#7607 Apr 24, 2013
It is incomprehensible that somebody could build their net worth, through home ownership, and then have the powers that be destroy that home through government permitted error, and then deny responsiblity or accountablity and deny due process, basic liberty, or legal representation. There were just too many, so you own it free of debt, the government through fraud permits harm, then through added harm, says none of that matters making it very difficult to restart.
While they hold the citizen hostage, counting on government tyranny to do nothing, making it very difficult to spend resources to restart. So in essence you have the government taking people into poverty, adding harm, so they can't fight out of the poverty, then wiping them out when they try to protect liberty, that they can't reboot. What becomes the result? The top creating the jobs, not the middle or working class, the antithesis of what this country was founded upon.
Then in the event you find an innovator from the middle or working class, you exploit the efforts through hostage taking, I realize it is called something else, what I don't know, but something, and do nothing until they are wiped out, and have no choice but to be held exploited by the top. And what did the person do? Try to build worth through buying and paying off a home, what the core values in America say to do.
And your response back is get a job, reinforcing exactly what is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon, as it was founded upon create a job, and build up.
Our founding fathers were founding...
How about stating that all citizens have rights to liberty, due process and the constitutional rights to be free of harm when buying a new home in the USA as the start, and when they are harmed, they are compensated for that harm? Then you have the basics back so the innovator can reboot, and create jobs.
#7608 Apr 24, 2013
Conservatives would watch Obama turn rain-drops into gold nuggets and complain about him littering.
Then in the same breath they would propose pipelines across aquifers because David Koch told them to.
#7609 Apr 24, 2013
Wow - Right Wing Planet has its own Bible !!!
You see, my old King James version has Leviticus in the Old Testament - long, long, long, long, long, before Jesus was born.
But there on Right Wing Planet, Jesus came to us twice - once as an old dude named Leviticus - then later as Jesus.
I always thought Jesus came to Earth once. Who knew ?
Here's some other interesting abominations and comments from 'Ol Leviticus and his merry band of Old Testament kill joys.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9).
The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).
The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood project?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same
as a you-know-what.
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I wear reading. glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them?(Lev.24:10-16)
Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14)
Gotta love folks who pick and chose which abominations from the Old Testament are important.
As for me- I'm safe - no need to stone me to death - my hair falls out so fast Leviticus' followers won't have to kill me.
#7610 Apr 24, 2013
You know what's funny about that comment? In that very same article from 2000 Gore said "The math still doesn't add up!".
Turns out that it didn't add up.
But Republicans still keep on wanting to follow that path to proven destruction. Idiots.
#7611 Apr 24, 2013
Nationwide, the solar industry says it employs 119,000 people.
Here's some coal dust in your eyes.
"There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S."
"This total does not include indirect employment - workers who are not directly employed in the coal industry, but whose jobs are supported by that industry, which ranges in the low hundreds of thousands."
And here's some fossil fuel to burn you up.
"Even with a breakneck pace of growth, the clean-energy industry would not be creating as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry: It simply is not big enough at the moment to draw in hundreds of thousands of new workers per year. The Pew study, for instance, estimated that 770,000 people worked in green energy. That compares with more than nine million jobs for oil and gas, and many more for coal and other industries."
#7612 Apr 24, 2013
Here's in your eye.
"Solar supporters are going on the offensive about their field's jobs angle. The industry receives considerable government support, and talking about its employment advantages broadens the conversation beyond global warming."
Considerable gubment support = tax dollars wasted.
If it was self supporting, it could work. Being just another welfare agency, it's a lousy proposition.
#7613 Apr 24, 2013
I'm also pretty sure more people are watching Fox Noise than MIT's online seminars.
At least on Right Wing Planet.
Don't worry, we also understand that Right Winger' attention span and reading comprehension issues make it difficult to read more than a single short sentence in one setting.
Thankfully they've made comic book versions of the classics so you can read the comic book version of Robinson Crusoe, it has lots of pictures, and maybe some day you'll read a real "Chapter Book".
#7614 Apr 24, 2013
Don't you understand that somehow, someway, in some manner, we have to pretend that unregulated capitalist don't do what they are supposed to do - that is make the biggest profit possible at anyone and everyone else's expense.
Nope - we have to pretend that isn't their job.
So we have to blame someone, anyone, other than those who nearly destroyed the economy of the entire industrialized world.
Hey, if we can pretend it was smart to invade Iraq because the Saudis blew up the World Trade Center, anything is possible.
#7615 Apr 24, 2013
Don't have a paycheck. Live on investment return.
Forget your ss increase come next year, Obama is cutting your pay.
#7616 Apr 24, 2013
We guessed from your posts you are not a Christian.
Now we know you are not a Jew.
#7617 Apr 24, 2013
Obama's legacy = ruining the country.
"President Barack Obama demands more stimulus spending to avoid the "fiscal cliff." Obama increased the national debt $6 trillion to $16 trillion. Yet the Democrats''cure for what ails ya' is even more spending. Obama demands around $75 billion in new spending to stimulate the economy in 2013.
"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It provides the excuse to depart from common sense that allows politicians to ignore the alarm bells. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend.
If the government had a surplus saved up, spending actual money might give our economy a short-term sugar high (with dubious long-term results). But our Federal and state governments must first suck money out of the economy by borrowing it.
History has repeatedly proven that this is nonsense. Yet Democrats will not let go of the Keynesian Myth. The government is the center of society, America's modern Democrats want to believe. So they cannot shake the dogma that our entire economy depends upon government spending.
The New Deal was the largest real-world test of the Keynesian Myth in recent history. Franklin Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau confessed that the "New Deal" was a failure in sworn testimony before Congress on May 9, 1939.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."
And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.... And an enormous debt to boot!"
#7618 Apr 24, 2013
Glad your inheritance worked out well for you.
We should all pick richer parents.
#7619 Apr 24, 2013
And so does you story beginning in the middleof the story. Let's go back to another decade.
The story is laid out in detail in The Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry and The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. Here it is in a nutshell.
Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.
Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.
Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.
But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.
Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.
#7620 Apr 24, 2013
Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.
With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.
Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.
In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.
#7621 Apr 24, 2013
Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.
The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.
When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate.(A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.
Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations!(Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)
Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.
#7622 Apr 24, 2013
The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted. But they managed to successfully pin the public blame on Republicans, and Barack Obama was elected as a result. If the Democrats are not finally held accountable in the next election, they will continue to wreck the US economy until it is unrecognizable as a free market, and the days of American prosperity will be over.
#7623 Apr 24, 2013
I'll take that as your admission that I was correct that Jesus never said a single bad thing about gays, and that we aren't to judge people for who they like to sleep with.
If you believe the Old Testament verses that say being gay is bad, we also have to believe you think its fine to sell your kids into slavery, but if you get a haircut you're doomed to Hell.
That Muslim Taliban's got nothin compared to our own Christian Taliban.
If the Old Testament is right when it says gays are headed to Hell, then so is those crazed sinners who get haircuts or eat shrimp (another abomination).
We can't pick and choose only parts of the Old Testament to believe now, can we ?
#7624 Apr 24, 2013
Typical liberal tactic of telling only a small prt of the story. That is called a lie, by the way.
Then you follow up with a bunch of name calling because you're too lazy to back up your foolish lies. Nice. By the way, why are solar panels exempt from the made in America Act? Or weren't you aware?
#7625 Apr 24, 2013
Your entire post is built on this fallacy.
Didn't happen. The vast majority of that is Dubya's - as a result of his wars, tax breaks, big pharma gifts and tanking the economy. In the name of ZOG how many more times do we have to go over this?
Let me type it out in capital letters to make it easier to understand:
DID NOT HAPPEN!! MOST OF DEFICIT IS RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES!
Your post- built on a fallacy.
#7626 Apr 24, 2013
Complete fallacy, and it has been covered many many times here.
Add your comments below
|The Billy Crowder Case (Mar '12)||Feb 28||Grayson Massey||94|
|Wilkerson road||Feb 27||Get over it||2|
|Muslim Compound near Odum? (May '07)||Feb 24||Curious||72|
|Electrician (Feb '11)||Feb 23||kody||3|
|Flushed pills prompt couple's fight||Feb 22||Geesh||1|
|isis is here training||Feb 20||isis is here||1|
|Any hot chicks want to make a few dollars?||Feb 19||Jake Meat||1|
Find what you want!
Search Jesup Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC