Thank you barack obama ! a great president

OK.

[quote=Jennifer Nettles] 

September 16, 2010

We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

[/quote]+1000 could not agree more!

But you don't understand....Didn't you hear Pres. Owebomba's speech the other day when he said that the economy wasn't his fault??  He said that it took from 2001-2008 to ruin the economy and he has just started to pull us out from the brink of the abyss.......Funny that some people will believe that, but thank God it is fewer and fewer!!!  I agree with you JN or ST.....

The people wanted Hope and Change, but like anything else, our need for instant gratification caused us to buy the first thing to hit the store's shelves. Can anyone say "buyers remorse?"

You really are sheep, aren't you?

Not much deep thinking going on in this thread. I expected better from this group. Everyday, I honestly hope that people aren't this stupid. But, here it is, a thread like this one, stupidity on parade!

Let me ask this: What the group's take on credit card interest rates?

[quote=BondGuy]

You really are sheep, aren't you?

Not much deep thinking going on in this thread. I expected better from this group. Everyday, I honestly hope that people aren't this stupid. But, here it is, a thread like this one, stupidity on parade!

Let me ask this: What the group's take on credit card interest rates?

[/quote] Careful throwing stones from your glass house...

but to respond to your question, credit cards are used for two reasons:

1. Financially responsible people use them to temporarily fund purchases. For the most part interest rates are irrelevant because the card is paid off monthly.

2. Financially irresponsible people use credit cards to live like the "Joneses" They do not care about the interest rate because they want the product no matter what.

So for either group it doesn't matter what the rate is but to group number 2 it matters what the minimum payment will be.

Did Bond Guy ever come clean on his mistaken support for progressivism and the Chicago thugs?

I started my biz on credit cards. In fact, when I graduated college, I charged a couple of suits so I could get a corporate job to pay off my student loans.

My boss was about ten years older than me, and his mom was still buying him dress shirts at Nordstrom's. The guy never had a cent of debt in his life, except his mortgage.

A lot of self-made people have used credit and their wits to build equity and help level the playing field. We never expected progressive leaders of the nanny state to explain the basics of  interest rates and compound interest.

I started my business on credit cards as well.  The interest rates were 0%.  Paid them off by the time the rate was going to go up - to 9%!

The problem isn't the interest rates.  The problem is letting people who can't afford credit, get it. 

High interest rates are supposed to be a curb on demand.  If the pool of borrowers is large, those higher interest rates are supposed to be a check on people NOT applying for credit.  The problem is that the borrowers with bad credit feel like it is free money.  It is a lack of financial education.  As long as that exists, you are going to have high interest rates for people who shouldn't have them.

If you took time out of the equation and asked that person who has bad credit - you can pay $1000 for this big screen tv, or you can pay $10,000 for it, which one do you choose?  I bet they would say $1000.  Unfortunately, people don't understand interest.  And it's never put in to perspective.

Hi, my name is Montel Williams. Would a thousand dollars come in handy right now?

Ah, the rich people speak!

So, none of you need credit? And, when you do, it's only for the short term. I'm not surprised. Meanwhile in the not so wealthy neighborhoods, where people are scraping to make their property tax payments,  your friendly neighborhood bank has fleeced it customers with interest rates that would make a loan shark blush. Charging rates so high, that the wealthiest among us could not pay the money back. They Prey on the poor and get richer for doing so. They sleep at night by putting blame on their victims, calling them dead beats, and fiscally irresponsible. Some of you have called them the same on this thread.  

They then pay millions to politicians to make sure regulation doesn't impede profit.  Want to make it legal to charge 30%? Want to make it impossible to know when a late charge will be incurred? How about when a penalty surcharge is added? Or, the best, change the bankruptcy laws to stop all those deadbeat fraudsters from getting away with it and keep'em on the hook making payments forever? No problem, just write a check to your favorite republican congressman or senator and your fleecing of the poor wildest dreams will come true. And they have.

And, it gets worse, from pawn shops to pay day loans to Western Union. All fleecing the poor. Major money center banks close branches in declining neighborhoods and replacing them with subprime subsitiarys. All bought and paid for at your local Republican Party Headquarters.

And, still, it worse than that - Banks approached the high unemployment states and offered a service - pay the unemployed their benefits with a debit acct accessed via a debit card. This is a good deal for the states, saving them a few hundred thousand dollars a year. But, it is a bad deal for the unemployed. Most banks offer two to four free withdrawals per month, then they charge $1.50 to $3.00 per withdrawal. The average monthly fee, about $60. Wanna check your balance? That's $1.00. Imagine having to pay money to get access to your money? A republican wet dream! Those who can least afford it continue to get fleeced legally.

The people you want to elect are Ok with this. They are Ok with the systematic wealth transference from the poor to the rich. The question is: Are you?

You lost me when you singled out the Republicans. That is preposterous.

On the bright side, virtually all politicians are hastening the fleecing of money from people who don't understand it.

We're getting much closer to dealing with reality in America, and pretending to be the hero of the working man ( the ambassador of progressivism) won't take you very far. We all know your wonks ( Frank, unions, big government) are the other gears in the same machine.

You need to understand that some people do not share your core beliefs about political economics. Honestly do not understand things the same way you do - it's not political, it's economics.

If you want to understand, great. If you want to persuade, use facts and logic. The only things I believe in are God and the market, (family, personal responsibility, charity, doing the right thing, saving the earth, etc.)  and I know you don't believe in at least one of those two.

Lots of politicians can take credit for the demise of (small banking) competition.

I deposited a check on Friday for 24k and they told me it's on hold until October 5th. First time in 15 years, I walk into the local branch of my big bank, don't recognize anyone, and I get a credit hold because the check is over 5k. Wonder if they make any money on the float or if it helps their balance sheet? 

Both the libs and conservatives jumped into the greed of the mortgage crisis. Then you have the bailout. Now, small banks and lending and competition are drying up everywhere.

Don't couch your solutions in little progressive nanny state packages. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. Do you not understand the irony? Enough is enough. Do you not sense the outrage in America?

I saw the clip of the Chrysler guys smoking pot and drinking on their breaks. GM feels they can start contributing to political candidates again. Don't try to convince me you're in it for the "little guy". The little guy is the small business owner out West who is getting screwed by the entires East Coast establishment, and we are angry.

The people you want to elect are Ok with this. They are Ok with the systematic wealth transference from the poor to the rich. The question is: Are you?

Yes. It should be pretty obvious by now that the majority of politicians have done a poor job of protecting the average guy with regard to the transfer from poor to rich.

Just because you get to say who the money gets transferred to ( from rich to poor) - is that what makes you think you are smarter or more moral than fiscal conservatives?

The (imperfect) market does an okay job, and it is a lot less irritating ( and much cheaper and more honest)  than the preppie policy makers and central planners you worship.

Actually, you don't know what i believe. But, that's Ok, for your world to work i've got to fit in a certain box. I get it.

Singling out the repubs is putting blame exactly where it belongs. All, the laws that allow the fleecing of the poor passed under repub leadership or congressional control. The polictical economics of the repubs is to fleece the poor legally.  Has the republican party not been a rock in the road to economic recovery? At who's expense? Not yours! It's all about getting power back in their hands. They don't care if it hurts the common man. The common man is not part of their party. The poor man who's hours have been cut by recession is not part of their party.

Think about this for a moment: Small businessman are bitching about having to provide health care to their employees. You would think small business people would want healthy employees. After-all healthy employees are good for business. More productivity etc, right? So, what's the problem? The problem is the small business owner doesn't want to give any more of his money to his employees. Employees, i might add, who are enriching the businessman. It's much more profitable for the businessman to fire the sick employee and hire a healthy one. You side with those who agree with this thinking. How is that doing the right thing? How, does that square with God?

Insurance companies are allowed to drop those who are seriously ill. Hospitals use loopholes to refuse treatment to the uninsured critically ill. All in the name of profit. Of course, rich as you are this will never happen to you. You side with those who are Ok with this and allow it to happen. You side with those who are paid to make sure it continues. How is that doing the right thing? God Ok with turning away the sick because they can't pay?

You are correct about people being misinformed or uninformed. That people are blaming the current admin for the economy is proof of that. The repubs are playing it for all it's worth. And, so we're clear, what i'm saying is that there hasn't been enough time for recovery. The repubs have done everything they can do to prevent a recovery from happening. The average voter, uniformed, or misinformed, doesn't realize the time it takes to recover. If the economy is in the tank at election time the incumbants get the boot. Witness George Bush in 92. Fact is, then, as it is now, the govt has done what is needed and recovery is on line to take place.

Question: When you pass from this earth and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asks: "Why did you help people who hurt so many of your fellow man?" What's your answer?

so we're clear, what i'm saying is that there hasn't been enough time for recovery. The repubs have done everything they can do to prevent a recovery from happening.

To be clear, I am not a fan of the Repubs or any other professional politicians. I would be in favor of sending local farmers to sit in term, if it wouldn't destroy their business. I can see have career professionals in the military, state department and so on.

Saying that (more) career politicians will help the common man is like saying we should pay people to burn more coal to save the polar ice caps.

When you pass from this earth and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asks: "Why did you help people who hurt so many of your fellow man?" What's your answer?

I tried to keep it local, help people in my community, and not worry too much about the fate of the world.

I care about the earth and our children. Folks should have meaningful work that gives them dignity and allows them to trade goods and services with people in the community.

Your progressive pals have sold out to big business, big government, and (government) unions. If you can't see the corruption, if it doesn't make you sad and feel sick, we have nothing to talk about.

Examples of the sell-out are everywhere: a static education system, union workers smoking pot on the job and resisting drug testing even though they are on the public dollar, career politicians, self serving wealth redistribution ( stick you hand in the pot while it passes).

We probably share a lot of the same caring values toward our fellow man. I can't believe that you support the status quo. Trying to change it without real change defines insanity.

The really funny thing is, you probably think people like me are ignorant. The thing that has changed recently, - maybe you noticed - we don't care what you think about us any more. I'm going to shut up and vote and keep my head down.

With regards to investing, this has inspired me to talk about things like having your own permanent insurance policy, which can't be touched by creditors, where Uncle Sam can't look inside and you'll never pay another penny in taxes (unless they change the laws, be vigilant). I'm more holistic and goals - oriented in my planning, more interested in protecting from the downside and disaster and legacy planning. I hope God approves at the end.

[quote=BondGuy]

Ah, the rich people speak!

So, none of you need credit? And, when you do, it's only for the short term. I'm not surprised. Meanwhile in the not so wealthy neighborhoods, where people are scraping to make their property tax payments,  your friendly neighborhood bank has fleeced it customers with interest rates that would make a loan shark blush. Charging rates so high, that the wealthiest among us could not pay the money back. They Prey on the poor and get richer for doing so. They sleep at night by putting blame on their victims, calling them dead beats, and fiscally irresponsible. Some of you have called them the same on this thread.  

[/quote]

If there is even a chance someone will not be able to pay their property taxes, why in the world would they own the property to start with? Financial ignorance, just as all forms of ignorance, is not a defense it is an excuse.

Just an fyi - As a child, we were dirt poor but we were very happy. I made the same financial mistakes as the people you are grandstanding for. I could of easily filed bankruptcy and started from scratch but I decided to educate myself and slowly pull my way out of that ditch. It was one of the reasons I decided to enter this field.

I hope someday you realize the difference between people looking for a handout and people looking for a hand up. If you truly cared as much as you, and the others with the same poor pitiful lower class attitude, like to sound you would address the REAL underlying concern... education. The public education system does not come close to preparing teenagers for the real world.

Get off your soap box and teach someone Mr. 2mm GDC....

Personal responsibility and regulation to better consumer protection are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between selling toys with lead base paint and providing a credit card with OBVIOUS TERMS ATTACHED that only a fool would accept. This is an example of a greedy supplier providing a product to a greedy consumer. There is NO REASON a person MUST have a credit card. I cannot understand why the supplier is at fault?

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]

Ah, the rich people speak!

So, none of you need credit? And, when you do, it's only for the short term. I'm not surprised. Meanwhile in the not so wealthy neighborhoods, where people are scraping to make their property tax payments,  your friendly neighborhood bank has fleeced it customers with interest rates that would make a loan shark blush. Charging rates so high, that the wealthiest among us could not pay the money back. They Prey on the poor and get richer for doing so. They sleep at night by putting blame on their victims, calling them dead beats, and fiscally irresponsible. Some of you have called them the same on this thread.  

