by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 42,596 - 42,635 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.
Uh-huh.
you do recall who Steven Moore is ? certainly not a Johnny come lately !
Just shows a lack of oxygen to your feeble brain, Bob. Yawning is proof you need more oxygen.
What's your excuse?
There has been debt since 1790.
Incorrect. In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the first and only U.S. President to pay off the national debt.
Do the 10 years of Reagan and Bush I where the debt exploded count as part of the 30 years of single minded crusade?
Having said that, we can't throw the poor and elderly under the bus just because the banksters ruined the financial system.
You can't blame it all on the bankers either. Besides who makes the laws? The Bankers or the Politicians? Besides last time I checked the elderly have a lot of government programs going for them, many of those programs are part of what's causing the government debt.
Seriously it's a two way street my friend. In fact without the government's aid to suppress competition, the bankers would of never made it this far.
I know fake acting when I see it. You don't.
What, you mean just as good as your facial recognition skills?
He also said, we will be f****d by 2020. Does that prediction will come out true as well?
No one denies that Obama inherited a load of crap from Bush, but the Dems have held a majority of at least two and for a while 3 branches of government (House, Senate, WH) since 2006. In over 7 years, why haven't policies been written to improve conditions....
Do they still need MORE time??
False: Republicans frequently deny that large expenses from the Bush administration are a major factor in the spending in the Obama administration.
True: The Obama administration has utterly failed to improve the economy in the past 6 years despite high stock prices that are more reflective of the rich-poor gap and a lowering of the unemployment rate that is due entirely to discounting the long-term unemployed as part of the work force even though those people would gladly work if they had the opportunity.
The reasons for Obama's failures on the economic front include
1. Obama followed the same failed Keynesian economics that caused the Second Great Depression.
2. The Republicans obstructed all efforts to repair the economy, even to the point of deliberate sabotage, in order to make Obama a one-term president, which they failed at anyway.
3. The Obama administration refused to let banks take the loss on the housing bubble collapse, thus prolonging the bubble, preventing people from buying houses and then buying all the stuff people buy after they get a house. By propping up housing prices, both Democrats and Republicans have stopped the virtuous cycle of consumption and production in several of the largest industries in our economy.
As for the solution, eventually time will solve the economic problems. Neither major party has done anything to improve the condition. Republicans, however, would make the economy even worse by driving up the already too high rich-poor gap and eliminating the middle class.
Of course, there is a way to end the Second Great Depression and it doesn't involve useless work like building bridges to nowhere or destructive work like bombing brown children. The way to end this depression is to invest in converting 20th century infrastructure into 21st century infrastructure. We can start with personal maglift vehicles and eliminating the national debt. These two things alone would tremendously improve our economy. Having housing prices finally crash would also stimulate our economy more than Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball stimulates pubescent boys. And if that's not enough, we can create fiber to every household in America and a nationwide public WiFi grid. There's tons of useful work to be done. No need for Keynesian waste.
No one denies that Obama inherited a load of crap from Bush,
People deny it all the time.
Must be the same ones who denied 9/11, and Sandy Hook...
And the same ones who deny climate change, evolution, progressiveness, the value of social safety nets.
They are also the same people
- whose ancestors were slavers.
- who were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws
- who opposed interracial marriage
- who oppose same sex marriage
- who were ok with Bush being appointed president due to election fraud because the ends always justify the means
- who were ok with Bush's illegal wars because the ends always justify the means
Notice a pattern? It's the same assholes screwing up everything. Unfortunately, they breed like rats and make up 1/3rd of our nation's population. Do your country a service by spaying or neutering a redneck today.
If I had time, I'd insert a video of sad-looking rednecks with a Sarah Mclachlan song in the background.
Which is why the debt will continue to get worst regardless of who the next president is. The system is setup that way, we've dug ourselves so deep in the hole that the only thing we can do is dig deeper.
Unless we make some serious reforms which I doubt will happen, so the system will go on until it collapse on itself.
Agreed totally.
And here's how to fix it.
This entire thread appears out of character for the original poster.
He deserved the sentence and will most likely die in prison. However, some of the comments here are juvenile and downright stupid. To paint an entire industry as a bunch of crooks is ridiculous. And,
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch leads the pack as an uneducated, redneck spouting bad taste. 7800 + comments kind of tells you something...doesn't it !!
I believe at least one parent should be home. That's ideal, and deep down we all
know that's what is best.
It is more expensive to give up a job to save money on childcare. Much better for both people to work and outsource childrearing in the daytime to a daycare center. Besides, the previous setup of man the provider and woman the homemaker negatively affected both parties with undue expectations and responsibilities.
But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.
Now back to one-income vs. two-income issue. Having new lower earning workers
(the women earned much less when they entered the work force) bid down wage
levels, just like the availability of Mexican and then Chinese workers a decade
and two later. That is not inflationary, but put downward pressure on prices.
What caused the inflation of the 1970's was simply accommodative central bank
policy printing up money.
Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.
I think this comment on the article pretty well summarizes the problems:
David Pereira
"Unfortunately, when fundamentals are abandoned all artificial stimulus will vaporize as the fundamentals return. Foreclosures are down because consumers have learned how to delay foreclosure and financial institutions have throttled back taking action. I have way too many clients who have not made payments on their homes for over 4 years. Next wave of issues will be the payment shock associated with HELOCs and resetting loan mods... incomes have not kept up to be able to handle the payment shock. Securitizing rentals always was a bad idea as finding good tenants is difficult in a "normal market" and this new addition to the inventory will put even more pressure on. Apartment owners and long time investors have been doing this for years and they will be willing to lower rents to attract the creme of renters leaving the less desirable/risky renters to this new breed of investor who does not have the experience with these problems. To me, this is just another bubble working its artificial inflation only to burst sometime down the road. Advice for those first time home-buyers.... don't buy, wait, your time is coming and just be a little patient. My informal study of real estate agents is a dramatic upsurge in bankruptcy filings by agents even though they are coming off an alleged "great year.""
This entire thread appears out of character for the original poster.
I seriously think he is being sarcastic but you never know, he may have a change of heart. :)
What I see a lot of is old folks getting themselves into "Reverse Mortgages" because they have no money to retire on.
Young who simply have no jobs, because any labor job these days means competing with illegals and offshore, so pay is below minimum wage.
It's hard for everyone except for the wealthy who have money and cheap labor. And until we change this system, it's only going to exacerbate itself.
But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.
Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.
The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb.
Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.
If it was staged, wouldn't the police have known where to go?
Bigsby, I have already told you that I am not convinced that Roig and Fernandez are two different people. The cleft chin and the teeth can be changed cosmetically. Clearly Robbie Parker was acting. Your skills for not seeing that are quite limited. It is a 100 percent certainty that he was acting. It is a 100 percent certainty that Kaitlin Roig was acting.
Here is a little something for you Einstein, er, I mean, Bigsby. The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb. Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.
So, you are a piece of work, Bigsby, more like a piece of crap:
Same old bullshit from you Gary.
But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.
Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.
Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....
And Anderson Cooper, ex CIA intern, knew all about this crap and is a criminal liar. He is also one of the last Vanderbilts. From Google:
Anderson Cooper
Journalist
Anderson Hays Cooper is an American journalist, author, and television personality. He is the primary anchor of the CNN news show Anderson Cooper 360°. Wikipedia
Born: June 3, 1967 (age 46), New York City, NY
Full name: Anderson Hays Cooper
Parents: Gloria Vanderbilt, Wyatt Emory Cooper
Siblings: Leopold Stanislaus Stokowski, Christopher Stokowski, Carter Vanderbilt Cooper
Education: Yale University (1989), Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Trumbull College, Dalton School
TV shows: Anderson Cooper 360°, Anderson Live, 60 Minutes, More
And now apparently Anderson Cooper has become your new pet project ever since you found out about his family. You sad, sad man.
So, you are saying they went to the wrong school because it wasn't staged?
Yes, I'm saying that if they went to the wrong school--it is evidenced that it wasn't staged, not evidence that it was.
They went to the wrong school because it is possible they were going to use
the other school and then changed their minds after the filming had taken
place.
Changed their minds? Was this a spur of the moment decision?
You're even more delusional than normal today...
Well actually they are intentionally not buying because they would rather pay about 1/3 more to landlords. For the same reason they are walking and riding bikes. It's all by choice, economics and lack of a grown up sized employment opportunity, has nothing to do with.
Just ask CNN, and Huffington Post, if you don't believe me.
You did notice Tatupu, that the shadows of Sandy Hook were on the opposite side of the shadows of the police raid that followed the shot of the Sandy Hook school. You were paying attention weren't you Tatupu?
?
And why is it you don't want to visit Sandy Hook seeing as you are so disturbingly fixated on it?
I don't get why are you celebrating the fact that he'll die in prison: doesn't this mean that you won't be able to eat his face?
They won't let you see anything. Hey, Bigsby, do you work for the department of Fuckedland Security? If you do we are indeed Fucked.
How do you know if you haven't been? Go and visit the families involved. After all, all you do on here is spend the entire time accusing them of some of the most shocking things imaginable for a parent. Why are you so scared to confront them if that's what you believe?
You are a true keyboard warrior Gary. Well done.
What I see a lot of is old folks getting themselves into "Reverse Mortgages"
because they have no money to retire on.
Some people now "need" to rely on reverse mortgage because they cashed out their 401Ks etc for speculative purposes and their bets went bust....but in general the need to rely on reverse mortgage is a sign that someone either bought above their means or lived above their means.
So, Bigsby, I don't feel bad accusing Robbie Parker of being a liar in the least. I have no bad conscience for doing that at all.
You should have a bad conscience, but you know what Busky? You have no conscience. You are void of conscience. It was seared off a long time ago.
You are swine.
You don't feel bad because you are doing it over the internet. Try doing it face-to-face and let us all know how that works out for you.
And last I checked, you are the one accusing 26 families of faking the deaths of their loved ones along with all those directly involved from the town (which was an awful lot of people), so exactly who is it that doesn't have a conscience? Perhaps you can pray to your imaginary God and find out what 'he' thinks about your behaviour.
If this was a hoax (it wasn't).... What did those pulling off the hoax accomplish?! More guns were sold after Newton than EVER and they are still selling like hotcakes. No real gun laws were passed.
If the goal was to make more people stock up on guns... then mission accomplished. If the goal was to disarm America.. then it failed miserably.
Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....
They'll have to pry it out of the cold, dead hands of the idle uberwealthy first.
Good luck with that.
Just because you were able to get out of the hole that'd been dug for you by
economic circumstances that were out of your hands doesn't mean everyone else
will be able to either you know.
Wow, I could NOT disagree with you more. The are consequences for every decision and not chosing is a decision within and of itself. Look, you WANT to live in SFBA, okay fine, I truly hope that you've got a job that pays well into the six figures, because that's what it will take to live there comfortably. If you're not making that kind of scratch, then I would humbly suggest you go somewhere that $30K or $50K or $80K a year will be a liveable salary. Someplace in Texas, Utah, Iowa, a dozen other places. However, if you CHOOSE to live somewhere, then don't bitch when your barista job and wages don't cut it.
There are plenty of people who work there ass off in this economy/country and
go nowhere their whole lives.
And again, why? Is it that they got involved in drugs or alcohol? Those are choices. Is it because they never learned a trade, so they are stuck on the lower rungs of labor? That's a choice. Did they not go to school or when they went found out/decided that they were more interested in/wanted to get a degree in women's studies, only to find that there are extremely few career paths for people with that degree? Again, a choice. Did they sit at home watching TV at night instead of going to night school, or taking an online course? Fine, but it's a choice.
As long as people make the 'wrong' choices, then the consequences won't be happy. I'm fine with anyone making whatever choice they want. What I'm not so fine with is bitching about where your choices land you. Want different results, then do something different.
Unless you are handicap in some way. As hrhjuliet pointed out, one is blind, one is elderly and has dementia. Those are circumstances that they can't do anything about. If you're a normal, able bodied human being, you CAN do something about whatever situation you find yourself in. And not doing anything but bitching about it IS doing something, but it won't change your situation.
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
The last documented honest Realtor died in 1908.
He died in prison for child rape and cannibalism. The jury and judge were too exhausted by these hôrrors to go for the trifecta.
Sorry, my bad, have to go back and scour the historical records, there must be at least one honest one in there someplace.
Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.
Without money supply increase, women entering workforce would just reduce the wages of men . . . just like Mexicans and then Chinese entering the "workforce" reduced the wages of American manufacturing labor.
Without technological improvement or changes in tax policies, women entering workforce would actually reduce household income (in terms of purchasing power) for the society as a whole: whatever women used to do in the household had previously been untaxed, whereas the women entering workforce being employed outside the household is making her also liable to taxation.
The truth is that a lot of people who earned degrees in science, education, medicine and business are out of work. A lot of people in the trades wait at the hall or by the phone. The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had. Did your parents help you buy a car? Then a leg up. Did your parents or relative help pay for college? Leg up. Did your parents help with your down payment on your new home? Leg up. Did they co-sign? Leg up. Do your parents watch your kids? Leg up. Do you not need to save for retirement because you know you will inherit? Leg up. The people living in poverty are not women's studies majors addicts and welfare moms - most of them live on the streets. We are talking about the disappearing middle-class and the rise of families living under the poverty line. It's a fantasy that the 1% come from a majority of self-made men. We hear the stories of those men, but the majority inherited their wealth. Even some of the self-made stories involve individuals who had their parents pay for their ivy league college, dorm and car before they started their companies. Most of those success stories also claim that the first investor in their start-up companies happen to be mom and dad. My mom's side is from a long line of people that belong to the 1%. Believe me, it's all more about luck, and who you were born to, than you think. Yes, good choices are always ideal, but they don't guarantee you anything. I like the fairytale that it is all based on your will, mind and good choices as much as anyone. I'm just in reality that that fantasy becomes less and less reality the farther we move from the ideals of our original Republic and the closer we move towards feudalism.
It's ironic that you overlook the blatant actual subterfuge related to the Sandy Hook story. If you must insist on seeing a conspiracy, at least consider who stands to benefit from the advocacy that followed. The parents are not lobbying for gun control, in fact many of them are gun owners; they are instead lobbying for more medical spending, particularly in the area of mental health, where more spending on daily pills causes more problems than it solves. The baseline risk of death from a school shooting, let alone one caused by a mentally ill person, is vanishingly rare - a fraction of the risk of being killed by lightning. For every child who dies that way, literally hundreds are killed by car accidents. Yet, the myth goes, if you care about children, you must support more spending to put more kids on pills.
I don't know what it is about conspiracy theorists that causes them to project elaborate detailed hoaxes, with actors and props. Real tragedies happen often enough that there is no need to stage fake ones. The "conspiracy" occurs in plain sight, as TPTB take advantage of tragedies, seeing every crisis as an opportunity. GW Bush took office wanting to "take out" Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was create a context, then wait for opportunity to knock. 9/11 created the opportunity - no need to stage the terror attack, simply misdirect people's outrage. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but Americans were easily misled to believe he did. It's bizarre to watch people project imaginary conspiracy theories that distract them from the actual deceptions happening in plain sight.
but in general the need to rely on reverse mortgage is a sign that someone either bought above their means or lived above their means.
Isn't that the American way??? Just put it on credit??
Some people got overconfident and assumed that it's enough to have their entire net worth be in a form of home equity. While mortgage payments are designed to be a form of forced savings, it was never supposed to imply that one did not need to "save" in form of savings/liquid investments.
« First « Previous Comments 42,596 - 42,635 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,906 comments by 14,891 users - desertguy, HeadSet, mell, Misc, Patrick, stereotomy online now