Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Why is not more being made of the hard-left slant of these protesters. Their desire to force wealth re-distribution. Their demands to be leeches on the backs of people that work hard and earn their money. Sure, there are problems on Wall Street. But the problems with the economy are not on Wall Street, they are in the White House and the Congress. They are with NAFTA and all other, so-called "free trade" agreements with the third world that export American jobs. They are with the failed housing policies of DNC heavy-hitters, such as Franks and Teddy Kennedy, that demanded banks lend to people who should have NEVER gotten a loan.

The problems with the American economy rest squarely in Washington, and much of it with the failed policies of the DNC.

In 2007, even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had a deficit spending of $160 Billion. That was bad enough. In 2011 it will be $1.4 TRILLION, nearly 10x as much. We also have not had a budget since 2009. Who is to blame? Barrack Hussein Obama and his Democrat friends - no one else.

No bank was ever forced to make any loan they did not want to make. They made those stinker loans to gather hefty fees up front and then bundled the bad loans up, got AAA ratings and sold them to pension funds, teacher retirement funds, etc. The whole time they took out credit default swaps and bet against their own worthless paper.

You are right, this is the responsibility of the US government. Phil Gramm wrote two pieces of legislation that deregulated banks 100% and over turned Glass-Stiegel in the process. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and the Commodities futures modernization act. Bill Clinton signed both into law.

Obamas hands have been tied by a do nothing 60% super majority Senate. He has never had both houses because of the Senate filibuster rules that Republicans have used over 200 times to block legislation that came out of the House. A president is not a dictator. To get amnesia about what happened before 2008 seems to be a Republicans favorite past time.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

No bank was ever forced to make any loan they did not want to make. They made those stinker loans to gather hefty fees up front and then bundled the bad loans up, got AAA ratings and sold them to pension funds, teacher retirement funds, etc. The whole time they took out credit default swaps and bet against their own worthless paper.

You are right, this is the responsibility of the US government. Phil Gramm wrote two pieces of legislation that deregulated banks 100% and over turned Glass-Stiegel in the process. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and the Commodities futures modernization act. Bill Clinton signed both into law.

Obamas hands have been tied by a do nothing 60% super majority Senate. He has never had both houses because of the Senate filibuster rules that Republicans have used over 200 times to block legislation that came out of the House. A president is not a dictator. To get amnesia about what happened before 2008 seems to be a Republicans favorite past time.

With the loans... well, the ACLU with prodding from Barney Franks sued several for not giving loans to some that though were entitled to them. If you flip burgers at Burger King, you probably cannot afford a $200,000 home. Franks, and others, didn't care.

Glass-Stiegal must be reinstated. That is the bottom line.

Yes there were problems prior to 2008, or even January 2007, but the current administration has gotten a free-pass on so many things. $4.2 Trillion dollar increase in the deficit under Obama. That is a reality. The lies about Obamacare being "budget neutral". There are so many more examples that are 100% Obama's doing. Yet, if you want to hold him responsible, you are labeled a racist at best by many. If Obama had shown leadership, stewardship, and even common sense, the DNC would not have suffered the horrendous election defeats it did in 2010. I predict 2012 will eclipse them considerably.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Obamas hands have been tied by a do nothing 60% super majority Senate. He has never had both houses because of the Senate filibuster rules that Republicans have used over 200 times to block legislation that came out of the House. A president is not a dictator. To get amnesia about what happened before 2008 seems to be a Republicans favorite past time.

How can you have super majorities as a president, and still have your hands tied? That is an excuse inability, nothing more. Not even a budget was able to be passed under Obama. Yet, a wildly unpopular budget busting health care bill was passed. Passed in a way that made the US Congress look very much like the Russian Duma under Stalin - like a "rubber stamp" legislature. That, my friend, is very disturbing. Yes, quite right, Obama isn't a Dictator. Neither was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, and both have proven themselves considerable more able than the Hawaiian.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

How can you have super majorities as a president, and still have your hands tied? That is an excuse inability, nothing more. Not even a budget was able to be passed under Obama. Yet, a wildly unpopular budget busting health care bill was passed. Passed in a way that made the US Congress look very much like the Russian Duma under Stalin - like a "rubber stamp" legislature. That, my friend, is very disturbing. Yes, quite right, Obama isn't a Dictator. Neither was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, and both have proven themselves considerable more able than the Hawaiian.

Perhaps I was premature on my estimation that you have been given a pass.

Chas

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

How can you have super majorities as a president, and still have your hands tied? That is an excuse inability, nothing more. Not even a budget was able to be passed under Obama. Yet, a wildly unpopular budget busting health care bill was passed. Passed in a way that made the US Congress look very much like the Russian Duma under Stalin - like a "rubber stamp" legislature. That, my friend, is very disturbing. Yes, quite right, Obama isn't a Dictator. Neither was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, and both have proven themselves considerable more able than the Hawaiian.

KG you are wrong on several counts.

Due to a Senate rule it takes a 60% super majority in the Senate to bring cloture to a bill so it can be voted on. Obama never had what you think of as a super majority in the Senate. At best, with, Bernie Sanders, they could only scare up about 52 to 54 votes trying to end the record number of Republican filibusters. If the filibuster is broken the vote would have only required 51 votes to pass. In the case of a 50/50 tie the Vice President breaks the tie. The truth is most of the legislation made it out of the House and most of it died in the Senate.

The health care bill in no way was "rubber stamped" after fierce debate in the Senate it passed. After fierce debate in the House it passed in a very close vote. That is about as democratic as it gets. Republicans could have easily blocked it in the Senate, but Republicans did not. Why?; because they wanted to use it to run against Obama in 2012. Yes, it was wildly unpopular because it did not provide any real competition to the for profit health insurance companies. A majority of Americans wanted a public option, if not a single payer system. I was against the bill because all it was was a mash up of Republican proposed ideas from paste debates. "Budget busting" yes in the Republican talking points world. In fact The CBO scored it as deficit reducer.

"In March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net REDUCTION in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (emphasis is mine)

Bill Clinton is a friend. My wifes law partner for many years worked at the Arkansas AG's office when Bill was the AG of Arkansas. My father in law was the dean of the UofA law school and was responsible for hiring Bill and Hillary to teach there. Need I go on. That "Hawaiian" (Kenyan, black man, communist, Hitler, Fascist, etc....) in the White House now makes Clinton look like a light weight in the brains department. He makes Bush II look like an idiot. Well, I admit, that is not hard to do.

Here is the link to the CBO numbers on the health care bill should you care to read the crunched numbers

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

KG you are wrong on several counts....

That "Hawaiian" (Kenyan, black man, communist, Hitler, Fascist, etc....) in the White House now makes Clinton look like a light weight in the brains department. He makes Bush II look like an idiot. Well, I admit, that is not hard to do.

I would assert the following (and this is strictly my opinion):

(1) If Obama makes all comers look like "light weight in the brains department", why did he go through such extraordinary lengths to even seal his college transcripts through an executive order?

If he makes G.W. Bush look like an "idiot", what does that say about John Kerry who attended Harvard and Yale at roughly the same time as Bush, yet has a lower GPA? Is he an idiot as well, because he was propped up in 2004 as being so intellectual by the media (until the transcripts were released)?

(2) A smart man, like Obama is claimed to be, especially one that is a shrewd politician, would not have made such colossal policy mistakes. He would have moved to immediately quench doubts about his person. Obama's failure to do so, was not very smart, and is inexcusable.....

(3) Obama is not "Hitler" (or Stalin, or even Mao, neither is he a Fascist, Communist, Leninist, or even Marxist), but he is certainly a socialist of sorts. His views, his statements, and to a certain degree his policies, point in that direction.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

I would assert the following (and this is strictly my opinion):

(1) If Obama makes all comers look like "light weight in the brains department", why did he go through such extraordinary lengths to even seal his college transcripts through an executive order?

If he makes G.W. Bush look like an "idiot", what does that say about John Kerry who attended Harvard and Yale at roughly the same time as Bush, yet has a lower GPA? Is he an idiot as well, because he was propped up in 2004 as being so intellectual by the media (until the transcripts were released)?

(2) A smart man, like Obama is claimed to be, especially one that is a shrewd politician, would not have made such colossal policy mistakes. He would have moved to immediately quench doubts about his person. Obama's failure to do so, was not very smart, and is inexcusable.....

(3) Obama is not "Hitler" (or Stalin, or even Mao, neither is he a Fascist, Communist, Leninist, or even Marxist), but he is certainly a socialist of sorts. His views, his statements, and to a certain degree his policies, point in that direction.

KG, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law review. You cannot even consider a run for that position if your grades are not in the top ten percent of your class. Please spare me the right wing put down of his amazing achievement. Harvard Law would never put someone in that position that is not qualified. The editor of any law review is under intense scrutiny all the time by their staff and fellow students. You can ask my wife about it.

Bush was a "C" student. His family has deep ties with Yale and Harvard biz. When your family has these ties you are guaranteed a free ride through school. Everything Bush has been involved in has turned to shit and he has had to be bailed out. This includes his Presidency. Running out of office while the world economy collapses, bailing out the banks to prevent that collapse is a fitting legacy to an abject failure.

