I agree.

Speaking of birthers, Donald Trump was on Fox News this morning (I know, I know), this time calling for Obama's college records, with the Fox and Friends people nodding in agreement. Just insane.

seriously that is so fucking disgusting :2 cents::2 cents:

It's gotten so bad that now even Mitt wants to know what Romney's hiding!



https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g

Fucking dumb.

And people eat that shit up. That's the worst part.

They'd rather worry about Obama partying in high school and college (like every normal person does) or Romney trying to keep his own money (like every normal person does).

I'd like to know: What are they going to do with the mess our country is in? The economy in shambles, our personal freedoms deteriorating, people on welfare, the govt. so far in debt we will never be able to pay it off...

Jewish chick with big naturals promises to sort out the issues...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=2B5o6-qNk6Q

always sickens me when hollywood gets behind any candidate. just shows how fucking clueless they are.

Freaky_Akula = Donald Trump. Great to meet ya, knucklehead

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

hey you buzzkill. don't ruin a great fairy tale with facts.

ps - i am not an obama supporter. i just like facts.

People in the bible belt don't know the definition of hypocrisy.

Actually most Americans don't know the definition of hypocrisy.

Robbie, i think you and i are in about the same demographic. and i'm a student of economic history. that said, go look up tax rates during America's true heyday in the 50s and 60s.

the myth that high tax rates on the rich impede economic growth is just that. a myth.

i believe it's because right-wingers especially have been conditioned to think that any statements that don't agree with their "thoughts" immediately means you're a "liberal". even if you're like me and think that the whole lib v con thing is a total sham.

Every newspaper should re-print this for truth.

Companies hire when they need to. They buy shit, when they need to. It's all born out of necessity. Taxes are an after thought. You can have tax credits to hire people all day long, but what will still matter is if people are needed / if there is a role for them to fill.

CONFIDENCE + PERCEPTION is what drives the world economy. The economy sucks cause everyone is down. People buy less, conserve, etc. When things are going "great" people buy more. They think they have enough cash in their pocket to buy more shit. It's all a game of turnover. If you listen to what any of the GREATS like Warren Buffet / George Soros say about the bailouts. The $ was whatever to the banks, in some instances the banks didn't need it. The main function was to send a message to the world that the US gov't would back everyone. This was to create confidence, and a backstop against a massive run on all the banks, which would've ended in real contagion. It was a CONFIDENCE play.

i sure don't think that. and i'm a libertarian.

the definition of libertarianism that i adhere to is that government's function is to protect the people from Force and Fraud.

Successful people aren't inherently evil, but a taste of big money makes a lot of people totally amoral. for fuck's sake, we've seen that in the porn biz a zillion times. what makes you think it would be any different in the government biz, where the dollars are infinitely higher?

And that's why you need regulation. Look at the deregulation of the S&L's (in the '80s, where owners of S&L's turned their 'banks' into their personal piggy banks) and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which sewed the seeds of the financial crisis that we're still dealing with.

Ivory Tower libertarians forget one core thing. HUMAN NATURE.

I think Romney is hiding more of what we've already seen.

Years where he has banked incredible amounts of income, and incredibly low taxation rates, except potentially lower than the 14% we've already seen. Imagine if he had a year where he made 10-20m, but paid 0-5% in taxes due to shielding, that he was so effective in tax shielding he paid literally nothing or close to nothing. Even if it is the same 14%, it will just re-ignite the conversation again and for weeks until the election we'll be talking about it. It will just pour more gasoline on the fire. The more we talk about his tax returns, the less likely he will win the election. Obama is dictating the narrative, and thats how you win elections.

As for why Obama is pounding home the Bain exit departure date. There has been a lot of bad investments for Romney. One was Stericycle. They are a medical waste company, that disposed of aborted fetuses. That won't be good for his base. There is also a slew of outsourcing companies. There are also outsourcing companies where investments were made prior to his 1999 departure date. If we keep talking about this, Obama wins.

Romney will just keep pointing at the Jobs numbers, thats all he really has, which is pretty powerful in and of itself.

I don't think that tax rates can cause economic growth. But I do believe that high tax rates drive business away.

Hell, all you have to do is watch what happens state to state.

When a state gives companies tax breaks...they flock there. And when states are expensive to do business in...they leave.

I live in Las Vegas right now in part because I was tired of paying high state income tax.