[/quote]

If there is even a chance someone will not be able to pay their property taxes, why in the world would they own the property to start with? Financial ignorance, just as all forms of ignorance, is not a defense it is an excuse.

Just an fyi - As a child, we were dirt poor but we were very happy. I made the same financial mistakes as the people you are grandstanding for. I could of easily filed bankruptcy and started from scratch but I decided to educate myself and slowly pull my way out of that ditch. It was one of the reasons I decided to enter this field.

I hope someday you realize the difference between people looking for a handout and people looking for a hand up. If you truly cared as much as you, and the others with the same poor pitiful lower class attitude, like to sound you would address the REAL underlying concern... education. The public education system does not come close to preparing teenagers for the real world.

Get off your soap box and teach someone Mr. 2mm GDC....

[/quote]

[quote=iliketennis]

Personal responsibility and regulation to better consumer protection are not mutually exclusive.

[/quote]

Witness, the financial meltdown. Oh wait a minute, politicians and regulators are going to change for the better this time.

AFTER the bailout. After supporting the big banks at the expense of the competition. AFTER taking most of Detroit, and creating an energy policy that puts alternative energy mostly at the receiving end of government handouts.

NOW you trust the government to protect consumers? ( Not laughing my a** off.)

[quote=N.D.]

There is a difference between selling toys with lead base paint and providing a credit card with OBVIOUS TERMS ATTACHED that only a fool would accept. This is an example of a greedy supplier providing a product to a greedy consumer. There is NO REASON a person MUST have a credit card. I cannot understand why the supplier is at fault?

[/quote]

If demand dried up, what would happen to the price of personal credit?

BG says we should wait around for the stimulus to kick in, the "repubs" have been obstructionist.

Even the repubs don't really get, mayb starting a little.

This grass roots  movement - the education of the masses about what is really going on - is a little threatening to the status quo. You ain't seen nothing yet. Do I think this will be good for the price of stocks and bonds? You bet!

 rich as you are this will never happen to you. You side with those who are Ok with this and allow it to happen. You side with those who are paid to make sure it continues. How is that doing the right thing? God Ok with turning away the sick because they can't pay?

I am not rich. I do not side with the status quo.

I am afraid of losing what little I have managed to build. Most of it is lifestyle. I thank God for my blessings.

Okay, I'm rich in that I have learned how to live by my wits a little, and been lucky where some folks have bad luck.

Every day is a new day. Thank God I can still pay cash for my kids college and all the other bills, including regular golf.

People who are making just a little less than I are getting college grants and other handouts. I am way below 250k on the 1040. Why should I start cold calling and make a weenie out of myself, so I can pay more taxes so BG can be Mr. Doogooder and give them away?

I'm scared about how America is sliding into the the jaws of socialism. I have lived in a socialist country, it ain't pretty.

As a boomer, I can tell you that fighting the status quo is more fun than being PC. I get the poor or sick boomers fighting for socialism, what I don't get is how the rich boomers can hasten the decline of America with their apparently well intentioned but misplaced idealism. I guess I'll never understand.

[quote=N.D.]

If there is even a chance someone will not be able to pay their property taxes, why in the world would they own the property to start with? Financial ignorance, just as all forms of ignorance, is not a defense it is an excuse.

Actually it's neither. It's a reason. As for the robbing Peter to pay Paul school of finance, How it works is like this: poor guy takes out a loan to buy a new furnace and hot water heater for his house. He needs a loan because at 8 bucks an hour it is impossible to save enough money to buy these things out right. He has a thin file FICO score of 820 making him buyable in loan world terms. Still, even with a higher FICO score than most of us he doesn't get favorable terms. The bank wants 21% secured as a second mortgage on his house. Of course the bank's plan is to take the house. He agrees because he needs heat. To pay the loan he takes a second job. That works for a while, but then he injures himself at work. His boss fires him and now the wolf is at the door. No excuses, not ignorance, just the way it is. He loses his house and the the elite (that would be you) point at him and call him stupid.

Just an fyi - As a child, we were dirt poor but we were very happy. I made the same financial mistakes as the people you are grandstanding for. I could of easily filed bankruptcy and started from scratch but I decided to educate myself and slowly pull my way out of that ditch. It was one of the reasons I decided to enter this field.

Just so we're on the same page, i'm not grandstanding for anyone. I'm against the fleecing of the underclasses. There has been a legalized tranference of wealth in this country, all legal. Who in their right mind thinks it's OK to charge anyone 30% interest? Let alone those who can least afford it? I'll tell you who, your republican congressman who has the banker's hand in his pocket. This person has voted against the poor at every opportunity. All you voted for him!

I hope someday you realize the difference between people looking for a handout and people looking for a hand up. If you truly cared as much as you, and the others with the same poor pitiful lower class attitude, like to sound you would address the REAL underlying concern... education. The public education system does not come close to preparing teenagers for the real world.

Characterizing those in need, the working poor, as looking for a handout is an insult to everyone of those people. That thinking also neatly gets you off the hook for not giving a damn. They're bums, right? They get what they deserve, and they certainly don't deserve help! That about sum it up? Of course it does. In your own words they are ignorant. Of course, in reality  that is not true, but because you couldn't live with yourself if you admiitted the truth you buy the lie.

As i reread my post I'm trying to figure out where you get that i pity the poor? This isn't about pitying the poor. It's about not taking advantage of those with lesser means. How and why that is allowed to happen.

I agree we need to do more about education in poor districts. In my state we are doing it. Over 2/3 of the education budget raised from state taxes goes to 26 school districts. Let me put that in context for you. There are 603 school districts in my state. Yet, 66 cents out of every education dollar goes to the 26 poorest districts. The other 577 districts get to split the remaining 33 cents.

Get off your soap box and teach someone Mr. 2mm GDC....

Soapbox? That's funny! Coming from a guy who is posting on other threads about being owned ?  I point out that you've bought into a bought and paid for belief system created as part of a slick marketing campaign designed to bring repubs back to power and I'm on a soapbox? If believing in something you don't understand isn't being owned, what is?

[/quote]

What's left when left is left of left? You keep dividing with fractions because the left is never happy. The pieces get mighty small, but you never run out of fractions, only meaningful observations about them.

This is what happens when you have a shrinking pie. We're all being owned - I'm not "down" for it, but I hope the majority becomes silent, just like the good old days. ( Okay, they weren't so great, maybe better though.)

That I care about people being fleeced with the blessing of the repubican party makes me left of left? So, you can't care about people and money? Be careful what pigeon holes you put people into.

As for being a do gooder - i write about the FACT that the repubs have helped the rich fleece the poor and it reads handout? Not at all!!! The message is "Stop ripping people off !" The pigs feeding at the trough ended with the 08 crash. The old saying pigs get slaughtered fits perfectly. Now the pigs and all who support them are an unhappy lot. They long for the good old days and desperately want them back. And you will help them.

No, I won't help them.

My plan is to downsize the house, lower my income and taxes, but have steady income streams ( SS, savings, home equity, some biz equity, part time work).

I expect the poor baby boomers will turn America into an entitlement state.

Therefore, I am taking it easier now, and enjoying life, will likely die at my desk ( if I'm there instead of doing something else).

I don't really care what happens to the pigs, I'm not the guy who is defending the status quo.  

I see the reality and I adjust. China is the new America, in terms of opportunity.

You and I are just a couple of gnats fighting on the head of a pin :). Your message is unclear.

Regulations are needed in many sectors. I think people just need to figure out that, as with everything else, regulation is a term that encompasses a lot of different types of action. It's not necessarily price dictatorship or rationing of goods.

Thanks, President Obama! I just love to stand transfixed watching train wrecks and fearing for my way of life and loved ones' future. If we can only get the regulations right, everything's gonna be all right. Here's 10 million in soft dollars from the insurance industry, there's 10 million from the RIAs. Let's keep everybody guessing over at the train wreck while we loot the big house.

[quote=BondGuy]

You really are sheep, aren't you?

Not much deep thinking going on in this thread. I expected better from this group. Everyday, I honestly hope that people aren't this stupid. But, here it is, a thread like this one, stupidity on parade!

[/quote]

BondGuy, you are right, of course.  But perhaps the rest of us are relatively silent because we have concluded that if you choose to throw mud with the swine you are sure to end up stinking and dirty.  Plus, it's more enjoyable and more of a learning experience to spend time with people who have an open mind.  If someone has managed to become a "financial advisor" without having any clue about economics and policy, as many of the participants on this board clearly have, then it is surely too late for them...

[quote=lovindaindy]

I started my business on credit cards as well.  The interest rates were 0%.  Paid them off by the time the rate was going to go up - to 9%!

The problem isn't the interest rates.  The problem is letting people who can't afford credit, get it. 

High interest rates are supposed to be a curb on demand.  If the pool of borrowers is large, those higher interest rates are supposed to be a check on people NOT applying for credit.  The problem is that the borrowers with bad credit feel like it is free money.  It is a lack of financial education.  As long as that exists, you are going to have high interest rates for people who shouldn't have them.

If you took time out of the equation and asked that person who has bad credit - you can pay $1000 for this big screen tv, or you can pay $10,000 for it, which one do you choose?  I bet they would say $1000.  Unfortunately, people don't understand interest.  And it's never put in to perspective.

[/quote]

Whether it be revolving or mortgage, the problem is not the people who want credit who shouldn't have it.  People have always wanted that.  The problem is that the financial industry found a way to give it to them, pass off the risk, and make tons of money for everyone who colluded in the scheme along the way.  The people didn't change - they've never been financially sophisticated.  The financial industry didn't really change - they've always been equal parts ingenius, unscrupulous and greedy.  What changed is that the regulators fell asleep and allowed massive financial risks to be passed down the line to tax payers.  De-regulation, a concept so necessary in the early eightees, was taken way too far in the Bush administration.  As is often the case, we lurched from one extreme to the other.  And now, before we have time to implement a correction, it appears that most here would push the pendulum even further up the de-regulatory arc, probably until it swings all the way around and hits us in the a$$ - again.

But this board represents the financial industry and there's obviously no saving us from ourselves!

A fool and his money are easily parted. That's what you have social services for - the thing I hate are the bailouts and takeovers.

They say it is to maintain liquidity in the system. Everything and anything in the name of liquidity. You can never get around that one.

It is the begining of complexity and the end of the individual. All you can do is attempt to diversify your own stuff over time.

Remember, nature prefers to burn over many different types of natural areas as a way to kill disease and weeds and renew the forest

What we have here is a forest that is never allowed to burn. Out West, that has harbored many funky type of invasive insect species, and the Forest Service ( a U.S. government agency) has been forced to allow nature to take its course and burn down the forests at times.

I don't believe the T Party will be bashful about doing what needs to be done - as the average person's economic IQ goes up, we can begin to sit back and enjoy the fruits. Regulations are not the really interesting or relevant thing right now, in a relative sense. I believe the deregulation started with Clinton. Sheesh, where are all of the conservatives here?

When the markets and greed went to excess, we lost our nerve. Just like immigration, for the love of Pete, why don't we just put everyone to work and start creating some wealth? Untie our hands so we can be good capitalists. I can't take it any more, seriously, I have to flee for a while.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

If there is even a chance someone will not be able to pay their property taxes, why in the world would they own the property to start with? Financial ignorance, just as all forms of ignorance, is not a defense it is an excuse.

Actually it's neither. It's a reason. As for the robbing Peter to pay Paul school of finance, How it works is like this: poor guy takes out a loan to buy a new furnace and hot water heater for his house. He needs a loan because at 8 bucks an hour it is impossible to save enough money to buy these things out right. He has a thin file FICO score of 820 making him buyable in loan world terms. Still, even with a higher FICO score than most of us he doesn't get favorable terms. The bank wants 21% secured as a second mortgage on his house. Of course the bank's plan is to take the house. He agrees because he needs heat. To pay the loan he takes a second job. That works for a while, but then he injures himself at work. His boss fires him and now the wolf is at the door. No excuses, not ignorance, just the way it is. He loses his house and the the elite (that would be you) point at him and call him stupid.

[/quote]

[/quote]

Lot of "what ifs" there but I feel the poor guy should rent not buy. Just the way it is. I rented until I was able to buy. I own a very modest home that will not bankrupt me if the garbage disposal tears up.

I did not call anyone "stupid," I said ignorant. Look up the definition. Everyone is ignorant of something. I guess you are ignorant to equities since you sling bonds (just teasing  but hopefully you get the point)

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

Just an fyi - As a child, we were dirt poor but we were very happy. I made the same financial mistakes as the people you are grandstanding for. I could of easily filed bankruptcy and started from scratch but I decided to educate myself and slowly pull my way out of that ditch. It was one of the reasons I decided to enter this field.

Just so we're on the same page, i'm not grandstanding for anyone. I'm against the fleecing of the underclasses. There has been a legalized tranference of wealth in this country, all legal. Who in their right mind thinks it's OK to charge anyone 30% interest? Let alone those who can least afford it? I'll tell you who, your republican congressman who has the banker's hand in his pocket. This person has voted against the poor at every opportunity. All you voted for him!

[/quote]

[/quote]

We will just have to disagree, I suppose. I think that people control their own path while you feel that the cannot and therefore need guardrails for some reason??? Our President has said many times that he and Michelle both are results of hard work and living the American Dream. What does the underclass not get that Obama's mother or Michelle's parents did get? How is it that against ALL odds Obama was able to obtain an education and climb the ladder run by run to get where he is today?

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

I hope someday you realize the difference between people looking for a handout and people looking for a hand up. If you truly cared as much as you, and the others with the same poor pitiful lower class attitude, like to sound you would address the REAL underlying concern... education. The public education system does not come close to preparing teenagers for the real world.

Characterizing those in need, the working poor, as looking for a handout is an insult to everyone of those people. That thinking also neatly gets you off the hook for not giving a damn. They're bums, right? They get what they deserve, and they certainly don't deserve help! That about sum it up? Of course it does. In your own words they are ignorant. Of course, in reality  that is not true, but because you couldn't live with yourself if you admiitted the truth you buy the lie.

As i reread my post I'm trying to figure out where you get that i pity the poor? This isn't about pitying the poor. It's about not taking advantage of those with lesser means. How and why that is allowed to happen.

I agree we need to do more about education in poor districts. In my state we are doing it. Over 2/3 of the education budget raised from state taxes goes to 26 school districts. Let me put that in context for you. There are 603 school districts in my state. Yet, 66 cents out of every education dollar goes to the 26 poorest districts. The other 577 districts get to split the remaining 33 cents.

[/quote]

[/quote]

I am not characterizing anyone, that would be you. I am drawing a line between the two. I am 100% for helping people that want to help themselves. You are asking me if they are "bums" and "they get what they deserve." You must enjoy putting words in other's mouth or assuming asinine thoughts when you read a post. But since you mentioned what people "deserve" I will add my thoughts on it. People that are born or become a U.S. citizen deserve the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves. I didn't say they deserve a better life but I did say they deserve a chance to give themselves a better life.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

Get off your soap box and teach someone Mr. 2mm GDC....

Soapbox? That's funny! Coming from a guy who is posting on other threads about being owned ?  I point out that you've bought into a bought and paid for belief system created as part of a slick marketing campaign designed to bring repubs back to power and I'm on a soapbox? If believing in something you don't understand isn't being owned, what is?

[/quote]

[/quote]

Yes soapbox... my "owned" post was funny to me. Not sure your point. Unless you are trying to make a connection that I want regulation on the board but not in the markets??? Also I have not bought into any system that has an actual chance of being in control in Washington. But I do believe we need change. Most importantly a change in the materialistic need, desire for instant gratification and fear of not being politically correct.

Just like my disapproval with Upward basketball programs, contrary to belief, it is ok to lose, right. If not then lets watch the Bears/Packers tonight and hopefully they will tie so no one has to get their feelings hurt and feel subordinate to anyone else.

[quote=loneMADman]

[quote=BondGuy]

You really are sheep, aren't you?

Not much deep thinking going on in this thread. I expected better from this group. Everyday, I honestly hope that people aren't this stupid. But, here it is, a thread like this one, stupidity on parade!

[/quote]

BondGuy, you are right, of course.  But perhaps the rest of us are relatively silent because we have concluded that if you choose to throw mud with the swine you are sure to end up stinking and dirty.  Plus, it's more enjoyable and more of a learning experience to spend time with people who have an open mind.  If someone has managed to become a "financial advisor" without having any clue about economics and policy, as many of the participants on this board clearly have, then it is surely too late for them...

[/quote]

Ah, a glimmer of hope!

Well said!

[Get off your soap box and teach someone Mr. 2mm GDC....

[/quote]

 BondGuy has been a great help to me and others on this board. he has earned the right to his opinions. We can all agree to disagree. The constant fighting is the problem with this country today!

Plus, it's more enjoyable and more of a learning experience to spend time with people who have an open mind.  If someone has managed to become a "financial advisor" without having any clue about economics and policy, as many of the participants on this board clearly have, then it is surely too late for them...

Really,  Mad?

Not much deep thinking going on in this thread. I expected better from this group.

Seriously, Bond Guy?

Not much more reason to go on here, I reckon I'll just go clean my guns and feed the pigs.  

Yes, seriously!

Y'all are jumin' on the anti Obama bandwagon. A bandwagon that is Madison Avenue slick. None of us can understand how blind or naive or uniformed or misunformed the Bogleheads are, but then y'all fall this load of bullshit? Seriously?

 We had a balanced budget and limited government spending under Clinton. We also had a budget surplus. Any Clinton supporters in the group?

We had an energy policy under Carter that reduced our dependance on foreign oil by 50%. Reagan undid it as fast as he could. If we'd kept those policies in place there would have been no Gulf War and no Iraq War. We would be masters of our own economy. How many Carter fans we got here?

Undo health care? Exactly how would that affect you? Is there anyone in this country who doesn't deserve health care?

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive the bailouts were unnecessary and we shouldn't have done them?

By a show of hands how many of you have been tangibly adversely affected by the current administration?

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive there has been enough time since the 08 meltdown for recovery to take place?

Yeah, tenth, seriously!

Though I am not a big fan of either Carter or Clinton, BG is dead-nuts, balls-on accurate about what they tried to do/did regarding oil dependence and budget surpluses, respectively.  I give Carter credit for having the balls to tell America what it needed to hear, not what it wanted to hear....Even if it cost him at the polls.

[quote=BondGuy]

Actually, you don't know what i believe. But, that's Ok, for your world to work i've got to fit in a certain box. I get it.

Singling out the repubs is putting blame exactly where it belongs. All, the laws that allow the fleecing of the poor passed under repub leadership or congressional control. The polictical economics of the repubs is to fleece the poor legally.  Has the republican party not been a rock in the road to economic recovery? At who's expense? Not yours! It's all about getting power back in their hands. They don't care if it hurts the common man. The common man is not part of their party. The poor man who's hours have been cut by recession is not part of their party.

Think about this for a moment: Small businessman are bitching about having to provide health care to their employees. You would think small business people would want healthy employees. After-all healthy employees are good for business. More productivity etc, right? So, what's the problem? The problem is the small business owner doesn't want to give any more of his money to his employees. Employees, i might add, who are enriching the businessman. It's much more profitable for the businessman to fire the sick employee and hire a healthy one. You side with those who agree with this thinking. How is that doing the right thing? How, does that square with God?

Insurance companies are allowed to drop those who are seriously ill. Hospitals use loopholes to refuse treatment to the uninsured critically ill. All in the name of profit. Of course, rich as you are this will never happen to you. You side with those who are Ok with this and allow it to happen. You side with those who are paid to make sure it continues. How is that doing the right thing? God Ok with turning away the sick because they can't pay?

You are correct about people being misinformed or uninformed. That people are blaming the current admin for the economy is proof of that. The repubs are playing it for all it's worth. And, so we're clear, what i'm saying is that there hasn't been enough time for recovery. The repubs have done everything they can do to prevent a recovery from happening. The average voter, uniformed, or misinformed, doesn't realize the time it takes to recover. If the economy is in the tank at election time the incumbants get the boot. Witness George Bush in 92. Fact is, then, as it is now, the govt has done what is needed and recovery is on line to take place.

Question: When you pass from this earth and are at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asks: "Why did you help people who hurt so many of your fellow man?" What's your answer?

[/quote]

oh palezzzz.    

You trying to get to heaven like Gates et al and the other limo libs?

1.  people are greedy

2. free markets work

3. failure and stupidity has consequences.    America needs MORE personal responsibility.

 (just like T. jefferson et al meant it to be)

You have guilt brother?   thats your issue.

Karl marx sound wonderful on paper.   it just does not work.

If they can get 25%......God bless em.

how that war on poverty going?

truth in lending?

home mortgage modifications?

10 years from now.......your hero liz warren bs agency with be one more monster govt clusterfukc.

like ALWAYS 

[quote=BondGuy]

Yes, seriously!

Y'all are jumin' on the anti Obama bandwagon. A bandwagon that is Madison Avenue slick. None of us can understand how blind or naive or uniformed or misunformed the Bogleheads are, but then y'all fall this load of bullshit? Seriously?

 We had a balanced budget and limited government spending under Clinton. We also had a budget surplus. Any Clinton supporters in the group?

We had an energy policy under Carter that reduced our dependance on foreign oil by 50%. Reagan undid it as fast as he could. If we'd kept those policies in place there would have been no Gulf War and no Iraq War. We would be masters of our own economy. How many Carter fans we got here?

Undo health care? Exactly how would that affect you? Is there anyone in this country who doesn't deserve health care?

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive the bailouts were unnecessary and we shouldn't have done them?

By a show of hands how many of you have been tangibly adversely affected by the current administration?

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive there has been enough time since the 08 meltdown for recovery to take place?

Yeah, tenth, seriously!

[/quote]

dumbest post in RR message board history.

by a show of hands, which BS govt crap waste agency is a failure?

post office?  chap 11

amtrack  chap 11

fema?   go Aints

FDA   eggs over easy anyone?

IRS?   call em  50% chance your answer is wrong

hud?   funny

dept of education?    our kids are stupid.

tax code?  funny

sec?  in madolfs office for 6 month  

social security?    take my money.  give it to the MF govt to piss away   brilliant

medicare?  black hole of mf waste

goog the owebama pork waste stimulis bulls^%$#.  its online.  start reading that badboy if you want to get very angry.

yep   we need more big MF govt like owebama wants.   it always works so well

as far as the recovery?    if owebama was not there and we used all this pork for supply side. trickle down voodoo economics........we would be rocking again

madison ave?     how stupid

you want to fix healthcare?   free market incentives-duh

lasiks-it works  you know why?   duh  free market incentives

plastic surgery also

add 30 million people to a piece of crap system and it will SAVE a trillion.  that might be the biggest MF lie in the history of politics.

cant wait for that tril in savings

[quote=tenthtee]

A fool and his money are easily parted. That's what you have social services for - the thing I hate are the bailouts and takeovers.

They say it is to maintain liquidity in the system. Everything and anything in the name of liquidity. You can never get around that one.

It is the begining of complexity and the end of the individual. All you can do is attempt to diversify your own stuff over time.

Remember, nature prefers to burn over many different types of natural areas as a way to kill disease and weeds and renew the forest

What we have here is a forest that is never allowed to burn. Out West, that has harbored many funky type of invasive insect species, and the Forest Service ( a U.S. government agency) has been forced to allow nature to take its course and burn down the forests at times.

I don't believe the T Party will be bashful about doing what needs to be done - as the average person's economic IQ goes up, we can begin to sit back and enjoy the fruits. Regulations are not the really interesting or relevant thing right now, in a relative sense. I believe the deregulation started with Clinton. Sheesh, where are all of the conservatives here?

When the markets and greed went to excess, we lost our nerve. Just like immigration, for the love of Pete, why don't we just put everyone to work and start creating some wealth? Untie our hands so we can be good capitalists. I can't take it any more, seriously, I have to flee for a while.

[/quote]

Tenth, what conservatives who use this analogy forget is that nature does its work over the course of decades and centuries.  We're people, not ecologies, and have to work on a different timeline.  I would rather have had the financial intervention we had, even if it rubs my free market sensitivies the wrong way, than to have a repeat of the depression, with 15 lost years and millions of lost lives.  Maybe you don't think that's likely, but I can tell you that I was a corporate treasurer in the fall of 2008 and I saw the credit markets dry up in real time, even before this made the Fall headlines.  We were heading toward a very bad place, very fast.  There were no deals to be had as the entire credit system was in a state of cross-default seizure.  Had Paulson and Bush and the Democratic Congress not stepped in, there is ZERO doubt we would be much worse off today.

So let's park the idealogical crutches in the closet, get over selective amnesia and get real about solving our problems.  As for the Tea Party not being bashful, I agree with that part.  As far as knowing what to do, well, they're the modern day Scarecrow; there's a lot of them in the fields these days, but there's not one with any brains.

To paraphrase Louie from Taxi, "Tea Party, I only wish you were smarter, so you would know how dumb you are."

Nettlesome, you calling something a stupid post is perhaps the highest compliment indeed.  "I only wish YOU were smarter..."

You point to a lot of examples of government incompetence, and there are surely plenty.  But what you ignore is that it has been a Republican president at the head of each of these agencies for 28 of the last 42 years!  That's what you get when you put people in charge of stuff they don't like and don't understand; incompetence.  PJ O'Rourke said it years ago "Republicans campaign on the idea that government can't do anything right, and when they get elected, they prove it."

Now don't get me wrong, I think both Republicans and Democrats are incompetent.  The difference is that Democrats are at least trying to do something positive.  If Republicans would simply run on a platform of smaller, more cost-effective government, with candidates who had a few still firing brain cells, they'd be a viable alternative.  Instead their new slate of candidates looks like the crew from Animal House, without the laughs.  They're going to do all the damage they can before they get expelled.

Does anyone think that this mess is truly fixable without first reforming the two party system?

Honestly, no. There is no way the amount of diversity in this country can be equally represented by two ideologies. Thats why the feds should step down and give the states back the responsibility and authority they so desperately need.

Feds = military policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, interstate/foreign commerce and nothing more...

Lone, well said.

Ok, let's get down to the central bug up the tea party's ass when it comes to money, the bailouts. First, are we all on the same page here with regard to the status of TARP. That is, it's a done deal within the next week or  two, no money can be spent once it ends, and can we agree on the CBO's number as to the total cost to the government of TARP coming in at about 66 billion?

Does anyone here remember what this board was like two years ago this month? I do. I can describe the posts with just two words, fear and panic. Why was there fear and panic among some here?  Among most here? Because we had ring side seats. We saw the hole in the hull. We saw the water gushing in, unstopable and the pumps unable to keep up. Unlike those on decks far above us we knew what it meant. We knew the ship was going to sink. And, we knew it was going to do so very quickly. While there are many comparisions of the imminent capsize to the Great Depression, the truth is, what we witnessed was unprecedented. This was more than a compression of the economy or a collapse of one financial sector within that economy. This was the collapse of the entire monetary system. Not only was the economy in danger, the very delivery system that makes having an economy possible was in mortal danger.  

Fear? youbetcha! I told my wife, brothers and sister, as well as my kids to pull as much cash out of the banks as they could. The ATMs were working today, But tomorrow? WE knew the ship was doomed unless saved by extraordinary measures. Quite frankly, exactly two years ago today that rescue was far from a sure thing.

When someone says to me "I'm against those bailouts" I ask them if their ATM card worked the last time they used it. "Of course it did" comes the reply. I then ask what they would do if it didn't work? They are those from the decks far away from the damage. those with little understanding of how close we came and with no understanding of what it was we came so close to. How sweet that naivete.

Now those people, the naive, the uninformed, the carefree, are being played for political gain. The Republicans have been a rock in the road at every bend to slow recovery for their benefit in 2010 and beyond. it's a strategy designed to win back power.  There is not a Congressman or Senator in this country that does not know the truth of the bailouts. That they were needed more to restore trust than replace capital. The 66 billion final price tag bares that out. They know, behind closed doors where the TARP deal was cut, that without it we were doomed. They know that without the bailouts the working life of a viable ATM card was measured in days. They knew that at least 25% of the companies in the S&P 500 would be unable to make payroll beyond October. And, without a delivery system to get that money to employees paying them was moot. They also knew that the dollar would be worthless in a matter of minutes had collapse come. So the deal was made to get the votes. Let those who need to save face by voting No vote No. I tell those who are against the bailouts that without the yes votes the first week of October 2008 their ATM cards would have stopped working by the second week of October. By the end of October they would have needed a gun to protect their property. Don't believe me? Again I ask, if your ATM card didn't work what would you do? What would you do if you found out you were wiped out? Your money is gone. There will not be anymore paychecks. That's what the bailouts prevented - so far. if you hear anyone tell you differently, they are either uninformed, misinformed or are being politically dishonest. The bailouts prevented amageddon.

When i call those here who agree with the Tea Party's point of view stupid, this is why I say that. It's Ok to have strongly held political beliefs. I  could care less how any of you feel about Obama. Hate him, fine with me. But to agree with the TP is to agree the bailouts weren't needed. The only reason you still have a way of life that has been uninterrupted from what you've always known is because of the bailouts. You know better or at least you should.

The danger here is there will be a next time. And, even with the bailouts we got lucky we didn't lose everything. With the not so deep thinkers in control, next time, we might not be so lucky.

I agree the two-party system is broken.  The multi-party system others countries use has become more effective.  They have to compromise to get things done as there is never a hope of having a super-majority to ram your will down people's throats, so win at all costs is pointless. 

When I was a kid, we were taught, with examples, of how the American political system was superior because it was based on democratic principles and compromise.  The latter is clearly dead and unlimited corporate / soft-money donations will continue to put more than a flesh wound in the former.  I doubt middle school kids today can be getting the same feel-good messages we were taught.  No wonder they're depressed.

wow  bond

you just trumped the all time retarded post with one even stupidier

there is plenty of blame to go around with subprime meltdown.   what "we" did with CDO's etc was horrible...

but the CORE reason for the subprime meltdown was (as usual) was unintendend consequeces of govt bullsti mettling and failure of govt   (please see 1. above.   "people are greedy"). 

without incentives for people to better themselves, crap fails.   (bond, you need to repeat this 25 times aday)

the problem was caused because of liberal ideals that everyone should own a home.

fnm,fre,cra,enterprise zones,clintons witch doctor mortgages etc etc

and, as ususal, all this crap seems great on papaer 

(lets help low income people get homes.   how can that be bad?)           

(please see karl marx, sounds great on papaer, doesnt work) 

this elizabrth warren,finreg, dodd frank clusterfukc is really kind of funny to watch.  

yep, theri 3000 pages will fix things.  funny

you know what regulation DOES work? 

simple, hard core limits to keep people in between the ditches

(ie Reg whatever  {reg t?}    you cant magin stocks over 50%  boom  works)

you want me to solve and ensure that subprime with NEVER happen again?    3000 pages>?  nope

one sentence.

law  :  "no mortages will be allowed to be sold from the original issuer"

wow.  brilliant      incentive to make damn sure people have skin in the game to get people to pay you back

     wow  that was hard

with no welfare govt agency bs invovled  (ie  commiemae and commiemac)

bond, you have some incredible insights in this business and the fixed income markets

but you have a naive 11th grade English major view of the rest of the world.    you sound like my kids and their stupid friends.   

liek I tell them, finish your trig homework.  

get a real job.   spend 5 years in the real world,

then lets talk.

those SEC mensa boys sta in madolfs office for 6 mg months.......bond

there was NO COMPANY there.

no trades

zero trades.  nothing.  no company

no company

6 months sitting there

they missed it

NO MF COMPANY THERE    THEY MISSED IT

im sure these guys will fix healthcare.  

jesus, how can people be so gd stupid

Well said, like poetry, Nettles.

There is no debating BG and some of these other libs. It always ends up with them calling you stupid.

BGs version of being accountable for name calling is to lecture on the obvious need for liquidity in the financial system.

Speaking of real cause and effect, I wonder if America will begin to look more and more like Europe as we run out of money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phnj-lofCvc

A Spain-like city in the U.S. might be the best place to hang out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LmL5T9iNFI

This could never happen in California!

Thank goodness Obama will make everything "fair" in America.

( " I belive in the concept that you pay as you go.") Ooooops -----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8

The first clip is your beloved Ireland, BG.

Last clip: Obama promises to stop using a credit card from China, tax the rich, "pay as we go."

Forgot about the pay as we go part.

Progressives are living in la-la land, and the debate usually ends with them saying that we are stupid.

Check it out here. It always ends in name calling and trying to make us out to be ignorant. Even though of the conservatives here have probably travelled or living in foreign countries, and started out poor. Not good enough credentials. This is why a lot of folks are just turning off the progressive channel and  looking forward. Actions matter, not words.

Well said Nettles?!?!?!  The guy can't string a coherent sentence together to save his life.  Both the manner and the message are devoid of any signs of intelligence.  Well said?!?!  Even though I expected to disagree with your position on this, I expected a little more objectivity. 

It's okay to like wine but hate Boones Farm.  I guess it's a sign that at the conservative table, that's the only crap that's being served these days.

The first step for either party is to acknowledge that there are useful elements on both platforms and that it really shouldn't always be either/or situations. 

" devoid of any signs of intelligence.  Well said?!?!  Even though I expected to disagree with your position on this, I expected a little more objectivity"

" It's okay to like wine but hate Boones Farm.  I guess it's a sign that at the conservative table, that's the only crap that's being served these days."

There is no point in talking with you. You don't care about what you are doing here.  Just wasting time.

"Off".

Sniff.  I'm hurt.

Your comment is a bit of a non-sequitor, in my opinion, or perhaps just plain weird.  So long.

Jen, I really have to thank you for giving me a greater understanding of one aspect of our political landscape. I now understand why so many Tea Party protest signs contain misspellings.

Jen, prove to me that you aren't a moron: Tell me, in complete sentences, exactly what happened in August, September, and October of 2008. What, exactly, the meltdown was, and what, exactly, caused it. Why the govt let ML BAC DB and others skate and went hammer down on Lehman. Leave out the political diatribe and finger pointing. Just in chronological order what happened.

If you don't respond it's a fail, it shows you don't know the answer. Politics aside if you don't know the answer you have no business being in this business. Feel free to cheat off the crib sheet i've given you in this thread.

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

bond, you have some incredible insights in this business and the fixed income markets

but you have a naive 11th grade English major view of the rest of the world.    you sound like my kids and their stupid friends.   

liek I tell them, finish your trig homework.  

get a real job.   spend 5 years in the real world,

[/quote]

Exactly... This is the real world. There are winners and there are losers. Just the way it is. Some people were born to dig ditches. It's ok. We need ditches dug. Someone will be born that will cure cancer. It's ok as well. We need that too.

Bond guy, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide who deserves what and who will provide that. I am for helping people out BUT it should be done voluntarily through the private sector NOT involuntarily through government policies.

Small government. People helping people not people helping the government help people...

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

bond, you have some incredible insights in this business and the fixed income markets

but you have a naive 11th grade English major view of the rest of the world.    you sound like my kids and their stupid friends.   

liek I tell them, finish your trig homework.  

get a real job.   spend 5 years in the real world,

[/quote]

Exactly... This is the real world. There are winners and there are losers. Just the way it is. Some people were born to dig ditches. It's ok. We need ditches dug. Someone will be born that will cure cancer. It's ok as well. We need that too.

Bond guy, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide who deserves what and who will provide that. I am for helping people out BUT it should be done voluntarily through the private sector NOT involuntarily through government policies.

Small government. People helping people not people helping the government help people...

[/quote]

Exactly what government policies or programs are you referring to?

I'm still waiting for jen's version of the meltdown.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

bond, you have some incredible insights in this business and the fixed income markets

but you have a naive 11th grade English major view of the rest of the world.    you sound like my kids and their stupid friends.   

liek I tell them, finish your trig homework.  

get a real job.   spend 5 years in the real world,

[/quote]

Exactly... This is the real world. There are winners and there are losers. Just the way it is. Some people were born to dig ditches. It's ok. We need ditches dug. Someone will be born that will cure cancer. It's ok as well. We need that too.

Bond guy, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide who deserves what and who will provide that. I am for helping people out BUT it should be done voluntarily through the private sector NOT involuntarily through government policies.

Small government. People helping people not people helping the government help people...

[/quote]

Exactly what government policies or programs are you referring to?

I'm still waiting for jen's version of the meltdown.

[/quote]

any policy not listed in my previous post which I quoted below and highlighted for you...

[quote=N.D.]

Honestly, no. There is no way the amount of diversity in this country can be equally represented by two ideologies. Thats why the feds should step down and give the states back the responsibility and authority they so desperately need.

Feds = military policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, interstate/foreign commerce and nothing more...

[/quote]

[quote=tenthtee]

Well said, like poetry, Nettles.

[/quote]

"No mortgages will be allowed  to be sold from the original issuer"

Tenth, that is well said right? You agree with this?

That being the case i have to assume that you, like JN, have little understanding of not only what happened and why it happened, but also of what has driven our economy from the the mid 1970s going forward.

If you chose to reply you should note that mortgage origination sales have been in place for over 30 years. Why didn't they collapse the economy in 1977? Tell us, what would happen if the govt shuts down all mortgage sales?

If you understood what happened and why you'd know the answer. And, knowing that answer you'd also know how preposterous JN's reference to mortgage orgination sales is, and you would not have given her a two thumbs up "Well said!"

JN said "wow brilliant."  Actually, just the opposite. Incredibly ignorant.

 The problem is you folks get to vote.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=tenthtee]

Well said, like poetry, Nettles.

[/quote] 

"No mortgages will be allowed  to be sold from the original issuer"

Tenth, that is well said right? You agree with this?...[/quote]

Actually that is not a bad idea and one a "BondGuy" should consider. The mortgage originators should be allowed to use these loans as colateral to borrow against or sell debt intruments against to raise new capital for future loans. This keeps the loans either bundled or not on their books as an asset. This keeps them from defering all liability...

[quote=BondGuy]

Yes, seriously!

Y'all are jumin' on the anti Obama bandwagon. A bandwagon that is Madison Avenue slick. None of us can understand how blind or naive or uniformed or misunformed the Bogleheads are, but then y'all fall this load of bullshit? Seriously?    My beef with Obama was that he spoke about being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Now he is just as partisan as the rest of the hacks in D.C.

 We had a balanced budget and limited government spending under Clinton. We also had a budget surplus. Any Clinton supporters in the group?  I LOVED Clinton!  There was limited government spending under Clinton, but that wasn't because of Clinton. 

We had an energy policy under Carter that reduced our dependance on foreign oil by 50%. Reagan undid it as fast as he could. If we'd kept those policies in place there would have been no Gulf War and no Iraq War. We would be masters of our own economy. How many Carter fans we got here?   Carter was an idiot.  Predicting that we woudn't have a war is a pretty big stretch. 

Undo health care? Exactly how would that affect you? Is there anyone in this country who doesn't deserve health care?  Last question you asked - Everyone deserves health care, but it shouldn't be free.  And it still isn't.  It's just free for people who can't afford it.  My premiums were already affected.  I specifcially got a letter form my insurance company telling me the reason that my insurance premiums were going up was because of "future projected costs due to new legislation".  Of course that could mean ANYTHING.

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive the bailouts were unnecessary and we shouldn't have done them?  I don't think they were unnecessary.  Although, I have said from the beginning that the government is likely to make money from the whole thing and it should have been sold as an investment, which would have done a few things:  1)  Given the public confidence that capital markets correct and 2)  Not associated "bailouts" with financial institutions and 3)  Made people realize that personal bailouts are different.  Although that might be asking a lot.  Once again though, Bush and Paulson were the father's of that, so Obama doesn't get to take credit for it.  Neither do the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who RAILED against it.  Also, if you campaigned on platform of "Bailouts are bad, and no more bailouts", you don't get to take credit for a "Bailout". 

By a show of hands how many of you have been tangibly adversely affected by the current administration?  Like I said, already have on health care.  I will further be adversely affected as the small business provisions go into affect, and the auditing requirements of RIAs.  I estimate my additional costs next year to be around $7k just for business related expenses, simply do to this administrations policies.  I normally don't care about politics, EXCEPT when it affects me adversely.

By a show of hands, how many of you really beleive there has been enough time since the 08 meltdown for recovery to take place?   Me.  Pick me!  You bet.  There's been enough time.  But it doesn't help when you continue to spend.  Now, I get that government spending has a multiplicative affect on economic growth - I really do.  But, spending with no goal and no plan doesn't help anybody out.  Not to mention that the government is the worst entity to efficiently allocate resources.

Yeah, tenth, seriously!

[/quote]

Simply put, Congress has had four years to fix things.  President Obama has had two.  People give credit to Clinton for the recovery in '92 (which is interesting, since he wasn't even in office.  Also interesting is that technically, the recession ended in '91).  So if it only took him one month to fix things, then why does it take this administration 24 times as long to fix things?  Which is it?  Did Bush senior fix things, or did Clinton?  That answer will determine whether or not you think Obama has had enough time.  It is entirely possible that the recovery was started because of *gasp* President Bush Jr's policies. 

What is interesting is that both sides of this argument are claiming NOT to be idealogues, but in fact are. 

BG - Think you are great.  I also think your posts are well thought out.  They just aren't balanced.  Where is your equal criticism for President Obama and the Democrats.  The disegenuity of the left hand side.  It is easy to hate the right, because they champion the cause of upper-middle to upper America.  But I ask you, who would champion their cause, if not the Republicans?  Do they not deserve equal protection under the laws of this land?

"No mortgages will be allowed  to be sold from the original issuer"

Tenth, that is well said right? You agree with this?...

Of course not. Unless ... this policy is used as an alternative to more layers of complicated nanny-state regulations.

I believe in allowing freedom in the capital markets. Freedom to securitize, leverage, gamble. No different than you deciding to ride a motorcycle, who am I to call you  fool for putting your body out there?

Bailouts or interventions are necessary during a liquidity crisis, nobody is doubting that fact. We can defend the status quo or argue about the events or causes that lead up to them, or we can take a step back.

I see the meltdown as the beginning of post industrial America. We found our limits in the world economy. A lot of folks can take credit for making it happen, and absorbing the stress to bail us out.

Some folks got rich, some went broke. Everyone is soiled by the crisis.

America has a few great strengths that need to be leverage. No question, one of them is the freedom for the individual or even the markets to fail.

If you think the mortgage meltdown was big, (heaven forbid), wait until the next big geopolitical crisis. The tests get harder and harder, and we have to play to our basic strengths.

Almost everyone is missing identifying the next big wave, which will be the convergence of progressive and conservative economic thought. It will happen out of necessity. Its champion will be small business. In this sense, big government and big business will become more accountable. That is the strength of the "Tea Party", and just saying "no" - it promotes the economic interests of the individual.

At a very basic level, most people are happiest and feel most satisfied when they are making an effort and succeeding in meeting their own basic needs. That is the future vision for this economic convergence.

In that sense ( in the sense of relating to all of this as a financial advisor), you are wasting your time with deconstuctionist analysis of what went wrong, and in the case of you negative progressives, name calling and defending the status quo.

You are betting off putting your energy into understanding the "next wave", and how to align your own interests with the interest of your "clients". ( Your charitable contribution to the profession or society if you have already met your basic needs.)

I think we all want to grow and find ourselves in a special place and time, blessed, I'm sure, to even have the time and energy to reflect here, and if we abuse that blessing we are accountable. You need a basic level of respect for the opinions and experience and discoveries of others, but if you don't uncover and share some core beliefs, you are  better off investing your energy in things you can influence or even control.

[quote=BondGuy]

Jen, I really have to thank you for giving me a greater understanding of one aspect of our political landscape. I now understand why so many Tea Party protest signs contain misspellings.

Jen, prove to me that you aren't a moron: Tell me, in complete sentences, exactly what happened in August, September, and October of 2008. What, exactly, the meltdown was, and what, exactly, caused it. Why the govt let ML BAC DB and others skate and went hammer down on Lehman. Leave out the political diatribe and finger pointing. Just in chronological order what happened.

If you don't respond it's a fail, it shows you don't know the answer. Politics aside if you don't know the answer you have no business being in this business. Feel free to cheat off the crib sheet i've given you in this thread.

[/quote]

I cant spell.   

Im ADD as a MF and cant stand checking crap on a stupid waste of time message board.

sorry

plenty of blame to go around in subprime meltdown.   After Enron/tech blow up and then this i have come to one  conclusion

.....we humans aint as smart as we think we are.     No one really connected the dots on what was happening   (ok  afreak show like kyle bass got lucky).  we aint that smart.   very successful people are also very lucky.

anyway.  plenty of blame.   the core of it was based in liberal ideals going back to fannie (roosevelt?)

cra

jimmys enterprise zones

bubbas withc docotr loans

etc

Like always, the intent was GREAT.   homes are better then no homes.  lets help as many people as possible get a home.     duh.    who would not agree with this?

but alas   there are ALWAYS bad unintended consequences when you fukc with free markets.  same thing here.    some of it took many many years.  some quicker.

the accounting probems that fannie and freddie had in the late 90's (i think) lead to the quick loan/countrywides to fill in the void.  no skin in game.  Angelo didnt give  acrap if u were qualified because they sold the paper

greed on wall street in the development of CDO's CMO's  original idea was solid.  spread risk

the complexity

the greed

the crap rugulation

perfect storm

I guess Al keeping rates too low after 911 contribuated also.

are these all bad, evil people. nope.   

remeber we are ALL GREEDY

all of us  the huamn condition.  original sin

all the people in this puzzle were just being flawed humans

the greedy fukc getting teh no-doc loan to use his house as a ATM

jimmy carter isnt a bad person.  enterprise zones seem good.

chris cox isnt a bad person.   he belives free markets hold the key for prosperity.

the closet thing to "bad" (prolly sick)  were madolfm standford and jeff skilling

non violent sciopaths

canada has no fannie or freddie and great home ownership and no subprime.

so are liberal ideals to blame?    no one is to blame

humans are flawed

did phil ghramm and chris cox and W and the other free market supply siders cause it?

nope

perfect storm

capitilism seems to blwo up about every 80 years or so.

on sept 19, 2008 the entire system did come very close to melting down.

a dollar is a dollar cause we both trust that is is.  if that trust is gone.  its paper

when the Reserve fund went under a buck and libor and the ted  spread went nuts...the system was ready to melt.    trust was gone.

i think hank and ben saved the free world.     The perfect guy was in that job.  a darthmoth lineacker that woked at Goldie and had balls of steel to undertsand that a indication that the USA master card would cover things ASAP.

yes.  TARP was nesssary and saved the system.

i think they needed to act the NEXT day.   how much left money market that night?  a tril?

again  we are animals  humans.  we revert to self preservation.

plenty of blame

what i do strongly KNOW is that mettling is free markets ALWAYS ends badly

the solutions always can be found with not FIGHTING human nature (greed) and pretendng that it does not exist.....but it understanding human nature and adapting a systme that works for the better good.

this elizabeth warrem dodd-frank 3000 page clusterfukc WILL end badly

like all govt bs mettling.

Am i less compassionate then you?

i bet not.

I just know that the answer is a MAN WITH A JOB.

that wealth is created through free markets-period

people exceling to better themselves through hard work and brains

and if you make this sytem as clean as you can (Hong ong) EVERYONE is better off

as the great ronnie reagan said:

"help the factory owner  you help the factory worker"   

cut taxes

cut regulation

cut all govt except the minimum

period.

health care?   again  look at lasiks

name one MF govt peice of carp program that ENDED?

just one

OK  we did it!!!   we met out goal

success.  we are done

do we need rules?  of course.

history says that simple hard and fast rules keeps human between the ditches

again  reg q for margin etc

bond

trurth n lending was suppose to protect people

you ever read teh bs they give u at clsoing?

does anyone read it?

how that work?

how that 4th generation on welfare doing?

a man with a job

get govt out of the way

and BTW   i was proud when owebama was elected

god bless america

we elected a black man

how cool

i was hopeful.   i rooted for the guy to suceed

i took my medicine that we lost

that iraq was a huge mistake

i even bought off on some of owebama bs at the beginning

wow.  maybe this guy can pull this off.

what a let down

this guy is so shallow

bashing groups

fat cat bankers

oil companies

"kicking people asses"

cheating on helathcare

saying so much crap that is just total BS

shallow and tunnel vision is the 2 best words i can think of

confrotational and small minded

really very disappointing

i had vision of less racism.   a more together country

this guy has been the great divider

i am actually pretty liberal on social stuff.

i was hopeful.  id certianly pay more in txes if t is truly for teh better good

a more fair country?    how cool

this guy is all about redistributuoning the wealth without reguard for fairness or what is correct

he treats everything in us vs them simplicity.

true courage and growth lies in understanding someones positions and having emphathy for its origin

compassion

humbleness is endering

this guy thinks like everything is a Fantasy football game

i will always respect him and his wife for their great personal success.

hard work.  beat the system.  aweome.

i dont really espect him much anymore in terms of his presidency

arrogance and pettieness

shallow

disappointing.     he had a chance to really change the world

To those saying BondGuy is wrong to deconstruct the past crisis, are you kidding?  Never heard the maxim that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it?  That's the whole problem with conservatives' current policy.  You haven't learned a damn thing from the past crisis.  So why the hell should we think you would know a damn thing about preventing the next!?!?!?!  Good grief.  Prove you can learn something, then tell us your opinion.

