arkrud wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

arkrud wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

loweyecue wrote:I don't know how people can make blind pronouncements like the rich people are not the problem and the government is.

If you need to come up with one core problem it's insatiable corporate greed the likes of which has never been witnessed before. All the free market talk is very amusing but like the rest of the garbage written by Ayn Rand it's pure fiction. But if you look at what's actually happening mega corps and cartels are basically killing small businesses and the misguided small business owners want to dismantle Govt. one new Walmart store shuts down half the local economy. The right wing never explains how small govt will make Walmart less greedy.

Without govt protection the mega corps and cartels will dictate terms on everything. People want govt out of their lives but are ok with an insurance company telling them pregnancy is a pre-existing condition? With. Govt we the people at least have some say in the policies that govern us. When that power goes over to the corporations what incentive do they have to make any decision that benefits anyone but themselves?

If you are a small biz owner voting for Republicans to dismantle Govt are you really sure you want a $6/ hr job in Walmart once they destroy your business and spits you out as another cash flow statistic to be herded through debt based slavery? Oh wait it will pay $2/hr because you want minimum wage abolished as well.

If you dismantle govt who will dismantle the cartels and Walmart?

the government has the power to change a lot of our problems overnight, but they won't because they get as much benefit as "big business" does. The problem isn't big business and the problem isn't big government. The problem is the alliance between the two. Too much power in anyone's hands has always turned out poorly. Right now the rich in business are getting what they want from the rich in government adn we all pay the price. Many complain about the fact that no one has paid the price with jail time for what happened with the banks. But who is in charge of enforcing the laws???? Govt. Ask yourself why nothing has ever happened

Thanks for posting this made me do something I am not good at, made me think. :)
I don't disagree with the premise but I do view the level of guilt and the core issues differently. Govt may be acting as enablers in some cases but the core responsibility lies with those who are driving this process. If a dog attacks you is the dog more guilty or the owner? In most cases the dog pays the price but it doesn't fix anything at all.

Having said that, I have always maintained the banking cartel is launching an all out power grab through their wholly owned subsidiary, the GOP. I don't give Dems a pass on being corporate sponsored but again it seems to be different in the way the symptoms of the same disease has manifest themselves on the two parties.

My response above was basically in support of occupy wall street-ers and hoping to see big business (which I consider to be resident evil) get defanged and declawed.

And to answer your question, something did happen long ago - Glass Stegall was enacted, regulatory bodies were put in place. Now the former is history, the latter are corrupt and simarly paid for by big businesses. People did go to jail after Enron, I don't think it will keep anyone from doing it again. Weak punitive measures after the damage have been done have no effect. A company going bankrupt may satisfy free market utopia, but the permanent damage that does to thousands of lives before that remains unaccounted for. Prevention is almost always better than the cure, so yes we need regulation to be enforced. What we don't need is further deregulation which seems to be part of the right wing mantra as well.

Written on iPhone, apologize for any incorrectly transposed words, will try to clean it up later.

You are messing up private business owners together with public corporations and government controlled enterprises and these are completely different animals.
There was the same situation in Germany when Hitler came to power and private businesses were transformed into government owned corporations.
This ends up in biggest mess in the history of mankind and destruction of Germany as a state.
Both Reps and Dems are completely corrupt and it is comical to expect either of them to change the destructive path of US society.
Country already went through this in 70th and people prevail. We need to do this again. And if it will take riots and depression to make it lets be it.
We will be better off later. Or it will be no later.

Sorry I have no idea what you mean about mixing up pvt business with anything. I am placing the guilt for the current mess squarely on large privately owned mega businesses and cartels. I didnt make any references to govt owned organizations. I agreed with Bippity that Govt aka politicians act as enablers for these big businesses to end the rules on their favor. Corruption aside Republicans have the stated agenda of doing everything in their power to make it even easier for big businesses to continue doing this. That at least is not subject to discussion because they don't even bother to deny it.

I am talking about privately own companies which have an owner(s) who cares about profits versus public companies, non-profits and government own companies which are run by corporate and government bureaucrats. I do not mind people making money if this grows the wealth of the society, created working places and taxes.
Bureaucrats destroy wealth. They are just blood suckers and should be exterminated ASAP.

You are entitled to your opinion, I made my case as to who the real bloodsuckers ar. Pretty easy when you see where most of the blood has been collected over time. Thats all I have to say about it.

loweyecue wrote:

arkrud wrote:I am talking about privately own companies which have an owner(s) who cares about profits versus public companies, non-profits and government own companies which are run by corporate and government bureaucrats. I do not mind people making money if this grows the wealth of the society, created working places and taxes.
Bureaucrats destroy wealth. They are just blood suckers and should be exterminated ASAP.

You are entitled to your opinion, I made my case as to who the real bloodsuckers ar. Pretty easy when you see where most of the blood has been collected over time. Thats all I have to say about it.

"Babylon system is the vampire."

Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

arkrud wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

loweyecue wrote:I don't know how people can make blind pronouncements like the rich people are not the problem and the government is.

If you need to come up with one core problem it's insatiable corporate greed the likes of which has never been witnessed before. All the free market talk is very amusing but like the rest of the garbage written by Ayn Rand it's pure fiction. But if you look at what's actually happening mega corps and cartels are basically killing small businesses and the misguided small business owners want to dismantle Govt. one new Walmart store shuts down half the local economy. The right wing never explains how small govt will make Walmart less greedy.

Without govt protection the mega corps and cartels will dictate terms on everything. People want govt out of their lives but are ok with an insurance company telling them pregnancy is a pre-existing condition? With. Govt we the people at least have some say in the policies that govern us. When that power goes over to the corporations what incentive do they have to make any decision that benefits anyone but themselves?

If you are a small biz owner voting for Republicans to dismantle Govt are you really sure you want a $6/ hr job in Walmart once they destroy your business and spits you out as another cash flow statistic to be herded through debt based slavery? Oh wait it will pay $2/hr because you want minimum wage abolished as well.

If you dismantle govt who will dismantle the cartels and Walmart?

the government has the power to change a lot of our problems overnight, but they won't because they get as much benefit as "big business" does. The problem isn't big business and the problem isn't big government. The problem is the alliance between the two. Too much power in anyone's hands has always turned out poorly. Right now the rich in business are getting what they want from the rich in government adn we all pay the price. Many complain about the fact that no one has paid the price with jail time for what happened with the banks. But who is in charge of enforcing the laws???? Govt. Ask yourself why nothing has ever happened

Thanks for posting this made me do something I am not good at, made me think. :)
I don't disagree with the premise but I do view the level of guilt and the core issues differently. Govt may be acting as enablers in some cases but the core responsibility lies with those who are driving this process. If a dog attacks you is the dog more guilty or the owner? In most cases the dog pays the price but it doesn't fix anything at all.

Having said that, I have always maintained the banking cartel is launching an all out power grab through their wholly owned subsidiary, the GOP. I don't give Dems a pass on being corporate sponsored but again it seems to be different in the way the symptoms of the same disease has manifest themselves on the two parties.

My response above was basically in support of occupy wall street-ers and hoping to see big business (which I consider to be resident evil) get defanged and declawed.

And to answer your question, something did happen long ago - Glass Stegall was enacted, regulatory bodies were put in place. Now the former is history, the latter are corrupt and simarly paid for by big businesses. People did go to jail after Enron, I don't think it will keep anyone from doing it again. Weak punitive measures after the damage have been done have no effect. A company going bankrupt may satisfy free market utopia, but the permanent damage that does to thousands of lives before that remains unaccounted for. Prevention is almost always better than the cure, so yes we need regulation to be enforced. What we don't need is further deregulation which seems to be part of the right wing mantra as well.

Written on iPhone, apologize for any incorrectly transposed words, will try to clean it up later.

You are messing up private business owners together with public corporations and government controlled enterprises and these are completely different animals.
There was the same situation in Germany when Hitler came to power and private businesses were transformed into government owned corporations.
This ends up in biggest mess in the history of mankind and destruction of Germany as a state.
Both Reps and Dems are completely corrupt and it is comical to expect either of them to change the destructive path of US society.
Country already went through this in 70th and people prevail. We need to do this again. And if it will take riots and depression to make it lets be it.
We will be better off later. Or it will be no later.

Sorry I have no idea what you mean about mixing up pvt business with anything. I am placing the guilt for the current mess squarely on large privately owned mega businesses and cartels. I didnt make any references to govt owned organizations. I agreed with Bippity that Govt aka politicians act as enablers for these big businesses to end the rules on their favor. Corruption aside Republicans have the stated agenda of doing everything in their power to make it even easier for big businesses to continue doing this. That at least is not subject to discussion because they don't even bother to deny it.

Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office. It's obvious there is a great disparity in wealth in the U.S. ANother report below.... The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains. That is absurdly imbalanced.

For a nation to be strong economically, it needs a strong middle class. We have to repeal the Bush tax cuts to start recovering from this economic disaster. Another article on the disparity of wealth in the U.S.

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains
By Robert Lenzner | Forbes – 1 hr 11 mins ago.

Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs................

http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

Wow, and they pay less tax than the middle class? wtf

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both parties....mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

What could he have done....and can still do now? Pres Obama, as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief could have pulled us out of Iraq very quickly. After they got Bin Laden, he should have pulled us out of Afghanistan. The military is our largest expense. Plus Congress votes extra funds every year to keep funding the 2 wars. Bring the troops back; cut the deficit by doing so; and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

I voted for Obama but will have a hard time voting for him again. I'll probably go with a 3rd party candidate.

Who knew Occupy Wall Street is already the law of the land?
By: Mark J. Fitzgibbons | 11/20/11 8:05 PM
OpEd Contributor
Think Occupy Wall Street is just nonpeaceable assembly of malcontents and miscreants literally infesting American cities?
Think again. The OWS agenda is now law of the land in the form of a government agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .

The CFPB was created under the Dodd-Frank financial -- ahem -- "reform" legislation when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress in 2009. The law was signed by President Obama, who manages to simultaneously be Goldman-Sachs' best friend and an OWS sympathizer.

Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, who is now running for the Senate seat held by Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was the Dr. Frankenstein of this Orwellian-named monster.

Warren is an unabashed supporter of the Occupy Wall Street protests. In October she proudly proclaimed to the Daily Beast, "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. ... I support what they do."

The CFPB is technically an independent government bureau to regulate financial products and services. It is a bureaucracy with unparalleled control and an unfortunate, if not unconstitutional, amount of discretion over the free market.

The Heritage Foundation described the CFPB as "largely unaccountable to Congress," and that it is the "epitome of regulatory excess."

George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, speaking recently at a Federalist Society conference, called the CFPB "the most powerful [bureaucracy] in U.S. history," and said that "if you sat down and designed an agency with all the pathologies of bureaucracies, the CFPB would embody it."

Interestingly, the self-proclaimed brains behind OWS has a not-in-my-backyard attitude. Professor Warren refused to sign an Occupy Harvard petition. Perhaps she thought her colleagues would find the lice, rapes and other OWS phenomena unappealing.

Obama initially wanted Warren to run the CFPB. He appointed her as a "consumer" czar before the CFPB officially began operations this July. Warren, however, was too controversial for Senate confirmation to officially head the CFPB.

Obama instead nominated the less provocative Richard Cordray, but "Young Frankenstein's" nomination is being held up.

Cordray's highest previous position in government was as Ohio's attorney general. His most noteworthy achievement seems to have been suing banks on behalf of public employee unions.

While the top slots at the CFPB remain unfilled, Obama is busy filling lower slots with lawyers who seem to have experience in using big government to bully the private sector, but little or none in providing sound financial products and services.

Nicholas Rathod comes to the CFPB from the White House. A former community organizer who spent time at the ultraleft Center for American Progress, he once served as New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's political director before Client No. 9 abruptly left office.

Lisa Konwinski also transfers seamlessly from the White House. Her previous work included stints for Congressional Progressive Caucus members Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.

Meredith Fuchs was the legislative investigative counsel at the center of calling executives of AT&T, Verizon and John Deere to congressional hearings in 2010 to explain why they had the temerity to tell the truth in public documents that Obamacare would cost more than what Democrats were telling the public.

OWS is a statist-anarchist movement. The anarchist part despises private property rights; the statist part wants government control of private property unfettered by the constitutional rule of law.

The CFPB is being filled with those who seem share the OWS ideology, but who have law degrees.

Who knew that OWS had its own law and a federal agency to impose it?

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

he didn't push through the most progressive legislation since social security in the Affordable Health Care Act?

My understanding is that the Bush Tax cuts would expire on their own accord after 10 years, so I am not sure I would be wasting political capital on that either on Day 1. As it turns out, he had to horse trade those cuts for others anyway.

Either way... I literally have no clue if Silver is right or not about the filibuster, but I would not be surprised.

nixluva wrote:It's politics! There is no perfect option by design change is difficult. The only thing left is to choose the lesser of two evils. Not voting for Obama out of principal is almost the same as voting Republican. IMO that is what big biz is hoping and praying for. Apathy and disillusionment was the Republican plan. Dems aren't perfect but they haven't had an overarching plan to destroy the Middle Class while deregulating Wall Street and Big biz so they can rape the country.

Yeah, thats what it seems like. No vaseline even.

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

he didn't push through the most progressive legislation since social security in the Affordable Health Care Act?

My understanding is that the Bush Tax cuts would expire on their own accord after 10 years, so I am not sure I would be wasting political capital on that either on Day 1. As it turns out, he had to horse trade those cuts for others anyway.

Either way... I literally have no clue if Silver is right or not about the filibuster, but I would not be surprised.