Your second point is confusing. Are you talking about his birth certificate or his horrible policy decision to involve the US and NATO in helping the Libyan rebels defeat a brutal dictator and terrorist. I don't care if he led from behind, upside down, or sideways he was responsible winning the war in Libya and not a single American life was lost. He schooled the neo-cons on how a Mid-East dictator/terrorist should be taken out of power.

How about his horrible decision to go into Pakistan and kill bin Laden. If that mission had failed, and it almost did, his administration would have been toast.

Obama exhibits no traits of socialism. I wish he would. He actually proposed a budget cut that put SS and Medicare on the table. If you want to know what a real socialist is Google Bernie Sanders.

One other thing about grades. I barely graduated High school and I attended college on a full scholarship. I was on the deans list or presidents list every semester. My ACT and SAT scores were very high. I just hated high school. I loved college. Grades are subjective and mean very little in the field these folks play in. Kerry was not that bright in my book. If he had been, he could have turned it around on those swift boat jackass'. Instead he chose to ignore them.

This brings us back to President Bush's penetrating question, "is our children learning"

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

.

(1) I don't care if he led from behind, upside down, or sideways he was responsible winning the war in Libya and not a single American life was lost. He schooled the neo-cons on how a Mid-East dictator/terrorist should be taken out of power.
----------------

(2) Obama exhibits no traits of socialism.

(1) Yet the left was incensed when Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who was many times as brutal. In fact, there were world wide demonstrations and rioting in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power. George Bush was labeled a "terrorist", "war criminal", and "mass murderer". Are you willing to apply these same labels to Barrack Hussein Obama?

You're argument is quite interesting.

(2) Really? How about ideas of mass redistribution of wealth? Do they not exist or are they not of a "socialist" theme?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

(1) Yet the left was incensed when Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who was many times as brutal. In fact, there were world wide demonstrations and rioting in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power. George Bush was labeled a "terrorist", "war criminal", and "mass murderer". Are you willing to apply these same labels to Barrack Hussein Obama?

You're argument is quite interesting.

(2) Really? How about ideas of mass redistribution of wealth? Do they not exist or are they not of a "socialist" theme?

(1) Not exactly. There were demonstrations against our invasion (launched under false pretenses, BTW). In contrast, the Arab League supported what we did in Libya (as did the world at large). Yes, the NeoCons were schooled by Obama on this. This is the source of their contrived and ridiculous criticisms of his Libya efforts. They're losing their mantle of being "the party of national security."

(2) As for Obama being a socialist, it all relative. By American (and certainly by GOP standards), perhaps so. By the standards of nearly all First World nations (including the one in which you live), he would still be a conservative. If he were a German politician, his views/policies would have him squarely in the CDU/CSU camp and not the SPD. Hell, in France, he'd be seen as a reactionary.

BTW, the USA has the widest income disparity of all developed nations by a very large margin. It's not healthy for the country, but the question remains what to do about it.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

(1) Yet the left was incensed when Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who was many times as brutal. In fact, there were world wide demonstrations and rioting in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power. George Bush was labeled a "terrorist", "war criminal", and "mass murderer". Are you willing to apply these same labels to Barrack Hussein Obama?

You're argument is quite interesting.

(2) Really? How about ideas of mass redistribution of wealth? Do they not exist or are they not of a "socialist" theme?

The Iraq war had nothing to do with removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq. It was Dick Cheney. Why do I say this. Well the neo-con desire to invade Iraq, a second time, dates back to the late 90's. Ever hear of PNAC? http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through this and you might get a better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength. By the way, "W" was never a member of PNAC Dick Cheney was.

Iraq was a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not support Al-Qaihda or the Taliban. I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN. He is not very happy about that today.

Why is Libya different? That is easy to answer. There is an active civil war in the country because the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power. Gaddafi was a terrorist and supported terrorism. Libya officially admitted to the Lockerbie/ Pan-Am bombing that killed many innocent people including many Americans. Who can forget the West Berlin night club bombing that killed three American soldiers. Barrack Hussein Obama saw an opportunity to take out a terrorist and he did it without the loss of a single American life.

Now, onto the subject of the "mass redistribution of wealth". This is what it really looks like. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners.

A German industrialist was asked if he minded paying the high taxes in Germany. His answer was no. His reasoning, "I don't want to be a wealthy man living in a poor country."

Wealthy capitalist in the US are beginning to see the light. Warren Buffet does, "there is class warfare in this country and my side is winning". He realizes that once the number of desperate poor folks get big enough here the pitch forks and guillotines are going to come out.

Have a great day, it is 50*F here and pouring rain. I am going to find a nice dry building to work in today.