I think that when the economy is roaring....it's a mixture of things all happening at once.

I don't think that low taxes make it happen. But I also don't believe that we can fix this economy by raising taxes. I see no evidence that giving MORE money to the federal govt. to waste is the answer to fixing the economy.

Do you?

that is true. and what obama needs to keep reminding people is that he inherited the worst mess since the depression. again, i'm not for either of them, but facts are facts. you don't get out of a near-depression situation in a few years. it takes a long damn time.

obama's just another politician, and a chicago one at that. if he really was about change, we'd already see some high-level big bank execs on trial, and some meaningful change in bankining regulation (i.e. re-enacting Glass-Steagall). but he isn't, so we don't.

doesn't matter who's in the white house or in control of congress. this all plays out on a level higher than politics.

you only quoted the second half of my comment.

if you can be bothered, go look up tax rates during the 50s and 60s. you'll see that high tax rates didn't deter people from starting businesses etc. we've had 30+ years of proof that 'trickle down' economics is a sham.

But...Reagan did it. For whatever reasons...the stars aligned and Reagan did it in a couple of years.

And also we have Obama's own words...that if he couldn't fix things in 3 years that his Presidency was going to be a "one term proposition"

My thought since the beginning of Obama's presidency was that he shouldn't have spent the first two years the way he did.

He had both houses of Congress and all they did was argue and do nothing. Obama seemed disconnected to me during that time and seemed to hand the ball over to Congress.

The result was a health insurance bill.

It should have been a focus on getting the economy straightened out.

I voted for Obama...and like a lot of people who did, I am very disappointed.

Everybody forgets that the Bush years were ROARING. We all made tons of money for 6 1/2 years of the 8.

When Obama came in...it was bad. But not nearly as bad as it got by his second and third years.

The economy had just started really faltering at the end of Bush's term.

It wasn't the worst in our lifetimes yet. Hell, it wasn't even CLOSE to what Reagan inherited from the Carter years.

But within a year of Obama being in office...and the Senate and House not doing anything even though it was all Democratically controlled...we found ourselves in the worst economy of my lifetime.

Hell...there hasn't even been ONE budget passed in almost 4 years. It's really a mess.

it wasn't that the stars aligned. they did it right. they shut down the shit S&L's, sold off their assets for pennies on the dollar. there was a real estate crash and a recession, but nowhere near what we're dealing with now because they made the right decision to take some short term pain for long term gain. credit where it's due.

Couldn't agree more. He should have spent his capital on fixing the economy and corrupt banking industry. But since he's just a whore to big bidniss (news flash, he isn't a socialist!!) like every other national level politician, he didn't.

To be fair, the repubs took the filibuster to an unprecedented level.

That's what I would have done, were i in his position. but i actually care about this country ;)

I didn't.. because while i think he was a better choice than McCain and his clueless vp nominee, i knew he was just another politician

Yes those years were roaring due to a real estate bubble created by massive fraud, created by the banks (who created the ripe for fraud BS loan products and paid 3x the commission on those than they did on standard loans) and the sleazy or gullible consumers who took those loans.

Slice up the blame pie however you like, but the whole thing was unsustainable.

Robbie, this is factually inaccurate.

A-fucking-men. As my wife once astutely said, this country needs a complete political enema.

Thing is...I haven't even heard of any actual fillibuster's taking place.

As I understood it...the Republicans threatened to do it...and the Dems caved in. No actual week long fillibuster's ever happened (like they used to do 100 years ago)

So the Dems decided that they don't have a "super majority" to put down a fillibuster and so they just didn't even bother.
Oh wait a minute...they DID have a super majority at one point. But they still didn't DO anything. :(

Politicians get away with everything. They lie and cheat. They send thousands of young men to faraway countries to die in meaningless wars. They never do what they promised. And the next guy will not be any better.

I have two issues with your post

One, on regulation:

http://cdn4.diggstatic.com/story/the...poratism/o.png

There has NEVER been any "deregulation" that actually happened in the US. It's a political myth perpetuated to get us to buy into yet more regulations.

And two, on human nature:

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat,



In other words, people in government as just as bad, or worse, then the rest of us. The only difference is that they can use FORCE in order to make us comply with their decisions.




.:2 cents:

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...3-england.html
etc etc etc
Apparently the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 wasn't about deregulation. ok.

Regarding the mortgage crisis of 2008:

If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't deregulation, then i'm at a loss. It removed the previous regulation which stipulated that retail banks could not get into the investment banking business. That meant they were now free to make all sorts of wild bets with depositor's money.

In 1998, the CFTC proposed to regulate the derivatives market (which it oversaw), a $50 Trillion unregulated market/casino that included things like CDO's and Credit Default Swaps . It was shot down by the Clinton administration. In 2000 Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe (and future vice-chairman of UBS, hmmm) Phil Gramm introduced and got passed a law that basically prevented any regulation of derivatives.

So sure, that wasn't deregulation. It was the prevention of any regulation.

Also, the SEC's enforcement division's ability to regulate was systematically gutted by rules changes and dramatic staff cuts. It's pretty hard to regulate with your hands tied and a skeleton staff. That to me is blatant de facto deregulation.




This is just silly. So because all humans are imperfect and some are easily corrupted, we should just have no regulation at all? Please.

Exactly....Which is why he needs to DISCLOSE how he took advantage of every tax loophole and get folks off of his back.....Also, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW what he took advantage of or not because YOU haven't seen his tax records....It's amazing how you act like you and Romney are bosom buddies and you know all of his business.

I'm loving how folks like you are trying to dance around the issue now....If obama fucks up, I admit it....If Romney fucks up, folks like you start dancing the Charleston.

If it were me I would say..."It's none of your business" when they ask about my tax documents. I don't think it's any kind of law that says you have to anyway. It's just something the media started up a while back.

Romney made public his last two years of taxes. Exactly what I had to do to finance my home.

The day a politician FINALLY looks at the media and just tells them "It's none of your business and has nothing to do with the job of being President" on any of these non-issues...I'm voting for that guy.

I thought Clinton should have said that when they asked him about Monica Lewinski. I think Obama should have said it when they started up about the whole birth certificate fiasco. And I think Romney should say it now.
NONE of them will though.

And besides getting some cool bro points from you, he'll go down in flames....Because it IS MY BUSINESS if you're making laws and policies that run my fucking life, which is a little more complicated and way more important to me and the rest of the country than getting a home mortgage.

There's no law, that's for sure. I think there's a general expectation that if you're running for high office that your cards need to be on the table.

The media didn't start this. Of all people, Romney's father George started the practice 40+ years ago. He released his past 12 years tax returns as part of his bid for the republican nomination. Since then, every presidential candidate has been forthcoming with their tax returns.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinio...tax/index.html

his balling hard.

i gotta disagree. he would be a flaming retard if he is just hiding more of the same. by doing so, he is taking fire for being secretive, all to shield himself from something he is already taking fire for. makes no sense. also, the media has the attention span of a jerrys kid. no need to drag it out any longer then necessary.

no no. There is a BIG FISH in those taxes. something much more serious then tax loopholes. I'm certain if it comes out, it will be very bad.

DTK - when someone says outright that there has never been deregulation...at that point is is best to recognize that nothing you say will result in enlightenment. If he even replies to you, which i guarantee he wont, because his comment is so absurd on the face, it will just be more of the same.

I was just reading through all of the plans Romney has to fix the problems of the country.

No, I'm just kidding... he doesn't have any plans. :)

"I'm going to Repeal and Replace Obama Care on day one!"

And replace it with what again?

Oh yeah, no plan whatsoever....

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...7/70/Moron.jpg

Look at me! I'm gonna vote for the guy with no plan!

So Im supposed to be outraged about romney's money but I shouldnt care what obama does with MY money and just hand over more.... noted.

he has a plan. they are just small potatoes. allow for interstate sales of health insurance, limit medical malpractice claims, & require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.

He is totally screwed on health care, just like kerry was hamstrung by iraq - opposing something he previous supported. Most likely romney will avoid the health care issue like plague come the fall. He will only talk about jobs. its all he's got.

And the Romney jobs plan is?.....

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Drill baby, drill.

on a more serious note, he did say something that made my heart swoon during the primary. He was the only candidate (other then trump who never ran) who says he need to declare a trade war on china. Now i don't believe for a second that would happen. But it was nice that one politician, out of all the repubs & obama, said he would take on china. China is a fucking leech & we need to go to trade war, they are sucking this country dry of jobs. all with the help of american elites, who make better margins for helping them do it.

You're right of course. My reply wasn't really for him so much as everyone else.

He could replace it with the plan he enacted in Massachusetts. OH WAIT, IT'S THE SAME PLAN! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Does get a little tricky when we owe them over $1 Trillion bucks

US: "Hey you currency manipulating, unfair trading fuckers, it's time for you to play straight!"
China: "Sure thing..cough up that 1 Tril you owe us and we'll talk"

;)

100 romney secrets :thumbsup

yes. bashing china is a horse & pony show for the elites. somehow once someone has any power to take on china, the illuminati step in & straighten him out.

:pimp

Here ya go:
http://www.scribd.com/document_downl...pdf&from=embed

It's been available online for anyone to read for about 2 years now.

So why would it matter to you NOW...but if you were voting for Lyndon Johnson or JFK in the 1960's or for that matter ANY president before the last few decades..you wouldn't have cared less about their personal money or their tax returns? Nobody put out their tax returns in any govt. election until the 1970's. It's a very recent thing.

It's a gimmick, that's all. Has absolutely nothing to do with being President. Just like the million other bullshit things that they do in the last few decades.

They grill Presidents about stupid stuff that has nothing to do with running the country.

Do I care if Obama got high when he was younger? No. I don't even care if he gets high tonight when he goes to bed (nobody says a word when our President's get drunk by the way).
As long as he is sober and ready to go in the morning at work.

Do I care if Clinton loved to fuck strange pussy while he was President? No. Had nothing to do with running the country.

Do I care that Bush was an alcoholic and did a lot of cocaine? No.

Do I care that Romney put his dog in a carrier on top of his car 20 years ago. No.

These are all just distractions that the media uses to get ratings and turn the election into a circus.

Not really, I know people that managed to escape the massachusetts plan by moving out of state.

Utter nonsense. I have dealt with the banking industry daily for years. I own a bank consulting group. There is NO sector of business that is more regulated than banking. Just because there is one area where there is less regulation does not wipe out the MASSIVE volumes of regulation on the other side. There is no way that the derivatives market would have gone anywhere if it wasn't for government regulation and intervention. The enforcement of CRA, which forced banks to make more risky loans, coupled with the subsequent buying of the risk by FHLMC and FNMA, sent banks into areas that normal free market risk tolerances would NEVER have allowed. Normal risk management procedures were thrown out the window when the government was there to take the normal flow of risk and profit away. AS far as Glass Steigall's repeal, the bulk of the lending was done by companies like Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Indy Mac, and the dozens of smaller specialized subprime lenders that were neither commercial banks nor investment banks. The smaller mortgage companies sold the loans they made either to FHLMC and FNMA for packaging and sale into the securities markets, as they always had done. Washington Mutual and Indy Mac kept a lot of their production in their own portfolios. The companies that packaged the securities included some commercial bank/investment bank combinations, notably Citigroup. But Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, which together accounted for most of the privately issued [non-FHLMC and FNMA] packaged loans sold as securities, were not commercial banks at all. European banks that participated, such as Barclay's, were universal banks before the repeal. AIG, which enabled some of the worst securities by writing CDSs, was neither a commercial bank nor an investment bank.

The banks that failed were either thrifts/mortgage banks without investment banks (e.g., Countrywide, Washington Mutual and Indy Mac) or investment banks without commercial banks (e.g., Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and almost Merrill Lynch). AIG was neither. FHLMC and FNMA were neither.

This always occurs when you mess with any organic, complex system. The same things happen when we mess with natures ecosystems, and economics, risk, and markets are just as complex.

Unfortunately when government intervention then causes these extreme boom and bust cycles, people then call for MORE intervention, (as my Corporatism graphic pointed out).



.

I just read through it. No details whatsoever, and no chance of the bulk of it ever happening.

He should add a line where every citizen gets their own genie on day one too, as it is just as likely to occur. :2 cents:

you didn't bother to address what i was talking about, which was your easily disprovable assertion that there has never been any 'deregulation' in the US.

Actually, I directly addressed it.

"De-regulation" cannot be said to have occurred when government involvement actually cumulatively INCREASES.

De-regulation implies that government involvement goes away, or at least decreasese overall, regarding an industry. This has never happened.


I understand that government likes to SAY that they are "de-regulating", but if you are involved in the actually industry that they are talking about , you realize that this is not true. Regulations and government involvement simply changes to favour the biggest lobby players in a given arena.



.:2 cents: