 - 05/19/12 10:23 AM (12 years, 2 days ago)

What special prez are you voting for.  One that's not corrupted???????


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Icelander]
    #16253684 - 05/19/12 10:40 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

He's voting for me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16253823 - 05/19/12 11:27 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
with a 14 trillion deficit, that may just be a huge problem, no matter what class you are. Probly won't vote, not a big fan of voting for Homer Simpsons



The deficit will never get that high...our economy will crash long before then.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16253830 - 05/19/12 11:30 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

See my sig.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16253842 - 05/19/12 11:34 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Still nowhere near 14 trillion.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16253859 - 05/19/12 11:39 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Ah, I get ya.  The debt is 14T, not the deficit.  The deficit is only 1.5T.  Per year.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16253865 - 05/19/12 11:41 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

The debt is almost 16 trillion, no?  I think 15.7 last I checked...

The deficit is bad enough at 1.5ish...

Cut...cut..cut imo


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16253874 - 05/19/12 11:45 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

The debt used to be just a foreskin.  Now it's half (or more) of the shaft.  This is going to hurt.  Thank you, loser bums, for sucking the life out of the country.  And a rousing thank you to tax cheats like ChrystalG.  Well done.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16253882 - 05/19/12 11:49 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

I think we should raise the taxes on strippers to 100%...since they're just gonna cheat anyway...at least that way, we might get some from the ones that are afraid to claim none of their income.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Enlil]
    #16253900 - 05/19/12 11:57 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

If you make a pole tax of 100% nobody will dance on the pole.  Not that I give a shit.  I prefer women who will consent to me touching them.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Icelander]
    #16253990 - 05/19/12 12:29 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
What special prez are you voting for.  One that's not corrupted???????





I'm not sure at the moment, but probably Gary Johnson.  Its too early though.

Regardless, there's plenty of people to vote for if history is any guide.  I suspect the drop outs who then complain about their diesenfranchisment here, bitching that the system didn't magically produce candidates with values matching their own, don't even know who's running most of the time.

If you recall four years ago, many of these people were saying they'd vote for Ron Paul when he wasn't even running.  You still have people saying that this cycle despite it being almost certain he's not going to run.  I know imachavel has revealed previously that he didn't even know most of the candidates even existed, in years past.  I don't mean to single anyone out, as its far from his unique issue, but the number of whiners who come here and bitch about a slate of candidates they don't even know of, if tiring.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16253995 - 05/19/12 12:31 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Write me in.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16254682 - 05/19/12 04:32 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
He's not really conservative.




with a 14 trillion deficit, that may just be a huge problem, no matter what class you are. Probly won't vote, not a big fan of voting for Homer Simpsons





What a ridiculous position.  The reason the people in power or seeking it do such stupid things isn't because of any inability to be consistant, its because people like you don't penalize them for doing so.  The electorate doesn't care: the majority don't pay attention and vote based on feel-good buzzwords uttered in speeches or some predetermined political allegance that the candidates are self selected to straddle.  Those who do notice the nonsense either vote for the idiots anyways or do as you do: go pout in a corner and then whine on some message board when the people you've empowered do exactly what is advantageous for them to do.




motherfucker, who is whining on a message board? I don't give a shit about voting for liers, that's my final answer. It's sad that people like you think the only way to change things around them is to vote for idiots. Name a person we can vote for who is not an idiot? Honestly, don't make shit up either. Here I wished I had been 18 the last time Clinton was voted in, although he won anyway. I just liked him. And people whine about him also "wahhh, he started the housing policies for sub prime wahhh"

Give me a fucking break. Name one good person to vote for. Look dude, I don't need people telling me I go pout in a corner. I don't live my life in a fucking corner. Ban me from this horse shit board. I live well day to day, and am generous, I help my friends and family, probably much more then they would ever help me. I'm a happy person. And you can do whatever you want, I don't control society. And I certainly don't think by voting I'm going to control society. You want to support lobbyists, be my guest. You name me one honest person to elect, and I'll go vote for him.

But speaking of bullshitting on a message board, all these boards get are horse shit conversations like this one. We don't ever have solutions. Just stupid discussion about what went wrong the last election. So tell me, who will fix this mess? Better not say Romney, he is another millionaire supported by billionaires, who will come in and slam the last guy the way Obama came in supported by billionaires and slammed Clinton and G.B. You got solutions? Let's discuss it. Sitting in a corner?

You want fixing something? Let's fix the constitution, it says "by the people for the people." I tend to disagree with the antic that voting is a way to control the country. People are supposed to control the country, nobody puts a gun to peoples heads here, and tells them how to spend their money. I believe in honesty. I'm not buying products from fake companies, and I'm not voting for liars. I drive a Toyota, made in Japan. Although now our tax dollars supports Japan also, considering he must have bailed out some company over there for a billion dollars.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16254708 - 05/19/12 04:39 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

right and you fill us in on those candidates. As moderator of the shroomery, special psychedelic land, wanting everyone to tune in, turn on, and drop out. We could do without education according to Timothy Leary, and society would be a better place. But first, we need a community that educates each other. If Gary wins and fucks up everything like Obama did, should we take your advice from now on?

Maybe you and Zappa can run for president, let us know your plans :wink:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsilynut
aka Patchraper

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16254923 - 05/19/12 05:45 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

I would just like to point out that 911 happened under Bushes watch . If Bush had not  been responsible for letting 911 happen he wouldn't of needed to start two wars that he thought we didn't need a war tax to pay for ( like we have usually done in the past) and maybe we would be slightly better off or maybe a lot.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: psilynut]
    #16255050 - 05/19/12 06:13 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

psilynut said:
I would just like to point out that 911 happened under Bushes watch . If Bush had not  been responsible for letting 911 happen he wouldn't of needed to start two wars that he thought we didn't need a war tax to pay for ( like we have usually done in the past) and maybe we would be slightly better off or maybe a lot.



:rofl2:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16255061 - 05/19/12 06:14 PM (12 years, 1 day ago)

He's got a point...Corey Booker would have entered those planes via secret high speed jetpack and taken out the hijackers...landing the planes and saving everyone.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16256666 - 05/20/12 01:53 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:


motherfucker, who is whining on a message board? I don't give a shit about voting for liers, that's my final answer. It's sad that people like you think the only way to change things around them is to vote for idiots. Name a person we can vote for who is not an idiot?





I already did: Gary Johnson.



Quote:

Give me a fucking break. Name one good person to vote for.




already did


Quote:

You want to support lobbyists, be my guest. You name me one honest person to elect, and I'll go vote for him.




What could this possibly be based on?  Where did I suggest anything whatseover about lobbyists or supporting them? 

Given your rant and repeated self-disenfranchising remarks, I expect your allready familiar with the candidates and likely candidates, otherwise your depictions of them would be truely fatuous.  As such, you tell me why Gary Johnson would be "supporting lobbyists", whatever that means, or why him and the other candidates should be considered lieing in their platforms/positions?  Many of the candidates say remarkably unappealing things to the vast majority of the population- it certainly doesn't seem like they're dishonest about their intentions.  In many cases, the lack of a serious chance of winning seems to remove any incentive to lie about your intentions.




Quote:

I'm not buying products from fake companies, and I'm not voting for liars. I drive a Toyota, made in Japan. Although now our tax dollars supports Japan also, considering he must have bailed out some company over there for a billion dollars.




dumb

extremely dumb

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevenetianblinds
cabbage


Registered: 05/25/11
Posts: 2,532
Loc: Flag
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: psilynut]
    #16256678 - 05/20/12 02:00 AM (12 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

psilynut said:
I would just like to point out that 911 happened under Bushes watch . If Bush had not  been responsible for letting 911 happen he wouldn't of needed to start two wars that he thought we didn't need a war tax to pay for ( like we have usually done in the past) and maybe we would be slightly better off or maybe a lot.





is that like Bay watch?


--------------------
How do you know but ev’ry Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, clos’d by your senses five?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16257821 - 05/20/12 11:26 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The debt used to be just a foreskin.  Now it's half (or more) of the shaft.  This is going to hurt.  Thank you, loser bums, for sucking the life out of the country.



I'll remind you which party is responsible for the debt:



Yes, Obama has gone against Democratic tradition and increased the deficit, but stimulus spending is the only way for a country to recover from a Great Recession.  That's how we recovered from the first Great Depression, that's how we recovered from the 70's recession, and that's how we avoided another Great Depression.  I guarantee if Romney eliminates the deficit before the recovery is complete, the recession will get far worse.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16257852 - 05/20/12 11:31 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

libertarian party candidate huh? Well thank god he isn't republican or democrat. I can tell you everything wrong with that, won't vote for either party ever again in my life:

http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/hey-new-york-times-obama-didnt-bail-out

although it's somewhat under descriptive, I think it makes my point. Not about bailing out huge companies that earn billions and still need bank loans. That to me doesn't sound responsible, although many other people disagree apparently. I've never heard of a restaurant owner getting a bail out when filing for bankruptcy, although a few at times have been able to get new loans later on if their previous restaurant had good credit. Not that restaurants are guaranteed to treat their employees better then billion dollar companies.

But a company that dominates the market and makes a killing and earns major dollars in the process, like billions, is a house hold name, and shouldn't get billions in bail out when they fall on their face, of every persons tax money, because presidents feel they "create the most jobs." But anyway why tredge this up again

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

this is who you are going to vote for huh? Fuck it might as well throw in my vote to this guy. I doubt he's not a serious liar like all the others, but fucking A if I want Romney or Obama to win. My best guess = Romney will win. Winning the presidential election is about as likely to be anyone other then the two most popular candidates, the way people are more likely to drink rc cola then a coca cola, it's called millions in marketing, and it works as well for presidential nominees with big supporters as it does for huge companies.

Also, when Obama was being elected, he said that he didn't support big wall street fat cats, but he had wall street fat cats supporting his campaigns with their bonus money, or fucking whatever :laugh2:. I don't want to have to go through that again. Although the likely hood of people winning who don't have the HUGE support, not very high, but if I can throw my vote away from the murdering huge spending assholes, I'll vote for Gary Johnson

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

if he wins and ruins the country even worst, I'm going to come in with an I told you so to rub in your face, the way you do to me quite often :shrug:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #16257899 - 05/20/12 11:42 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The debt used to be just a foreskin.  Now it's half (or more) of the shaft.  This is going to hurt.  Thank you, loser bums, for sucking the life out of the country.



I'll remind you which party is responsible for the debt:



Yes, Obama has gone against Democratic tradition and increased the deficit, but stimulus spending is the only way for a country to recover from a Great Recession.  That's how we recovered from the first Great Depression, that's how we recovered from the 70's recession, and that's how we avoided another Great Depression.  I guarantee if Romney eliminates the deficit before the recovery is complete, the recession will get far worse.



I no longer think that it is ignorance that makes you keep posting that graph, which conveniently ends in 2005 (with projections into 2007).  I think you are deliberately lying.  First of all, Congress sets the budget so if anybody deserves credit for eliminating the debt during that latter Clinton years it is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.  And how come your graph ends just when the Dems took both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008?  Not convenient for you?  See my sig.  The deficit was going down until that happened.  Now it is skyrocketing at a 1.5T a year pace.

Liar.  And not very good at it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16257911 - 05/20/12 11:44 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The debt used to be just a foreskin.  Now it's half (or more) of the shaft.  This is going to hurt.  Thank you, loser bums, for sucking the life out of the country.



I'll remind you which party is responsible for the debt:



Yes, Obama has gone against Democratic tradition and increased the deficit, but stimulus spending is the only way for a country to recover from a Great Recession.  That's how we recovered from the first Great Depression, that's how we recovered from the 70's recession, and that's how we avoided another Great Depression.  I guarantee if Romney eliminates the deficit before the recovery is complete, the recession will get far worse.




I'm still amazed Clinton had such a huge surplus when he helped companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers get so huge and prosperous in the first place. To me, he was, an amazing fucking president, despite his flaws, he was bad ass. He made Bush and Obama look like children, that's for sure

Now I don't question the bail out, what I question is the SIZE of the bail out, too much money for companies who lost too much, did every single company that was bailed out have to be on the NASDAQ, or s&p 5000? Fucking ridiculous. However, I must admit, the way the government spends money, maybe it was better to bail out the auto industry, etc. I mean the government clearly does not spend money wisely, if we still had all the money in the treasury, what else would we waste it on, something useful? Here is something amazing though, when you have to borrow from yourself, because you don't have the money? What should you do?

At that point I believe that it's time to make a hard decision and let people fall flat on their face and suffer. But at the same time, if they were to be bailed out, why is it necessary to use billions for each company? Why not hundreds of millions, distributed evenly? It was clearly a fat cat wall street banker big bonus decision, and Obama made it, and so did Zapps precious republican George Bush, fucking A, 400 billion, went straight to the banks. Was that worst then the auto industry bail out?

According to most people on this forum it was, somehow the banks are a shit ton more honest then the rest of these mofo's :rolleyes:

You agree wolverine? Explain, I take a serious note of your opinion


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16257927 - 05/20/12 11:47 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The debt used to be just a foreskin.  Now it's half (or more) of the shaft.  This is going to hurt.  Thank you, loser bums, for sucking the life out of the country.



I'll remind you which party is responsible for the debt:



Yes, Obama has gone against Democratic tradition and increased the deficit, but stimulus spending is the only way for a country to recover from a Great Recession.  That's how we recovered from the first Great Depression, that's how we recovered from the 70's recession, and that's how we avoided another Great Depression.  I guarantee if Romney eliminates the deficit before the recovery is complete, the recession will get far worse.



I no longer think that it is ignorance that makes you keep posting that graph, which conveniently ends in 2005 (with projections into 2007).  I think you are deliberately lying.  First of all, Congress sets the budget so if anybody deserves credit for eliminating the debt during that latter Clinton years it is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.  And how come your graph ends just when the Dems took both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008?  Not convenient for you?  See my sig.  The deficit was going down until that happened.  Now it is skyrocketing at a 1.5T a year pace.

Liar.  And not very good at it.




so fuck it, according to you, no president is responsible for nationwide decisions. Because the president is crap compared to a republican controlled congress. Why don't we create a new thread deciding which congress members should be elected. And yes Newt Gingrich wasn't so bad.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMemories
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16257934 - 05/20/12 11:49 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

You are great at satirizing straw men.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16257935 - 05/20/12 11:49 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

The banks repaid the money, many of which never needed it in the first place but were forced to take it to avoid stigmatizing the ones that did need it..  Did GM?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Memories]
    #16257945 - 05/20/12 11:52 AM (12 years, 22 hours ago)

Quote:

Memories said:
You are great at satirizing straw men.




and you are great at skimming facts and not reading an entirety of someone's post. Btw who in this P D sub forum doesn't satire the shit out of straw men? Btw do you have any positive suggestions or just clear comments on what other people do that is wrong? Zapp at least has well educated responses, so does Wolverine

:cookiemonster:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #16258719 - 05/20/12 03:22 PM (12 years, 19 hours ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I no longer think that it is ignorance that makes you keep posting that graph, which conveniently ends in 2005 (with projections into 2007).  I think you are deliberately lying.



There are no lies on the graph I posted, nor is there ignorance about the current deficit.  The reason I keep posting that graph is because I haven't found another graph that extends from early on to present that includes the names of all the presidents on it.  If you find one, post it for me and I'll use that in the future.  Actually, after further searching, I just found one (feel free to disregard the "what if" analysis):



If we look at the graph in your own signature, we see that it omits Clinton's name under the budget surplus, but it includes Obama's name on the deficit.  Are you intentionally being dishonest??? 

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
First of all, Congress sets the budget so if anybody deserves credit for eliminating the debt during that latter Clinton years it is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.


Liar.  And not very good at it.



Let's see, your signature says "OBAMA TRIPLED DEFICIT" yet now you're telling everyone it's Congress that's responsible?  The only liar here is you, and you're pretty good at it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16258761 - 05/20/12 03:33 PM (12 years, 18 hours ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I no longer think that it is ignorance that makes you keep posting that graph, which conveniently ends in 2005 (with projections into 2007).  I think you are deliberately lying.



There are no lies on the graph I posted, nor is there ignorance about the current deficit.  The reason I keep posting that graph is because I haven't found another graph that extends from early on to present that includes the names of all the presidents on it.  If you find one, post it for me and I'll use that in the future.  Actually, after further searching, I just found one (feel free to disregard the "what if" analysis):





Yes, I will ignore it.  Because it is a "what if".  I already have a graph of what is.  In my sig.
Quote:



If we look at the graph in your own signature, we see that it omits Clinton's name under the budget surplus, but it includes Obama's name on the deficit.  Are you intentionally being dishonest???




It also omits who controlled Congress in any of those years
Quote:

 

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
First of all, Congress sets the budget so if anybody deserves credit for eliminating the debt during that latter Clinton years it is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.


Liar.  And not very good at it.



Let's see, your signature says "OBAMA TRIPLED DEFICIT" yet now you're telling everyone it's Congress that's responsible?  The only liar here is you, and you're pretty good at it.




He owned Congress.  It was totally Dem since 2006.  Clinton gets no credit because the Reps owned Congress then.  Are you really that desperate that you would continue the obvious lie?

Rep Congress brought down the deficit, Dem Congress sent it into the stratosphere.  Not that it is ever likely to cost you any money.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewinstinsmith
Shroomer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/23/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Vermont
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16258829 - 05/20/12 03:58 PM (12 years, 18 hours ago)

VOTE!! We need all the smart/reflective people that do shrooms to think about the things in the world you would change. (smart people can always come up with tons of reasons why voting in ineffective at facilitating change.) I believe it is a side-effect of being reasonably smart. National politics and Government is very intrenched and very hard to change for lots of reasons.

Please don't for get about Local issues. These are often where even small efforts can be effective. And local issue are more likely to effect your day-to-day life.VOTE! Legalize it in WA state!!


--------------------
- Winstin Smith (if you live in Central Vermont or go to Dartmouth College i want to be friends. So hit me up)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: winstinsmith]
    #16259386 - 05/20/12 06:18 PM (12 years, 16 hours ago)

I'm going to stick with Gary Johnson. And I'm interested to hear people think about who will be in congress and the senate also, as we all know all those bail outs were decided and approved by much more then one person. I'd like to hear more about how to fix that issue as well...


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16259881 - 05/20/12 08:11 PM (12 years, 14 hours ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Yes, I will ignore it.  Because it is a "what if".  I already have a graph of what is.  In my sig.



The chart I posted also includes "what is" and it includes names.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It also omits who controlled Congress in any of those years



I disagree with you about the power the president has over the budget (he has a hell of a lot more power than you want to believe, as he submits the budget request to Congress), but if we take your view that the Congress determines the budget, here's what we find:

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 1948 to 1978.  (except in '52-'54 when it was split).  How did the deficit look during those years?  Nothing but surpluses.

Republicans took control from 94 to 06 (except in 00-02 when it was split).  How did the deficit look during those years?  It initially went way down (under Clinton) and then way up (under Bush), which seems to indicate that the President has more control than you want to believe.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16261263 - 05/21/12 02:08 AM (12 years, 8 hours ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
First of all, Congress sets the budget so if anybody deserves credit for eliminating the debt during that latter Clinton years it is Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton. 




That's bullshit, Clinton's agenda was passed through initially by a Democratic Congress and maintained pressure on Gingrich and Dole to continue his agenda without major concessions. The Republicans essentially went along with him after trying in vain to resist him; he deserves the credit.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16261804 - 05/21/12 08:27 AM (12 years, 1 hour ago)

Well that is just ignorance of history.  Do you remember Hillarycare?  That was a huge part of his agenda and the voters directly repudiated it in 1994 by handing the reins of Congress over to the Republicans for the first time in decades.  There was also the benefit of our Cold War victory, accomplished with absolutely zero contributions from either Bill Clinton or anybody on the left.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16261871 - 05/21/12 09:01 AM (12 years, 1 hour ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Well that is just ignorance of history.  Do you remember Hillarycare?  That was a huge part of his agenda and the voters directly repudiated it in 1994 by handing the reins of Congress over to the Republicans for the first time in decades.




I'm sure it played a role in the results (I was talking about his economic and budget-balancing policies anyway). I'm also sure that the fact that the Republicans played out a national campaign based on a well-threshed out platform (i.e. Contract for America) and the Democrats did not was largely responsible for the results, as was Clinton's admitted failure of message control by the way of Don't Ask Don't Tell, assault weapons, and other social type matters seemingly dominated the beginning of his term (seemingly due to the media coverage and not to the amount of actual time they pursued these things). I understand that the NRA played a pretty decisive role as well...
Back to the original point, Republicans largely conceded to him on his economic and budgetary plans, even though they did initially try to use a government shutdown to get their way (it didn't really work, did it?). I just can't imagine how going along with someone else in the end qualifies as them being responsible for the agenda itself.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16261889 - 05/21/12 09:07 AM (12 years, 1 hour ago)

The election of 1994 spun Clinton around quite a bit.  His grand socialist delusions got squashed and he pivoted hard toward the right from his initial starting point.  Assault weapons and the NRA?  They are and always have been a scary monster of the left.  They aren't that influential.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16263783 - 05/21/12 05:02 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

i dont mean to say ron paul.

but RON PAUL is our only current hope.

and unless NBC is lying again according to them ron paul has admitted recently that he 'cannot win but can be an impact'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMaryJ
Highly Fictionalized Character


Registered: 05/15/12
Posts: 47
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16265425 - 05/21/12 10:23 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

There will be no voting for me, I prefer not to placate my sense of helplessness by pretending that my vote matters in the least, or that our government matters in the least. Instead of bickering about banking, regulations, and which president or congress is to blame we should be discussing why we all continue to allow a handful of absurdly rich individuals to manipulate not only America but the entire world.

We should be talking about standing up for ourselves and ending this ridiculous tyranny, but instead they have us all so wound up about home ownership and what will happen on HBO this week to care that the police that should be protecting and serving citizens are instead shooting elderly black men and asking questions later. 68 year-old ex-marine shot


--------------------
There is not a single utterance above that should be taken as truth, as they are words penned by a mad woman trapped within a mind spiraling downward.

:bigweed:

"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant. " - Kevin Smith

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: MaryJ]
    #16265440 - 05/21/12 10:30 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

well lets just say osama bin laden accomplished everything he wanted to do. which was to ruin the economy of america and produce the wars that has begun. along with taking many american lives.


all in all, our government is the real enemy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16267312 - 05/22/12 11:19 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

yoimjohn said:
i dont mean to say ron paul.

but RON PAUL is our only current hope.

and unless NBC is lying again according to them ron paul has admitted recently that he 'cannot win but can be an impact'




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5PGZiX9TltY


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Icelander]
    #16267435 - 05/22/12 11:50 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

sorry man, i cannot, watch that same movie clip of hitler again.

LOL ive seen it with many things and it is at the point of hurting my brain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16269481 - 05/22/12 06:56 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

are we getting closer to picking a presidential candidate? Once again all you hear in the fucking news, is the debate between Romney and Obama. I'm sure Romney will win, and probably fuck us all, whether as bad as Obama and Bush or not.

So let's weigh Gary Johnson against other candidates. And let's weigh what Gary Johnson will do better then Obama and Romney. Education is the only way to change current standards, when current standards suck. Btw I already found a problem with G J, get rid of child labor laws?



--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/22/12 09:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16270448 - 05/22/12 09:52 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

What wouldn't he do better? Look at his track record. He left new Mexico with a $2 billion surplus.

Abolish corporate income tax, that's going to attract hella corporations and give the ones already here cash for a larger work force.

Replace the federal income tax system with a "fair tax" act. With that in place all of the illegals and drug dealers or whathaveyou, none of which are currently being taxed, will pay taxes just like the rest of us. The more you spend, the more you Pay.

Finally taking a realistic approach to drugs. Especially marijuana.


Then again, none of this would pass either house or senate, so really he probably won't be able to do anything more than the other 2.


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: werDehT]
    #16271494 - 05/23/12 02:44 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

probably not, also I'm not with abolishing taxes for the rich. It's what Bush did. Or he tried to. Either way it didn't work.

Also you have to be careful, with people who leave office with a surplus. Clinton left office with a surplus, and many think he got us into this mess by helping policies that allowed companies like AIG and Lehman brothers to exist. I know I'm beating a broken record here. Anyway, the point is that, if we elect this guy, is he going to get us into a mess with the next president who picks up his garbage? But probly not, I don't think the mess we are in is fixable, and if it is, probly at the end of his term it will be.

two billion surplus though huh? that's not too bad. Why the fuck is the media all over Romney. God damn commercialisation these days. Man I sure wish there was a president we'd vote for that would stop be heading's from being all over the inter net. That is a world wide problem. I know that no one president can fix that, but I sure know Obama never came close. Well shit it is the political discussion forum, although I must admit I really don't want to bring up defence and security politics. But even George Bush did better with that. Just because Obama got Bin Laden does not mean he has better policies on defence and security.

Most support he is offering to Mexico is very little. And the majority of it is border patrol. I must admit if world war 3 occurred, I wouldn't trust anyone, but Obama least of all would help me feel secure.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16271514 - 05/23/12 02:56 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

He does want to get rid of child labor laws but I don't see it as a big deal. The media is picking at everything they can trying to give him a bad name. Do you reall think he wants to pull chillins out of school and put them in sweat shops? (I believe this is why these laws were enacted in the first place)

In Gary Johnson's America he sees plenty of jobs to go around, and what's wrong with kids being able to learn the value of a dollar doing odd jobs WHILE getting their education?

I just don't see a monster lurking behind a smile, like I do in obama and Romney.


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Edited by werDehT (05/23/12 03:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: werDehT]
    #16271548 - 05/23/12 03:27 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

werDehT said:
He does want to get rid of child labor laws but I don't see it as a big deal. The media is picking at everything they can trying to give him a bad name.




I think you're talking about Newt Gingrich, not Romney.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: werDehT]
    #16271563 - 05/23/12 03:35 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Here's a link

Some states are already working on this. They're worked about children being exploited and company's hiring children instead of people from the unemployment line.

I can see why people are concerned but again, I don't believe this is the motivation behind it. Abolishing corporate income tax, which is a double tax, is going to put a serious dent in the unemployment rate Ricky fucking tick.

I can see the laws being modified but not abolished, because there are people in the world that would use children for cheap labor, but what's laid out in that article sounds realistic to me. I would support it.


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16271564 - 05/23/12 03:35 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

werDehT said:
He does want to get rid of child labor laws but I don't see it as a big deal. The media is picking at everything they can trying to give him a bad name.




I think you're talking about Newt Gingrich, not Romney.




Talking about Gary Johnson


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: werDehT]
    #16271610 - 05/23/12 04:28 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Ahh, gotcha, I thought you were replying to what he said about the media being all over Romney. I think the thing that confused me was your line about the media picking at him with everything trying to give him a bad name. I hadn't seen the media mention Johnson at all so... :grin:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16271689 - 05/23/12 05:34 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Romney's an ass hole, Gary Johnson has GOT to be 100 times better. Truthfully, I'm tired of big corporate politicians that got into power by having tons of friends and owning lots and lots of money. So what if he ran his country responsibly. I don't want to see him win. He probably will, but I'm tired of billionaires. It's ridiculous for anyone to have that much money. I want a president who feels down to home, as though he picked the corn with his own hands, but with enough political experience to know how to run hard ball games type banter that makes serious decisions about our lives

The LAST thing I want is someone who talks a lot of shit, then never makes up their mind like Obama. Or another god damn money of the wealth supporter. Really are people attached to their precious companies that much? It's going to be months before primaries, so lot's of time for me to change my mind. Otherwise I'd probably vote for Gary Johnson. Fucking A, heaven help us, heaven help us


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #16272408 - 05/23/12 10:07 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Why do you have to lie?  Make your point without lying.  Bush didn't eliminate taxes on the rich, they pay a higher share than they did when he was elected.  No billionaire has ever been President (nanny state Mayor of NYC, yes).  You have to have friends to get elected.  Let me give you a clue.  If you don't have friends you're a complete fucking asshole.  Even Hanky has friends.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsilynut
aka Patchraper

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16272450 - 05/23/12 10:23 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I think we should elect that guy from Brazil. You know the super socialist metal worker with a 4th grade education that seemed to totally revolutionize the place. He did an amazing thing down there. It's true they may have some problems in the future as any booming economy might, but dam Wat an amazing accomplishment wouldn't of thought socialism would work  in a place like Brazil. But it did.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: psilynut]
    #16272522 - 05/23/12 10:44 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Venezuela.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16275760 - 05/23/12 10:02 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

If I vote, it won't be Romney, it won't be Obama. If it doesn't turn out to be a guy from New Mexico who apparently left the state with a Surplus, then I don't know who it will be.

That's all there is to it, it's that or I don't vote. Don't call it ignorance, I don't want to vote for someone that is a crook. Between two fascist mother fuckers, I don't want to vote


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16275930 - 05/23/12 10:27 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Between two fascist mother fuckers, I don't want to vote





Its not and never has been in your lifetime.  Why do you keep on with this false choice?  There's enough ingorant people out there without you, who've allready been corrected, trumpeting this false choice to people that then turn around and give more power to the duopoly they supposedly support.

Look at the libertarian votes, look at the Paul phenomena, shits changing in politics, and there's plenty of people who are starting to educate themeselves a tiny bit before voting.  The reason the two party system with all its detrimental effects is still with us is because of people making stupid "lesser of two evil" decisions supported by talk like you've been making.

Earlier in this thread it was you, actually, who was that person.  Why were you announcing your decision to not vote and denigrating the candidates when it turned out you didn't even know who was running?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16276805 - 05/24/12 02:36 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Look at the libertarian votes, look at the Paul phenomena, shits changing in politics, and there's plenty of people who are starting to educate themeselves a tiny bit before voting.  The reason the two party system with all its detrimental effects is still with us is because of people making stupid "lesser of two evil" decisions supported by talk like you've been making.




I think the reason why it's still so dominant in the United States is because it actually works. No one would ever expect politics to be anything but a shift of power around the lowest common denominator, and the two-party system clearly functions well considering that.

I've never really understood why people think that a third-party would spur much change in how things work in national politics. All it would mean is that a coalition government would have to be formed and the same types of compromises that are made within one of the two parties that exist now would be made then, too. One of the primary reasons you see more than two parties in other countries, I think, is simply because they are smaller countries and an appropriate amount of efficiency can be maintained with more than two parties. I have reason to believe that the power dynamic in the States with more than two parties would simply be inefficient, which is exactly why it doesn't really happen ever.

No one expects that the pet interests of a smaller group of people aren't going to be blended together with those of other people, and the real problem with how things happen nationally isn't the dominance of only two parties, but rather the dominant inactivity of the country's citizens in ensuring that their interests are being represented. If every person contacted their representatives and explained exactly what they want to happen and why, every step along the way, these representatives would simply have to tally up the for's and the against's to know precisely what they have to do in order to stay elected. Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted every election cycle due to all the political advertising. They don't need to come to you to get your vote if you go to them. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16276875 - 05/24/12 03:19 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
If I vote, it won't be Romney, it won't be Obama. If it doesn't turn out to be a guy from New Mexico who apparently left the state with a Surplus, then I don't know who it will be.

That's all there is to it, it's that or I don't vote. Don't call it ignorance, I don't want to vote for someone that is a crook. Between two fascist mother fuckers, I don't want to vote




So don't vote. As a country we'll be better off if people like you don't.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16276881 - 05/24/12 03:27 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

I've never really understood why people think that a third-party would spur much change in how things work in national politics.




It would stop all the people bitching about "choosing between two fascists" as imachevel said previously, and many like him say reguarly.  It would also prevent a binary false choice being presented to the voters where a popular solution is ignored for political reasons.

The loosing party(s) would have the option of exploiting that choice and incorporating into their platform to gain support.  No longer could the democrats and republicans select two people both succeptible to the same criticism and thus unwilling to make a major issue out of the matter.  For example, campaign finance prohibitions are quite popular but often difficult for a politician, like Obama, to raise when he knows he'll be challenged on his past conduct.

More cynically, it would make it more difficult for the partys to (intentionally or not) negotiate themselves to avoid enacting popular change.  No longer would it be as easy to find two false choices on gay marriage, for example, one person against it and one person against it but with sympathetic quips.  The third party candidate can easily expose the hypocrasy and adopt a real alternative. 

Even ignoring all these benefits, it would present one more competitive choice and encourage voters to educate themselves.  It would also reduce the perception of races being allready won or silly notions of having to vote for the winning candidate (or a competitive candidate) to effect change.

Quote:

All it would mean is that a coalition government would have to be formed and the same types of compromises that are made within one of the two parties that exist now would be made then, too.




So what?  Adding a third party would require a third point to be considered and incorporated and would benefit the public by government action more percisely reflecting popular wishes.  In any case, one of the more overrated qualities in government is "getting things done", in my opinion.  How much bullshit do you hear on a monthly basis in the US that is manifestly a bad idea?  Reducing the ability of such crap to pass without solid support is fine.

Quote:


One of the primary reasons you see more than two parties in other countries, I think, is simply because they are smaller countries and an appropriate amount of efficiency can be maintained with more than two parties. I have reason to believe that the power dynamic in the States with more than two parties would simply be inefficient, which is exactly why it doesn't really happen ever.




I always thought it had more to do with the way votes and representation is alloted.

Many of those countries don't have winner take all elections for each legislative seat.  Isn't this correct?

Quote:


No one expects that the pet interests of a smaller group of people aren't going to be blended together with those of other people, and the real problem with how things happen nationally isn't the dominance of only two parties, but rather the dominant inactivity of the country's citizens in ensuring that their interests are being represented




I agree, but that doesn't besmirch the benefits of a third party.  It enlarges the acceptable scope of options for people who are incapable of educating themselves on the issue broadly before choosing to support a given position.

Quote:

Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted every election cycle due to all the political advertising. They don't need to come to you to get your vote if you go to them. :wink:




Agreed.  That those ads seem to work is a great indicator of problems with the electorate, in my opinion.  Especially given the content of the adds being worthless, what kind of thought process could possibly be going through someone's mind who bases a decision on those ads?  Even if they are decided and the add simply drives them to vote, it still seems quite irresponsible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16276894 - 05/24/12 03:42 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinewerDehT
Offset
Male


Registered: 12/15/11
Posts: 707
Loc: Over the cuckoo's nest
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16276905 - 05/24/12 03:51 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government




No they won't

Way to think outside the box though. I like it


--------------------
"It's only after you've lost everything that your free to do anything."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16277240 - 05/24/12 07:26 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government



We did that 3 1/2 years ago, Saul.  How do you like that idea now?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16277651 - 05/24/12 09:52 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government



We did that 3 1/2 years ago, Saul.  How do you like that idea now?



While the recovery is slow, the damage that is being repaired happened over 3.5 years ago.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16277669 - 05/24/12 09:57 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Yes.  Most of it happened around 70 years ago.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16278563 - 05/24/12 01:25 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Yes.  Most of it happened around 70 years ago.



Correct; if you consider the rise of the middle class "damage".


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16279065 - 05/24/12 03:42 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

werDehT said:
Quote:

yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government




No they won't

Way to think outside the box though. I like it




thank you:zombie6:

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government



We did that 3 1/2 years ago, Saul.  How do you like that idea now?




new idea on the spot
half the army that supports ron paul and not obama as there commander should only accept ron paul and not obama, and only listen to ron paul. just saying. theyre suppose to be against enemies foreign and domestic right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16281746 - 05/25/12 12:42 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Look at the libertarian votes, look at the Paul phenomena, shits changing in politics, and there's plenty of people who are starting to educate themeselves a tiny bit before voting.  The reason the two party system with all its detrimental effects is still with us is because of people making stupid "lesser of two evil" decisions supported by talk like you've been making.




I think the reason why it's still so dominant in the United States is because it actually works. No one would ever expect politics to be anything but a shift of power around the lowest common denominator, and the two-party system clearly functions well considering that.






to answer johnm214 question, if I can find someone to vote for outside of the two party system, then I will, otherwise, if they all look like crooks, then I won't. To tell you honestly John, I've voted many times. I should have specified that I meant I rarely vote for one of the two parties. It's sad because I have tons of family and friends that believe in a two party system, and almost ALWAYS vote for one of the two.

Another inconsistency with your opinion John, having 800 parties doesn't mean shit if no one has yet been nominated. You may find several people you like as candidates running for nominated president, if they are nominated so fucking what. Also, out of 100 nominees/whatever, what if I disagreed with all of them? What if I wanted a president that was going to get rid of every jail and prison in the United States? What president will do that? Is it so ignorant not to vote, when you don't believe in the entire system? Should I then move to another country with an even worst system? Because I don't want to vote?

And what of presidents who have won, become president, then completely change everything they said, and falsify that everything they said was ever true. Like Obama. For example Gary Johnson looks like a great candidate. Yet he believes in child labor laws. So if I decide not to vote for him it makes me ignorant? You claim I know nothing about the candidates? You are spewing off about which candidate to vote for, nominations aren't even finished. Can you name everyone shooting for a nomination? Which you haven't proven, where is your proof you are more educated then me? Or is it just that being a smart ass makes people less un educated and ignorant? What have you clarified?

I'm here willing to discuss politics, and take a chance of voting. But should I say I know everything, and for sure will and won't vote? Is this how citizens are supposed to feel? That to avoid war we have the option to vote? Which is better then a country where a dictator stays in power at times over 50 years? You can't tell how well a person will act as president until they are in power and are a president. So from that perspective, what should I do? I would have voted for Clinton twice, the second time around, I was a few years too young to vote at that time. Would I have voted for GB twice? No, Obama twice? No. Did I vote for Obama? Yes. Does that make me regret things? Yes. I am very willing to vote. But what proof do I have? A governor or senators track record over one state is supposed to show how he will preside over the basically the leading economy of the world?

Let's argue with this after the nominations. Or would you like to discuss more over how we can try and change that as well? Is everything within our power? Or is my life within my power? My life is clearly within my power, and that is the best I can act on. Does that mean I won't have an opinion? Hell no I definitely have an opinion. And honestly I'm trying to be fair by saying a president can make better choices. Because what I really think, is that the president aside from war and taxes and bail outs and laws, barely makes choices. The people who make choices are all of you fucks. Why not blame society? Society created the democratic system in the first place.

Everyone that believes in a world without equality, who says a person can be as rich as they want, or as poor as they want. This control issue that a person who owns a business and does all the work because someone else is expendable, does it make sense? Sure, the person owning the business does more work. As long as he can keep it. Now a person who asks for a loan, then blows it, files for bankruptcy, asks for another loan from a different banks, asks for collateral from a friend, borrows and lends and loans and swaps and covers. Is this responsible? This country has become so obsessed with lending, that even the owner now barely is responsible. If I work my ass off as an employee my whole life, then go get a job making 40 grand a year, take the money, then invest in a business, and don't ask for a bank loan. That is responsible.

No honor among thieves. No class war can prove who is and isn't a thief. Being educated isn't just barking at the first thing you see you don't like, it's about using patience. Now for patience, you have to avoid straw men. Straw men is like saying "imachavel, why do you believe rich peoples money should be distributed, do you not feel greedy enough?"

Based on an opinion I had saying the 1% of the richest people should distribute money more evenly, and not have it taken from them, as that is theft. When I said that, I in no way classified that I believe in welfare, taxes, taking money from people. I meant more that they could make wiser investments in smaller businesses, for returns with interest, etc. etc. etc. or do things more responsibly, not get bail outs. But by me saying that, I get straw manned into arguing that I support greedy welfare lovers who never truly search for a job. Does that make sense?

If I believed in ignorance I would say "I don't care who wins in a vote, you can all go fuck yourselves!" Which I never admitted once. Sometimes I don't. Where does this leave me btw? I want to own a small business, I need to register a fictitious business name, then when I start getting pay checks again, deposit them into a business account under that name. I will have earned the money at work, but can show good credit. Now why does a president need to be voted for, for me to feel that I have the right to not get screwed out of a loan, or robbed with a gun.

If a president gets voted in, and I didn't vote against him, does that mean I should get robbed at gun point by some jack ass who loaded it and wants to swing it towards me to prove I'm a scared git or some bullshit? Really, I want to make complaints about people as human beings, since I'm a human being. When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with Lewinsky, the whole world was in disbelief. Should I have said "hey, if you don't like him, you should have voted for someone else"? Is it ok to point out that someone is wrong? Obama is clearly wrong to be such an ass hole, if I would have voted for Hillary Clinton, I don't feel she would have done much better.

So there are other candidates besides the two party system, but we haven't even gone through nominations yet, so what good is it to point the blame finger at this point naming all the people who are and aren't ignorant? We don't even know who we will be allowed to vote for yet. And honestly a half dozen nominees over two nominees isn't always much better.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #16281757 - 05/25/12 12:45 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
If I vote, it won't be Romney, it won't be Obama. If it doesn't turn out to be a guy from New Mexico who apparently left the state with a Surplus, then I don't know who it will be.

That's all there is to it, it's that or I don't vote. Don't call it ignorance, I don't want to vote for someone that is a crook. Between two fascist mother fuckers, I don't want to vote




So don't vote. As a country we'll be better off if people like you don't.




:lol: oh no as a country, we really value luvdemshrooms vote, and are awaiting his vote to better our country, as much as he has bettered the shroomery. If his vote is worth half a damn as much as his opinion around here, we will be much better off as a country, if valuable people like him vote. Agreed? :shrug:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16281784 - 05/25/12 12:57 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

fireworks_god said:

I've never really understood why people think that a third-party would spur much change in how things work in national politics.




It would stop all the people bitching about "choosing between two fascists" as imachevel said previously, and many like him say reguarly.  It would also prevent a binary false choice being presented to the voters where a popular solution is ignored for political reasons.

The loosing party(s) would have the option of exploiting that choice and incorporating into their platform to gain support.  No longer could the democrats and republicans select two people both succeptible to the same criticism and thus unwilling to make a major issue out of the matter.  For example, campaign finance prohibitions are quite popular but often difficult for a politician, like Obama, to raise when he knows he'll be challenged on his past conduct.

More cynically, it would make it more difficult for the partys to (intentionally or not) negotiate themselves to avoid enacting popular change.  No longer would it be as easy to find two false choices on gay marriage, for example, one person against it and one person against it but with sympathetic quips.  The third party candidate can easily expose the hypocrasy and adopt a real alternative. 

Even ignoring all these benefits, it would present one more competitive choice and encourage voters to educate themselves.  It would also reduce the perception of races being allready won or silly notions of having to vote for the winning candidate (or a competitive candidate) to effect change.

Quote:

All it would mean is that a coalition government would have to be formed and the same types of compromises that are made within one of the two parties that exist now would be made then, too.




So what?  Adding a third party would require a third point to be considered and incorporated and would benefit the public by government action more percisely reflecting popular wishes.  In any case, one of the more overrated qualities in government is "getting things done", in my opinion.  How much bullshit do you hear on a monthly basis in the US that is manifestly a bad idea?  Reducing the ability of such crap to pass without solid support is fine.

Quote:


One of the primary reasons you see more than two parties in other countries, I think, is simply because they are smaller countries and an appropriate amount of efficiency can be maintained with more than two parties. I have reason to believe that the power dynamic in the States with more than two parties would simply be inefficient, which is exactly why it doesn't really happen ever.




I always thought it had more to do with the way votes and representation is alloted.

Many of those countries don't have winner take all elections for each legislative seat.  Isn't this correct?

Quote:


No one expects that the pet interests of a smaller group of people aren't going to be blended together with those of other people, and the real problem with how things happen nationally isn't the dominance of only two parties, but rather the dominant inactivity of the country's citizens in ensuring that their interests are being represented




I agree, but that doesn't besmirch the benefits of a third party.  It enlarges the acceptable scope of options for people who are incapable of educating themselves on the issue broadly before choosing to support a given position.

Quote:

Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted every election cycle due to all the political advertising. They don't need to come to you to get your vote if you go to them. :wink:




Agreed.  That those ads seem to work is a great indicator of problems with the electorate, in my opinion.  Especially given the content of the adds being worthless, what kind of thought process could possibly be going through someone's mind who bases a decision on those ads?  Even if they are decided and the add simply drives them to vote, it still seems quite irresponsible.




now you almost seem to be contradicting that you believe in a two party system. First you say having a third party system is very very useful. Now you say it makes things difficult. Tell me, do you believe by someone voting they are doing their country a great service? Do you know a person who has a license with a house address can vote? A bum can use his brothers house address, if he lived there for a few months, go take a shower, then show up with an i.d. and voters card, and then vote. Does it help to see millions of ignorant voters?

People also need to make wise decisions day to day, not think with their wallets and throw into a ballot to try and better just their life, but to think of a country as a whole. People who spend their life bickering, and calling others ignorant, but never seeing things from a wide open perspective, truly waste this countries time, and are much much better off not voting with their waste of time fake opinion, claiming it will help everyone. If Hitler decides to take a bunch of Nazis under his wing, then tell them to go kill 10 millions Jews, does it really really really mean they have to? Does god not command them in a higher way then Hitler did?

I'm not a believer of god, I'm an athiest. But I believe that the power of god makes the highest decision, meaning that morally god makes the ultimate choice. Where do people get off always doing the wrong thing and claiming it's ok to fuck up their lives entirely then when they go vote it fixes everything. Voting should be done the way a persons life is lived, without ignorance. Shit, I can go vote anywhere, where a party system is used. At work even if we are voting for best manager of the month. If the manager of the month, was someone I voted for because he gave me the biggest pay check, but I went out with him, learned his morals, did drugs because I copied him, cheated on my wife because I copied him, then go vote to better my position financially, but make no better decisions in my life but to keep being a slack fucking loser, wanting to vote for the next president to help welfare because I believe in 'the poor', does that make sense?

You know in our country Obama has squandered away billions, and yet believe it or not, he has done tremendous things to help the poor in other countries, much more so then most presidents who've been elected in history. In most countries, he is a fucking hero. Shit, maybe he should get elected again. When this country blows up I'll need to go move to one of those countries he fixed. I don't see why not, it's my right to chance my citizenship, when I don't believe in what this country is doing for me anymore :wink:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16282383 - 05/25/12 07:36 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
It would stop all the people bitching about "choosing between two fascists" as imachevel said previously, and many like him say reguarly.  It would also prevent a binary false choice being presented to the voters where a popular solution is ignored for political reasons.




I suppose that this is a great point. It made me curious to look up the voter participation rate by country, to do some comparison. What you're describing here actually seems to be much more of a significant road-block to voters getting more involved than I initially recognized. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences

The chart for turnout in lower house elections is really interesting. Look at all those European countries, where turnout is around 80%. Austria has a rate of 92% there! And then, scroll down, d-o-w-n down, to the United States, with a grand total of 48%. The difference is the proportional system, it really seems...



Quote:


So what?  Adding a third party would require a third point to be considered and incorporated and would benefit the public by government action more percisely reflecting popular wishes.




I was originally getting to how factions and different movements still exist within the same party, which would be similar to having two distinct parties that have to share power, but I think you're right that this doesn't serve the greater interest as much as having multiple parties would.

Quote:


I always thought it had more to do with the way votes and representation is alloted.





I think both of these are factors, but I'm beginning to think that what you mention is more influential.

Quote:


Agreed.  That those ads seem to work is a great indicator of problems with the electorate, in my opinion.  Especially given the content of the adds being worthless, what kind of thought process could possibly be going through someone's mind who bases a decision on those ads?  Even if they are decided and the add simply drives them to vote, it still seems quite irresponsible.




I think these ads work in the sense that they paint broad hues that enter into the average voter's subconscious and form a sort of emotional mood about who to vote for. Then there are the people who already would have decided for whatever reason they have...


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16282476 - 05/25/12 08:22 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Yes.  Most of it happened around 70 years ago.



Correct; if you consider the rise of the middle class "damage".



I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16286794 - 05/26/12 07:33 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I never got asked if it was ok to rip it out of my check.  They promised to give it to me when I retired and I see no reason to feel bad about taking it.

Had I gotten the money instead I'd be way the fuck ahead today.  I know how to invest and save. Most suckers do not.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Icelander]
    #16287259 - 05/26/12 10:48 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

"'2013' could mean three things. First, since we will be in the second quarter of fiscal 2013 when he is sworn in, he could be looking for a budget surplus to end the year with a net deficit of zero. Second, he could mean getting spending to equal revenues by the end of fiscal 2013. Or Johnson could mean that the budget he submits at this time next year will be balanced, and hopefully will pass. Regardless of which, any are better than what we’ve had over the last decade.

Johnson’s budget proposal is the most fiscally conservative of any of the candidates. Ron Paul has proposed to cut $1 trillion in spending in year one, but that will leave us with a deficit of $300 billion or more. Only Gary Johnson is prepared to achieve the Tea Party dream of a balanced budget in his first year.

If nothing else you can be certain that Johnson will implement as much spending restraint as he is able as Chief Executive with or without Congress’s approval. And you can be certain that no new spending will get passed while he is president with less than 2/3rds support in both houses. After all, Johnson vetoed 32% of bills passed by the New Mexico legislature during his tenure (over 750 vetoes)β€”more than all of the other Governors combined during the same time period, earning him the nickname β€œGovernor Veto.” If Republicans gain control of the Senate and return to their big spending ways as they are wont to do, President Johnson will keep them in check."

:http://www.ldjackson.net/obama-versus-gary-johnson-on-the-budget/


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16287276 - 05/26/12 10:53 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
I will, but only because it gives me an easy comeback against people who claim that people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on policy decisions.  In general, I don't think it is an activity that is worth my time.




:thumbup:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
    #16287286 - 05/26/12 10:56 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

wildernessjunkie said:
Not going to vote.

Every politician is a puppet of large corporation and big banking.




what's this based on?  Sounds awfully like some made up crap to console yourself.  What "big banking" is ralph nader a puppet of?  The socialist/communist leaning candidates?  Many of them would destroy much if not all of the banking industry in the US.

It seems utterly impossible you have any rational reason to believe this.

Quote:


Further, the president cannot change policy without the house and Senate approval.




Same question, though this one is self-evidently false.  There's a constantly expanding apparatus that the administration has control over, and those agencies promulgate a ton of administrative law that has real force of law (sometimes criminal law) behind it.

This is quite ignorant a statement.

Quote:

Any promise that any presidential candidate makes is an empty promise. The whole concept of checks and balances guarantees that anything that is not directly in the interests of the individual politician, will not pass.





No.

Quote:

The system is broken.




Gee, do you think that might be because some unmentioned people don't even know what the office they're voting for does?

Its no surprise that Presidents can get away with lieing to people during campaigns if they have such radically incorrect views on the nature of the office.




why can't you admit that what you are arguing against is 51% of the time mostly true?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #16292133 - 05/27/12 12:15 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.



That's part of living in a civilized society.  We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.

Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security.  Oh wait, what country would that be?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBackwards2012
Stranger
Registered: 05/26/12
Posts: 44
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16292167 - 05/27/12 12:24 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.




Social security recipients are people too, my friend.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16295155 - 05/28/12 12:26 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.



That's part of living in a civilized society.  We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.




What a crock of shit.  At this point there is almost no one (who worked) who would not have much more retirement money if they didn't have a huge percentage of their wages confiscated.  And since when is the government the only agency for charity?  Had to live off their savings?  Well isn't that what a retirement account is for?
Quote:



 

Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security.  Oh wait, what country would that be?




:rofl2:  I can assure you that none of my retirement planning relies on soc sec.  Because it sucks.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Backwards2012]
    #16295160 - 05/28/12 12:27 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Backwards2012 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.




Social security recipients are people too, my friend.



No shit.  The soc sec recipients toady would have been a lot better off if they never contributed a nickel.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #16295564 - 05/28/12 01:44 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage.  Huge damage.



That's part of living in a civilized society.  We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.

Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security.  Oh wait, what country would that be?




You can be against social security but not against safety nets.  You do realize that social security opponents would not have old people begging in the snow right?  I hope you are just being dramatic and dont actually believe what you have said...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
    #16296744 - 05/28/12 05:49 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
You do realize that social security opponents would not have old people begging in the snow right?  I hope you are just being dramatic and dont actually believe what you have said...



Oh really?  Do tell.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #16297687 - 05/28/12 08:40 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

anyone saws this episode of south park?:

Stan tries to save money by depositing it into the bank but it "disappears" moments after, when the bank-owner deliberatly removes the money from his account instead of depositing it. A recession then hits the nation and South Park. Randy explains to Stan that the economy is failing due to people spending their money on luxuries. Ironically, he continues his tirade while making himself a margarita in a Margaritaville-brand mixer, the noise of which drowns out his voice.

As a subplot, Stan spends most of the episode trying to return the aforementioned Margaritaville mixer. The trendy retailer Sur La Table will not accept the return because it was bought on a payment plan. He tries to find out to whom he can return it, each person saying the debt has been packaged and sold to someone else (much like real-life mortgage-backed securities). Eventually he goes all the way to the United States Treasury, where a group of associates "consult the charts" and tell him the mixer is worth $90 trillion

actually what he really says is:

Stan: I want to return this Margaritaville! My dad bought it on a payment plan set up by a finance company that got investors from Wall Street who combined it into securities sold to the banks who transferred it to you!

Treasurer: Oh, that makes sense.

Stan: GAH!


:lol:

and the Jersey shore one had me rolling for 30 minutes as well. But anyway does this sound familiar? Any president to vote for who will try and change this horse shit? But until the nominees come forward, there is nothing we can do but guess. We know two people who will be nominated, Obama and Mitt Romney. But I'm not voting for either of those two fucks!


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineyoimjohn
Male


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16301116 - 05/29/12 02:12 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
anyone saws this episode of south park?:

Stan tries to save money by depositing it into the bank but it "disappears" moments after, when the bank-owner deliberatly removes the money from his account instead of depositing it. A recession then hits the nation and South Park. Randy explains to Stan that the economy is failing due to people spending their money on luxuries. Ironically, he continues his tirade while making himself a margarita in a Margaritaville-brand mixer, the noise of which drowns out his voice.

As a subplot, Stan spends most of the episode trying to return the aforementioned Margaritaville mixer. The trendy retailer Sur La Table will not accept the return because it was bought on a payment plan. He tries to find out to whom he can return it, each person saying the debt has been packaged and sold to someone else (much like real-life mortgage-backed securities). Eventually he goes all the way to the United States Treasury, where a group of associates "consult the charts" and tell him the mixer is worth $90 trillion

actually what he really says is:

Stan: I want to return this Margaritaville! My dad bought it on a payment plan set up by a finance company that got investors from Wall Street who combined it into securities sold to the banks who transferred it to you!

Treasurer: Oh, that makes sense.

Stan: GAH!


:lol:

and the Jersey shore one had me rolling for 30 minutes as well. But anyway does this sound familiar? Any president to vote for who will try and change this horse shit? But until the nominees come forward, there is nothing we can do but guess. We know two people who will be nominated, Obama and Mitt Romney. But I'm not voting for either of those two fucks!





southpark- and its gone!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 seconds
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: yoimjohn]
    #16302252 - 05/29/12 06:37 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

hahahha! They are all full of shit huh? Hahahaha :lol:

btw they are making fun of an old Jim Carey sketch aren't they? "And it's gone!" Or maybe just some rip off of Saturday night live style of comedy. Not that Saturday night live can compete with South Park. It's not even remotely funny, while south park is fucking hilarious!


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (05/29/12 06:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeny

Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 387
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: imachavel]
    #16325054 - 06/03/12 03:14 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Dont you think voting in america is pretty useless, as there's no compulsory voting? Only loonies and radicals vote atm imo lol :cool:


--------------------
Ik hou van je

While you're still sleeping the saints are still weepin' cause things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born. -Scatman John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Xeny] * 1
    #16325858 - 06/03/12 10:49 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

False.  Another European who knows nothing about America.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Xeny]
    #16325895 - 06/03/12 11:01 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Xeny said:
Dont you think voting in america is pretty useless, as there's no compulsory voting? Only loonies and radicals vote atm imo lol :cool:




Compulsory voting brings out the losers who shouldn't be voting anyway.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeny

Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 387
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #16329872 - 06/04/12 03:22 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Don't have to know much about America to state that. Every country where the votes are cast by the people who have the most intrest in the outcome, has no way of a true democracy. (democracy is shit anyways)

How is it a representation of public opinion, when only a fraction of the public votes?


--------------------
Ik hou van je

While you're still sleeping the saints are still weepin' cause things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born. -Scatman John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeny

Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 387
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Xeny]
    #16329886 - 06/04/12 03:27 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Plus.. [wiki] the method of voting is first-past-the-post where the highest polling candidate is elected. In the case of the Presidential electoral college the highest polling party elects 100% of the number of positions allocated to that state.
There is no legislative requirement that the successful candidate or party must obtain a majority (50% or more) of the vote. The number of seats allocated are not proportional to the overall vote. Further there is no requirement or threshold in the number or percentage of voter turnout which is often below 50% of the eligible voters

Just ha. ha ha ha


--------------------
Ik hou van je

While you're still sleeping the saints are still weepin' cause things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born. -Scatman John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Xeny]
    #16329892 - 06/04/12 03:31 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Xeny said:
How is it a representation of public opinion, when only a fraction of the public votes?




It's a representation of public opinion insomuch that it is the only public that has an opinion in how their government should be conducted. If you don't vote, then you don't really have an opinion, do you? It'd be like being asked what kind of pizza you have and thinking to yourself "Pepperoni", but never telling the person that it's what you want. What do you expect to get in such a case?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeny

Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 387
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #16330324 - 06/04/12 08:00 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

You single handedly figured out why there should be compulsary voting!

(if you dont get it: Pizzas with anchovy suck, so you're forced to express your opinion (how non-conformist it may be) to get pepperoni and all that other good shit


--------------------
Ik hou van je

While you're still sleeping the saints are still weepin' cause things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born. -Scatman John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeny

Registered: 02/15/08
Posts: 387
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Xeny]
    #16330333 - 06/04/12 08:02 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

In plain words: Doesn't matter too much what you vote for, as long as you represent yourself. (uhum)


--------------------
Ik hou van je

While you're still sleeping the saints are still weepin' cause things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born. -Scatman John

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why do we have presidential elections?
( 1 2 all )
Strumpling 3,692 22 11/08/21 09:30 AM
by fungusamongus12
* How E-Voting Threatens Democracy Vvellum 842 13 06/25/04 01:20 PM
by Crobih
* 2004 presidential election, PAL style.
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,362 39 07/23/04 06:28 AM
by coralrives
* 2 days to Australian election!! Dont vote For ... Zen Peddler 914 4 11/11/01 08:08 PM
by Innvertigo
* Interesting (but long) article on electronic voting. luvdemshrooms 794 0 10/15/03 03:44 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 5,496 10 11/06/04 08:23 AM
by ekomstop
* Election 2004: Giant Douchebag vs. Turd Sandwich usefulidiot 611 1 11/02/04 11:56 AM
by z@z.com
* We're fucked. US computerised vote tallying may be rigged enotake2 1,869 18 01/02/04 01:25 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
11,965 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.187 seconds spending 0.041 seconds on 21 queries.