The greatest danger in life is to fervently believe that which isn't true.  That's what makes conservatives more dangerous than liberals.  Liberals don't really fervently believe much, which is sad, but most of what conservatives fervently believe is rubbish, which is dangerous.

Lastly, Nettlesome, it is the height of arrogance to present your "thoughts" in a manner that puts all the onus in making them coherent on the reader.  Sorry.  Can't read it; won't read it.  ADD really?!?!  Sounds like a liberal excuse to me.  Man up for god's sake and work to overcome your shortcomings.  That's what you seem to expect of everyone ELSE.

I know I am new here but please let me add my two cents here. If you have ever read the bible esp. Proverbs you would know that "THE BORROWER IS SLAVE TO THE LENDER" and thAt you should work your tail off till u r debt free.

I got in the financial biz a year ago to change the world. As of today I have refied several mortgages, done personal loans, and taught debt snowballing to countless people. Why?? Cause I do care. That said I will not stand by and let the government take half of my money when I start making it big and give it back to the very people I pulled myself and my family out of. God gave me two hands, two legs, and a brain I think I can take care of myself without the govt. Heck I wish they would just get out of the way. So there that is my two cense I hope it was worth your time.

Btw I really have enjoyed your non political posts over the last few weeks bondguy. I hope that all of us can still be professional and curteous even if we disagree.

Mateo

[quote=loneMADman]

To those saying BondGuy is wrong to deconstruct the past crisis, are you kidding?  Never heard the maxim that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it?  That's the whole problem with conservatives' current policy.  You haven't learned a damn thing from the past crisis.  So why the hell should we think you would know a damn thing about preventing the next!?!?!?!  Good grief.  Prove you can learn something, then tell us your opinion.

The greatest danger in life is to fervently believe that which isn't true.  That's what makes conservatives more dangerous than liberals.  Liberals don't really fervently believe much, which is sad, but most of what conservatives fervently believe is rubbish, which is dangerous.

Lastly, Nettlesome, it is the height of arrogance to present your "thoughts" in a manner that puts all the onus in making them coherent on the reader.  Sorry.  Can't read it; won't read it.  ADD really?!?!  Sounds like a liberal excuse to me.  Man up for god's sake and work to overcome your shortcomings.  That's what you seem to expect of everyone ELSE.

[/quote]

dude

Would you please stop your GD whining.    man  you sound like such a freakin pu#$y.

"it is the height of arrogance to present your "thoughts" in a manner that puts all the onus in making them coherent on the reader."

that might be the stupidest comment in the history of earth

"cant read....wont read"

you did'nt cry   did you?

You cant be an FA  

are you in compliance?   HR?   green peace?  save the MF whales?

I own my own RIA.  And once again, I take your "stupidest" comment as the highest form of flattery.

And I wasn't complaining about your incomprehensible rantings.  I was just offering constructive feedback.  It's not surprising at all that you misinterpreted it.

I'm still waiting for jen's version of the meltdown.

i gave it

 scroll back.

it was brilliant

lone mad man, 

peace.   sorry for being such a dick.  

here   check this acid falsh back out

it will make you laugh   unless u too young

i love utube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg-ivWxy5KE

Nettles u be one bad mother. Wah, wah wah wah ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAh_4s_-tas&feature=related

Lovin - Unbalanced? Me? Here?  LOL, yeah, just a little bit eh? I'm not a great lover of the left. As I've said many times the majority of this board is so far right that coming, more or less, from the center I appear far left to most here. I agree with Dman that the far right is dangerous. For example, many on the far right believe that The Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of the chronological history of the world.  How else to compress the planet's time line to fit with their beliefs? While they are free to believe as they chose, these people would not make good leaders.

The fact that this board is so far right leaning even when i express ideas eminating from the center i'm labeled as extreme left. I voted for repub governor and congressman last time around. And while i never voted for anyone named Bush, i didn't vote for Clinton the first time around either. I did vote for Carter, twice. The first time because the choice was Ford and the second because while he is defined by the Iran hostage affair as weak, history shows he was an effective president. he got more of his legislation passed than any other president in modern history. His reduction on foreign oil was but one example of the direction he was leading us in. I voted Reagan for his second term. So, like i said, i'm not married to one ideology or party.

On this thread i came out strongly because the TP movement is, IMO, so wrongheaded. It's anger is what's wrong with this country today. I must get a dozen teap arty supporrer emails a day. All balasting obama or the dems. And every single one of them factually incorrect. Everyone of them!!!!! Yet, the senders of the emails take them as fact. Not to mention highly racist. Which of course, is the under story here. Many are pissed off that a black man is in the oval office. Say what you will about TP candidate Carl Paladino, at least he's up front about it.

I believe that Obama's admin has effed up. But i also believe that; One, he hasn't had enough time and two, the repubs have created a new level of politics called 'Extreme Roadblock" which the prez has to deal with.

I also observe that we are living through an extremely polarizing time and the prez has to deal with that as well. I juxopose the dissatisfaction level of many in the middle class with their lives which  are pretty good. Yet they bitch and whine and call the prez out? They scream no more bailouts but were Ok with the 3 trillion we spent on a failed war in Iraq. Sheep they are one and all!

Dman , i agree that the right doesn't have the answers, only the raised fist in the air! Iraq is proof enough that they don't get "When you find yourself in a hole, first thing, stop digging!

Jen, Ok , as the world's worst speller I have no business picking on your bad spelling. But, the bad spelling and grammer is so "Tea Party!" That said, if i'm reading you right you seem to understand that we were days away from total collapse, and that the bailiouts were needed? That being the case, and with the Tea Party's  central bitch with the government being the bailouts, where does it square that you are a Tea Partier? I could see it if the bailouts were one small part of the TP movement but they're not. The bailouts are the engine that drives the movement, the central plank. So, what's up with that?

Tenth, you confuse me. You gave a "well said" endorsement to Jen's no more mortgage sales statement and then you say you don't agree. So, which is it? And, if you don't agree, why the blanket endorsement?

And, for anyone who isn't understanding the mortgage sales issue, look back at the economy through most of your lifetime or adult lifetime. All those prosperous years - directly tied to mortgage sales. As goes housing, so goes the economy. Stop mortgage sales and the economy will never recover or recover to the degree of prosperity we once enjoyed.

Mateo - Professional and courteous even if we disagree? Not a chance on a political thread like this one. But hard feelings over it? On my part, no way! I've had people rip me a new one on here only to PM me asking for help with biz. Which i gladly give. Funny thing is, even in the PMs they throw me under the bus! So what? Politics and religion gets the blood boiling. None of it makes those of who disagree bad people.

I agree, i too wish, in many cases the government would just get out the way. However, i take issue with "The borrower is slave to the lender" quote from the bible. I totally agree with that proverb. However, the right, which are the bible thumping Christians  are also the ones who supported the repubs push to enact the ridiculous lending laws and regulation that enslave the poor to the rich. They are the ones who supported a change in our bankruptcy laws when people, under the weigh of 20 and 30% interest rates turned to the government for relief. The Repubs used examples of borrower fraud to change the law, even though the stats showed that fraud among borrowers was not an issue. The repubs didn't let that fact get in the way of chaining these people to the floor to keep them enslaved to the rich, the republican benefactors of the new law. So, where i take issue with the right wing is on Sunday they thump their bibles and say debt is sinful, and then on Monday issue loans to poor people at loan shark interest rates or support the people who do.

[quote=BondGuy] 

...On this thread i came out strongly because the TP movement is, IMO, so wrongheaded. It's anger is what's wrong with this country today. I must get a dozen teap arty supporrer emails a day. All balasting obama or the dems. And every single one of them factually incorrect. Everyone of them!!!!! Yet, the senders of the emails take them as fact. Not to mention highly racist. Which of course, is the under story here. Many are pissed off that a black man is in the oval office. Say what you will about TP candidate Carl Paladino, at least he's up front about it...

...I agree, i too wish, in many cases the government would just get out the way. However, i take issue with "The borrower is slave to the lender" quote from the bible. I totally agree with that proverb. However, the right, which are the bible thumping Christians  are also the ones who supported the repubs push to enact the ridiculous lending laws and regulation that enslave the poor to the rich. They are the ones who supported a change in our bankruptcy laws when people, under the weigh of 20 and 30% interest rates turned to the government for relief. The Repubs used examples of borrower fraud to change the law, even though the stats showed that fraud among borrowers was not an issue. The repubs didn't let that fact get in the way of chaining these people to the floor to keep them enslaved to the rich, the republican benefactors of the new law. So, where i take issue with the right wing is on Sunday they thump their bibles and say debt is sinful, and then on Monday issue loans to poor people at loan shark interest rates or support the people who do.[/quote]

How can you make the "racism" claims in the first paragraph then spew the accusations and generalizations of another demographic in the next one? Discrimination comes in many forms all be it "racism" is the most obvious. I can see your point that some are upset that the prez is black. But that is something they can get over. He is our prez and I am proud we finally have overcome that hurdle. I don't have issues with him as a person, my disagreements mainly stem from the effects of the governments actions toward my personal liberties. It just seems to me that the left effects these liberties more than the right. So unfortunately, I usually vote against a candidate not for a candidate.

As for your last paragraph, I feel it is completely unacceptable and I hope you honestly do not feel that way. If this is a true reflection of your emotions/ideology then I highly recommend you look in the mirror to get a better description of bigotry...  pot meet kettle...

BG, it seems like you are looking more at the problems than solutions. At some point you have to move on.

I don't have a clear idea of what you believe about economics or even politics as your "core" principles. It's not clear what you bring to the table as a political economist/financial advisor.

N.D., I totally appreciate your comments about racism.

Before the election, I had correctly figured Obama as a BSer. ( His apparent core beliefs/behaviors scare me ). Yet I celebrated his victory as a triumph for social equality in America.

I say "correct", because even the far left is calling him out on his BS now, and rightfully so. The far left does not like him, neither the center, nor the right. Who does he represent?

The only time I even remember Obama is "black" ( why does black win out over white in mixed genetics?) is when he reminds us. It really bugs me when he says it takes time for an ecnomic recovery, just like it took time to liberate the slaves.

This type of comment is a watershed remark: you either decide to be PC and walk together with your PC comrade a little farther down the revisionist path in a brave new world, or you stand by your beliefs and just see it as patronizing and self-serving.

Same with your comments above.

These behaviors are the worst type of anti-intellectualism. You say Tea partiers are ignorant, yet you seem to have no problem insulting the values, objectivity, religiosity, and intelligence of folks who don't agree with your POV - consistently - in your posts.

I don't think of you as being and original thinker at all, if you're "moderate", you can keep your middle of the road to yourself. It seems like you're just pushed around by the winds of popular liberal thought like a cork on the water.

You seem like a smart guy, and it feels like you are just f****** with us. Just like the Dems have been doing with the whole country. In fairness, the only reason to fight back is for mild entertainment and to practice writing and spelling. For this, I'm grateful.

I'd have to give Nettles the highest marks for creativity in the writing department..

If you think the problems of this country has to do with Republicans or Democrats, spend some time listening to the senatorial debates on CSPAN.

It is nothing but mudslinging. If you want to look at solutions rather than problems, start getting some new blood in politics. Even when candidates are asked directly about their ideas for solving a specific problem, be it immigration, economic woes or health care, they will start weaving and then talk about how bad the opposition is and this in very generic terms. It's really nothing more than a "he said, she said" game at this stage.

It bothers me that this sort of political message is apparently the most effective one available. Whether you're a leftie or a rightie, at least have the proverbial balls to present your own thoughts - I would appreciate it. Hopefully I am not the only one. The only good thing that can come from this is an infusion of votes to more independent platforms that aren't afraid to present thoughts and solutions.

Exactly. Look over here while that little man behind the curtain takes your money. That is why we need to reinvent ourselves. Once you stop defending the status quo, a lot of possibilites arise.

The markets are like scouring winds that expose bedrock. The borrowed money is spent, let  reality and reason prevail. Optimism waxing. The strength of Americans is majority intolerance for BS. You can still pack up your s*** and move west.

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy] 

...On this thread i came out strongly because the TP movement is, IMO, so wrongheaded. It's anger is what's wrong with this country today. I must get a dozen teap arty supporrer emails a day. All balasting obama or the dems. And every single one of them factually incorrect. Everyone of them!!!!! Yet, the senders of the emails take them as fact. Not to mention highly racist. Which of course, is the under story here. Many are pissed off that a black man is in the oval office. Say what you will about TP candidate Carl Paladino, at least he's up front about it...

...I agree, i too wish, in many cases the government would just get out the way. However, i take issue with "The borrower is slave to the lender" quote from the bible. I totally agree with that proverb. However, the right, which are the bible thumping Christians  are also the ones who supported the repubs push to enact the ridiculous lending laws and regulation that enslave the poor to the rich. They are the ones who supported a change in our bankruptcy laws when people, under the weigh of 20 and 30% interest rates turned to the government for relief. The Repubs used examples of borrower fraud to change the law, even though the stats showed that fraud among borrowers was not an issue. The repubs didn't let that fact get in the way of chaining these people to the floor to keep them enslaved to the rich, the republican benefactors of the new law. So, where i take issue with the right wing is on Sunday they thump their bibles and say debt is sinful, and then on Monday issue loans to poor people at loan shark interest rates or support the people who do.[/quote]

How can you make the "racism" claims in the first paragraph then spew the accusations and generalizations of another demographic in the next one? Discrimination comes in many forms all be it "racism" is the most obvious. I can see your point that some are upset that the prez is black. But that is something they can get over. He is our prez and I am proud we finally have overcome that hurdle. I don't have issues with him as a person, my disagreements mainly stem from the effects of the governments actions toward my personal liberties. It just seems to me that the left effects these liberties more than the right. So unfortunately, I usually vote against a candidate not for a candidate.

As for your last paragraph, I feel it is completely unacceptable and I hope you honestly do not feel that way. If this is a true reflection of your emotions/ideology then I highly recommend you look in the mirror to get a better description of bigotry...  pot meet kettle...

[/quote]

They are the same demographic. Rich white folks. Define rich as- not poor. We are far from overcoming that hurdle.

Are the repubs not the party of the wealthy? Do they not speak for the wealthy in this country? Are they not  anti-tax, anti social programs? Are they not anti health care and mental health care? Did they not boot the mentally ill out of hospitals, group homes, and treatment programs and put them on the streets? Did a republican controlled congress and senate not legalize 30% plus interest rates for their banker friends? Did a republican controlled congress and senate not change the bankruptcy code at the behest of their rich banker friends? Who, exactly would be negatively affected by those decisions? The rich? Are republicans not defined as right wing? Is the Christian right not part of the repubican party?

ND, the problem with the repubs is they can't face their own callousness. Everything is spin.  The repubs have systematically stolen from the poor and given to the rich. And if you don't see that you need to wake  up about what's going on in this country.

Charging those who can least afford it 30% interest, denying poor woman access to breat cancer treatment, mentally ill freezing to death on the streets. All OK with the republicans. Republicans who go to church on Sunday and will tell anyone who will listen what good people they are.

Does this define everyone who is a republican? Of course not! But it defines the party. Heartless!

BondGuy, your generalization is nauseating and I am appalled that you are part of the this industry. I surely hope you do not tell your clients the way you feel about them, of course assuming your clients are wealthy.

The best advice I can give you is to quit pointing your finger at every one else and take responsibility for yourself and whatever ideology you represent. We all are the problem and we all are the solution but we must take individual accountability for each decision we make and that is the core difference between the right and the left.

You wake up each morning and decide to go to work others do not. "Bankers" wake up each morning and decide to make their company as profitable as they can others decide to operate non-profits. No one is forced to work so there is not a problem if someone decides not to. No one is forced to buy products from bankers so there is not a problem if someone decides not to.

Everyone needs to take accountability for their own actions and quit blaming others. This is life and there are winners and losers, good people and bad, educated and uneducated. Just the way it is. I find your attack on the right as offensive as the right's attack on the left.

N.D., totally share your feelings.

I would only add, speaking of feelings: a loved one had a dream about a personal visit with Barrack Obama.

Obama was innocently describing his idealism and passions, using food coloring, flowers and water.

Barrack Obama was abandoned by his father and his emotional development was arrested. He grew up outside the U. S. (including Hawaii) and came here filled with passion and his own vision. When he became President, his idealism was not tempered with pragmatism or maturity.

The part that perhaps Fox and some others got wrong was mischaracterizing his agenda as being more diabolical than naiive.

I appreciate BG's view, and his statement, in my estimation, brings to conclusion my questions about how a guy can work in the industry and exclude other's viewpoints on the basis of emotional idealism.

With all respect, American knows it's time for the adults to take charge again. ( They can gather from all "parties".) Even the media lost "its" senses. This will be known as a time when America stumbled in emotional intelligence, but recovered to be more pragmatic and hard-nosed about her place in the world.

Also: this industry is a place where progressives and conservatives, idealists and the self interested work - side by side.

Many years ago, my trainers taught WDYWFY? What do you want for yourself?

Many of us came from social work and teaching backgrounds. In my case, I burned out on social work and teaching. What we found is, you have to know what you want for yourself before you can help others.

This is an industry where you can do immense good for others. There is almost unlimited poverty in the world, but poverty can also be a state of mind.

The opportunity afforded to Americans and professionals in our industry is almost unlimited, and with opportunity comes responsibility, including the responsibility to grow emotionally in our understanding of the meaning of wealth creation, money, the markets and even wealth destruction.

I believe Obama represents the ascendence of the idealistic notions of a very priveledged and selfish generation of baby boomers. Not that they didn't work hard and suffer, but unlike the generation before them, their economic notions were formed in the shade of a very prosperous post WWII economy which America projected, took, created, her place on the world stage.

Now all of this is changing so fast - it's scary, in fact, even the tradition notions of leadership and personal coaching can't keep up with demand.

That represents a lot of opportunity for advisors in the industry, and one of the keys to be a leader, in addition to education, experience, and perspective, is emotional intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Intelligence-Enhancing-Performance-Leadership/dp/0131490508

Doug Lennick retired from IDS/American Express/Ameriprise

As a slow growing economy, debt, globalization, outsourcing jobs, even poverty take their toll on the American economy, there will be a European "socialization" of the economy.

But even the grab for power (wealth redistribution) - almost seems a little nostalgic, when you consider the  nature of the American economy.

Our mutlinational corporations have the reach and power to function and be profitiable overseas - by setting up shop in individul countries and acting locally. Point is, these companies will act in their own interest, and even our ability to tax or control them is limited.

Protectionism and tariffs will be increase, this is the one thing upon which libs and conservs agree. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, although it will drive up the cost of goods and services and protect certain inefficiencies like unions and the subsidized production of automobiles.

The point is, the money is spent, our debt is high, belief in the Tooth Fairy dissapates with childhood's end. We are witnessing the greatest seachange of our life, and it's okay to ask, WDYWFY? That question puts us into alignment with the rest of the world, and if we are a blessed with certain resources, abilities or insights, we need to share these in order to uplift ourself and those around us. This is the meaning of emotional intelligence or economic emotional maturity, and those boomers who get around feelings of jealousy, disappointment, depression, hatred, fear and so on will begin to see the light, even as the competition and poverty of the world closes in and is uplifted by human progress.

The world still cries for  our American idealism, born in the wild open West,  even amidst, free farmland and bountiful soils and rainfall and droughts and floods and lawless gunfighters and the people's frontier justice.

We cannot afford to cave in to nostalgic self-absorbtion or feeling sorry for ourselves, which is really what BG is doing here. A luxury some, but not most, can afford.

We have to suck it up and move forward, and we all know how to do it and what to do next.

[quote=N.D.]

BondGuy, your generalization is nauseating and I am appalled that you are part of the this industry. I surely hope you do not tell your clients the way you feel about them, of course assuming your clients are wealthy.

The best advice I can give you is to quit pointing your finger at every one else and take responsibility for yourself and whatever ideology you represent. We all are the problem and we all are the solution but we must take individual accountability for each decision we make and that is the core difference between the right and the left.

You wake up each morning and decide to go to work others do not. "Bankers" wake up each morning and decide to make their company as profitable as they can others decide to operate non-profits. No one is forced to work so there is not a problem if someone decides not to. No one is forced to buy products from bankers so there is not a problem if someone decides not to.

Everyone needs to take accountability for their own actions and quit blaming others. This is life and there are winners and losers, good people and bad, educated and uneducated. Just the way it is. I find your attack on the right as offensive as the right's attack on the left.

[/quote]

That you believe that poor people have choices shows either a quaint naivete or a very narrow band of knowledge. Either way, you are a clueless rich boy! You speak of individual accountablity when you have no idea what that means.

 You are so worried about one freeloader getting over on you that you deny help to 100 working poor who need a hand up. But, not to worry, your banker friends will be there to help.

Of course you find my summation of the right offensive.  Tell me, of all the points I raised, are any untrue?

I assure they are all true. You are disgusted by the truth of what the right has done. You chose to attack my comments and classify them as generalizations. You do so because, that puts it in a place you can live with.

Tenth, that you call my calling out the right for what it is "self absorbtion and feeling sorry for ourselves" shows just how you deal with the heartless policies of those you chose to support. Not to mention cold, I mean really cold!

Yeah, tenth, let's not feel sorry for the poor person. That way we can turn our back and walk away. The good news is it doesn't cost a dime! Like i said, heartless!

"Bond Guy", I am sure everyone respects you as a person and no one here wants to change who you are.

If you ever grow up emotionally and live in the big boy house, you will understand. I can't say what would cause that.

In the mean time, my observation about you is that you come across as being passive aggressive in how you debate most issues. You cross a line that involves respect the dignity of others.  Where does that come from?  But I thank you for what I have learned here from you, it gives me new perspective on progressives.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=N.D.]

BondGuy, your generalization is nauseating and I am appalled that you are part of the this industry. I surely hope you do not tell your clients the way you feel about them, of course assuming your clients are wealthy.

The best advice I can give you is to quit pointing your finger at every one else and take responsibility for yourself and whatever ideology you represent. We all are the problem and we all are the solution but we must take individual accountability for each decision we make and that is the core difference between the right and the left.

You wake up each morning and decide to go to work others do not. "Bankers" wake up each morning and decide to make their company as profitable as they can others decide to operate non-profits. No one is forced to work so there is not a problem if someone decides not to. No one is forced to buy products from bankers so there is not a problem if someone decides not to.

Everyone needs to take accountability for their own actions and quit blaming others. This is life and there are winners and losers, good people and bad, educated and uneducated. Just the way it is. I find your attack on the right as offensive as the right's attack on the left.

[/quote]

That you believe that poor people have choices shows either a quaint naivete or a very narrow band of knowledge. Either way, you are a clueless rich boy! You speak of individual accountablity when you have no idea what that means.

 You are so worried about one freeloader getting over on you that you deny help to 100 working poor who need a hand up. But, not to worry, your banker friends will be there to help.

Of course you find my summation of the right offensive.  Tell me, of all the points I raised, are any untrue?

I assure they are all true. You are disgusted by the truth of what the right has done. You chose to attack my comments and classify them as generalizations. You do so because, that puts it in a place you can live with.[/quote]

But for whatever reason, I am going to try...

With every post you produce a more clear picture of what truly causes the bottleneck of progress this country suffers from. If you could see me now, you would see a man holding his head down in shame because of the thought that I share the same responsibility to the people that put food on my table and clothes on my back as you do but apparently I thank them while you talk about them like a dog behind their back.

I doubt it would be stretch for me to say that I come from one of the lowest of economic classes in this country. My parents lived pay check to pay check my entire life. However, I am fortunate to be in this country and that it provides me an avenue to better myself ,all though my family choose to not follow me and God knows I tried my best to help my brother. I am the first child in my family to attend college not to mention I graduated cum laude while working a full time job. I can remember writing papers until 3 a.m. with pictures of my childhood home above my desk (which the desk was a $20 purchase from Goodwill) for motivation. I have worked very hard to get to where I am today and it is NOWHERE near rich. Not even by Obama's definition of rich. But I DO have the option NOW thanks to all my hard work and doing without earlier in life to earn an income that is considered obscene to many.