He definitely pushed that through along with the stimulus plan - neither of which he can credit with doing much to turn the country around. That is why the house and senate he currently has, is the house and senate he earned.

He had a ton of political capital to bring change to the United States and to Washington and what did he do? He pushed through a stimulus bill that had been drafted before he got into office, which was filled with freebies to his party. Then he rammed healthcare reform down the countries throat while we were in the throws of the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes - I am not disputing that and most people won't. Reality is that his bill has changed nothing yet. Pre-existing conditions are still a problem costing people dearly when they submit a claim. The jury is still out on whether his legislation will ultimately help. I think it will serve as a starting point to debate since the supreme court will most likely vote it down (how can you force every single American to buy health insurance?).

I do not feel sorry for the guy. He acted like the second coming during his campaign, he had the people behind him, and he has blown it. The republicans have not done him any favors, but if he was doing such a good job, he would have kept his majority in the first place.

there is much to cut up in your argument, but I'll focus on the last sentence, I just don't have time.

IMHO there was zero answer any politician could have provided that would have passed that would address the economy by the 2009-2010 time period. You don't turn around a world economy in 12 months, and that's the underlying assumption you have made about Obama keeping his majority. Recall that those elections start about a year before they are held and there is no math to keeping a majority. As a politician, fighting against the economy in an election time period is mostly a no-win situation regardless of how popular you otherwise would be. This is certainly not to say that Obama is without any faults regarding the decisions he has made, he has stumbled.

Obama and his team and pretty much everyone around the world has underestimated the amount of stimulus we as a nation probably could have used and still need. No one in their right mind would also let USA default on our debts and yet that too almost happened. Sheer stupidity and wasted nonsense.

BTW, it looks like precedent and a majority of legal scholars are saying the Supreme Court are going to uphold the health care bill with flying colors - something like like 7-2 or 6-3 vote. If this does not happen, it will be step #2 in the sure-fire demise of our country from super-power to just another player in the world behind the likes of China over the next few decades.

martin wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

he didn't push through the most progressive legislation since social security in the Affordable Health Care Act?

My understanding is that the Bush Tax cuts would expire on their own accord after 10 years, so I am not sure I would be wasting political capital on that either on Day 1. As it turns out, he had to horse trade those cuts for others anyway.

Either way... I literally have no clue if Silver is right or not about the filibuster, but I would not be surprised.

He definitely pushed that through along with the stimulus plan - neither of which he can credit with doing much to turn the country around. That is why the house and senate he currently has, is the house and senate he earned.

He had a ton of political capital to bring change to the United States and to Washington and what did he do? He pushed through a stimulus bill that had been drafted before he got into office, which was filled with freebies to his party. Then he rammed healthcare reform down the countries throat while we were in the throws of the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes - I am not disputing that and most people won't. Reality is that his bill has changed nothing yet. Pre-existing conditions are still a problem costing people dearly when they submit a claim. The jury is still out on whether his legislation will ultimately help. I think it will serve as a starting point to debate since the supreme court will most likely vote it down (how can you force every single American to buy health insurance?).

I do not feel sorry for the guy. He acted like the second coming during his campaign, he had the people behind him, and he has blown it. The republicans have not done him any favors, but if he was doing such a good job, he would have kept his majority in the first place.

there is much to cut up in your argument, but I'll focus on the last sentence, I just don't have time.

IMHO there was zero answer any politician could have provided that would have passed that would address the economy by the 2009-2010 time period. You don't turn around a world economy in 12 months, and that's the underlying assumption you have made about Obama keeping his majority. Recall that those elections start about a year before they are held and there is no math to keeping a majority. As a politician, fighting against the economy in an election time period is mostly a no-win situation regardless of how popular you otherwise would be. This is certainly not to say that Obama is without any faults regarding the decisions he has made, he has stumbled.

Obama and his team and pretty much everyone around the world has underestimated the amount of stimulus we as a nation probably could have used and still need. No one in their right mind would also let USA default on our debts and yet that too almost happened. Sheer stupidity and wasted nonsense.

BTW, it looks like precedent and a majority of legal scholars are saying the Supreme Court are going to uphold the health care bill with flying colors - something like like 7-2 or 6-3 vote. If this does not happen, it will be step #2 in the sure-fire demise of our country from super-power to just another player in the world behind the likes of China over the next few decades.

No it couldn't be fixed in two years, but he didn't have to reatin and appoint people from the old boys club that got us into this mess (Summers, Bernanke, etc). He just didn't have the guts to get the right people involved and get the ball rolling, like a pansy wimp he played it safe and put his own political survival before the interests of the country. Sorry, but when it comes to addressing the economic issues, he has got no credibility and he gets no respect from me.