"I Am A Child"

I am a child, I'll last a while.
You can't conceive
of the pleasure in my smile.
You hold my hand,
rough up my hair,
It's lots of fun
to have you there.

God gave to you,
now, you give to me,
I'd like to know
what you learned.
The sky is blue
and so is the sea.
What is the color,
when black is burned?
What is the color?

You are a man, you understand.
You pick me up
and you lay me down again.
You make the rules,
you say what's fair,
It's lots of fun
to have you there.

God gave to you,
now, you give to me,
I'd like to know
what you learned.
The sky is blue
and so is the sea.
What is the color,
when black is burned?
What is the color?

I am a child, I'll last a while.
You can't conceive
of the pleasure in my smile.

Neil Young

BG, life is so painful and so beautiful it hurts. I rejoice and weep for us all.

With every post you produce a more clear picture of what truly causes the bottleneck of progress this country suffers from.

What I learned living in Asia is this: America is a legalistic society. Western thought separates emotion and logic.

I tried to post some research here economic emotional intelligence game theory. Didn't work, but I'll make a prediction:

History will look back on Western liberals and see them as having highly developed logic, education, social dependency, reasoning powers, and so on - and very little commmon sense.

Emotional basket cases. Bond Guy, what you really seek is poverty. It would be good for you. You have been waiting for someone to tell you what you already know.

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/6/3/3/3/pages363330/p363330-42.php

[quote=tenthtee]"Bond Guy", I am sure everyone respects you as a person and no one here wants to change who you are.

If you ever grow up emotionally and live in the big boy house, you will understand. I can't say what would cause that.

In the mean time, my observation about you is that you come across as being passive aggressive in how you debate most issues. You cross a line that involves respect the dignity of others.  Where does that come from?  But I thank you for what I have learned here from you, it gives me new perspective on progressives. [/quote]

I don't. I respect his right to an opinion but I do not respect him or his opinion. He is either a liar, hypocrite or just fukin with us. There is no way he can have these views and then look his clients in the face while providing true unbiased advice. BondGuy either lies to us, his clients or himself. There is no way he built a practice with out building it for wealthy people and understanding how wealth is built.

Wealth is built by innovation, imitation or exploitation. To categorize all wealthy people in the last group is absurd. I will even go a step further and say to categorize all white, wealthy, conservative, Christians in the last group is also absurd.

Yeah, I was just trying to be nice.

Bond Guy strikes me as a wealthy guy who feels guilty and is worried about losing his wealth. At least, he is bored and has never experienced real poverty.

I have NEVER heard someone who came from impoverishment or who is living in poverty talk like him (while taking $$$ for being a " bond guy" and bragging about his motorcycles and boats and such).

There are emotionally immature people everyone, but I am beginning to understand that Obama is emotionally  immature, and he represents an entire generation of finger pointing "progressives" who feel comfortable doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to impose their strange ideology on the masses.

Now I can put my finger on what has been scaring and depressing me. We are being governed by children ( and I'm not singling out any political party).

Time for the adults to take back the big houses, and the discussion forums.

Debating with children makes me feel kind of weird. I'm done with it.

I point out the ugly policies of the right and their elected representatives and the two of you start calling me names. Guys, and that's an assumption on my part, that you re both male, grow some skin. If you can't handle what the people you've elected are doing to the poor people in this country, well then, change your vote.

By the way, most of my clients know where i stand and have no problem with it. Thus the constant bombardment with repub/right wing emails cartoons etc.  Turns out, adults can discuss these things and agree to disagree.

I do not mind discussing anything with anyone. I actually enjoy most discussions, especially when there is a chance someone can gain a better understanding of the topic being discussed. But with your blind generalization and unsubstantiated accusations in your posts, I cannot see a way for this to happen. Therefore I will call a spade a spade until you show me otherwise. 

Also after reading this thread again, I must say there is no way you are serious... There is no freakin way you tell your clients what you have said in this thread.

A couple questions for you, how can you offer clients appropriate investment opportunities without adding debt instruments from for-profit corporations? Do you tell your clients "no sir, I cannot sell you that Big Mean Company's bond because they only work their employees 38 hours a week so they can avoid paying them full time benefits" or do you go home at night and struggle looking at yourself in the mirror because you profited from selling the fat-cats debts so they can raise money to build another 10 stores this year to do more of the same to the poor?

Do you refuse to sell the automakers debt because they keep building plants overseas? Do you refuse to sell bonds from financial companies because as you said they are raping the poor for 30%? What do you sell your clients?

Fingerpointing happens on both sides of the isle. That was the point of my previous post. Fingers point at different areas, but they point just the same.

[quote=N.D.]

I do not mind discussing anything with anyone. I actually enjoy most discussions, especially when there is a chance someone can gain a better understanding of the topic being discussed. But with your blind generalization and unsubstantiated accusations in your posts, I cannot see a way for this to happen. Therefore I will call a spade a spade until you show me otherwise. 

Also after reading this thread again, I must say there is no way you are serious... There is no freakin way you tell your clients what you have said in this thread.

A couple questions for you, how can you offer clients appropriate investment opportunities without adding debt instruments from for-profit corporations? Do you tell your clients "no sir, I cannot sell you that Big Mean Company's bond because they only work their employees 38 hours a week so they can avoid paying them full time benefits" or do you go home at night and struggle looking at yourself in the mirror because you profited from selling the fat-cats debts so they can raise money to build another 10 stores this year to do more of the same to the poor?

Do you refuse to sell the automakers debt because they keep building plants overseas? Do you refuse to sell bonds from financial companies because as you said they are raping the poor for 30%? What do you sell your clients?

[/quote]

ND, you are way over the top here. You've taken my statements to the extreme. The are no blind generazations here. Nor unsubstantiated accusations. I post the truth and you call it an attack. If there is something you believe to untrue, by all means, tell me.

In the end, it's really simple, the dems are party of the people, and the repubs are the party of money. You are for one or the other. It isn't dems standing in the way of helping people. An example that's the subject of heated debate, health care: a woman feels a lump in her breast. She has no insurance so she goes to the free clinic to get it checked out. it takes almost a month to finally have a doctor check it out and the news is grim, cancer. The doc gives her info on programs that treat the poor. She's in luck because the state has appointed a hospital for cases just like hers. Unfortunately for her she can't get anyone at the hospital to help her. They stonewall her, tell her she has bad information. remember what i said about the poor having no choices? The stonewalling works with most poor because they don't have the resources to fight. She is turned away to face a certain death.

With the health care bill this woman has as much chance of survival as any woman in your family or mine. She will get treatment. Without it, she will die. Why? Because of money? Exactly! So, on this one issue, here is the way i see it: if i can pay taxes to support a 3 trillion dollasr wasted effort war, I can certainly afford to pay one trillion dollars to make sure that no one who is a citizen of the greatest country on the planet dies because they don't have access to adequet health care.

So  again, it is that simple, you are either for people or you are for money. That's your choice. The rest of it is just noise, spin to cover up the fact that regarding the health care bill being for money is a death sentence for a large number of people.

No you are wrong. It is not an either/or choice. But that is what you are making it seem to be. You know what you have said and unless you go back and edit your posts so will everyone else here.

I asked you several questions none of which were about the current health care program. The only thing I can guess is you live in make-believe land filled with cotton candy and warm furry bunnies, so in a way I guess I have my answers.

I will ask you another question. The average income for a person in the US is 50k per year. Do you donate all your income over this amount to charity? Do you deserve more income than the average person? Do you put your money were your mouth is or do you buy more of these...

[quote=BondGuy]Toyz?

We got some:

Country Coach Allure 40 - we're not campers. We use Homer to further other pursuits.

Boston Whaler Dauntless 18 "Pole Dancer"- Sold, sale closes next week. Fun but we're done.

Hobie 16 - Bought new in 1986 and raced extensively. The last of the sail boat fleet.

Honda Reflex Scooter- a fun daily commuter bike.

R56 Mini Cooper S - Also on the block to sell. Hey, those front tires were fine when I bought it! A fun year, i'm bored, time to move on.

Current  Designs Solstice GT HV kevlar sea kayak - OK, the the kayak rides on top of the Grand Cherokee which is flat towed behind Homer. Nova Scotia to Key West, we've covered a lot of ground and a lot of water once we got there.

Current Designs Scirocco poly sea kayak - see above

Dagger Baja sea kayak - same

Bell Merlin 2 Carb/kev canoe- it's 15 ft long and weighs 30lbs. easy to lift.

Dagger Reflection 15 Royalex - It's 15 ft long and weighs 50lbs. Not so easy to lift.

Mad River Explorer royalex- 16 ft, 70 lbs, of rock bashing long haul trucker canoe.

Lemond Zurich road bike - Spine design CF/steel, easy riding century machine.

Trek 520 touring bike - The Chevy Suburban of touring bikes. I use mine for LD riding and fitness.

Trek 950 hardtail mountain bike - It's 20 years old and starting to show some wear. Still I' ve put about 100 hours on this bike ytd. (I measure off road use by time) it's my rain/snow bike as well.
 
Martin Accoustic Guitar - it's a lefty D15, and it's for sale.
 
DLG RC Gliders - fun but what a learning curve.
 
I'm getting into surf fishing so I'm gearing up for that. And another pursuit in which Homer increases the possibilities with treking between Hatteras and Montauk. Pull into Camp Hatteras, Fish, bike, kite, kayak, and do some RC ridge riding on the dunes. Or, sit and relax on the beach. Nah, sitin is time wastin.[/quote]
What about that boat you were going to buy this past summer? Did you change your mind and donate all that sinful money to your local VA hospital?
You may be fighting a just cause but I sure am finding it hard to believe. Good luck with you and your side since according to you, we must pick a side.

Democrats are not the party of the people.  How do you figure that?

Democrats are the party of a beneficial society.  Republicans are the party of personal responsibility.  We need both.

They are not mutually exlusive.

I take exception to your take on the wars being wasteful.  As a veteran of those wars, I can tell you that more good was done than evil and that the protections of the citizens of this country actually occurred because we had those wars.

Unless you have seen with your own eyes, you are only guessing and using what the media tells you (it's not as wonderful as FoxNews makes it out to be, but neither is it as horrible and UNNECESSARY as MSNBC makes it out to be). 

Jean Luc Picard?

Neil Young?

wow.  i like it

greatest show ever in the history of TV.  

gene rodenberry and rick berman are 2 guys i'd love to have a beer with-so creative.

"sleep data..........."

"jean Luc is tired"

"no...wait.......its a message about the Borg'

classic   

neil quotes?

neil had a brain tumor.     when asked about it he said

"I have something on my mind"

Neil is the man

[quote=N.D.]

What about that boat you were going to buy this past summer? Did you change your mind and donate all that sinful money to your local VA hospital?

[/quote]

funny.   local VA hospital

Gates, soros and bond trying to get to heaven.

gates and soros because they fukced so many people in their lives.........

On this thread i came out strongly because the TP movement is, IMO, so wrongheaded. It's anger is what's wrong with this country today. I must get a dozen teap arty supporrer emails a day. All balasting obama or the dems. And every single one of them factually incorrect. Everyone of them!!!!! Yet, the senders of the emails take them as fact. Not to mention highly racist. Which of course, is the under story here. Many are pissed off that a black man is in the oval office.

above is a bond quote.

ok  bond.  

i think owebama and his gang beleive that govt can make things better.  that govt is the answer in so many different areas

history has told us time after thime that is this IS NOT TRUE

free markets create wealth, not govt.

tell me how how the above 3 statements are incorrect , in your opionion?

i am not racist at all.   we all freakin equal.   all just doing the best we can.

[quote=tenthtee]

Nettles u be one bad mother.

[/quote]

im not jennifer

Jennifer Nettles is a country singer for band sugarland.

I have the hots for her.   

She is not that hot but she flips my skirt.

She might even be on the wrong team.  (whcih is ok, i could get her over to our side)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUElqcOupAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iDPw_qjhtM&ob=av3e

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

On this thread i came out strongly because the TP movement is, IMO, so wrongheaded. It's anger is what's wrong with this country today. I must get a dozen teap arty supporrer emails a day. All balasting obama or the dems. And every single one of them factually incorrect. Everyone of them!!!!! Yet, the senders of the emails take them as fact. Not to mention highly racist. Which of course, is the under story here. Many are pissed off that a black man is in the oval office.

above is a bond quote.

ok  bond.  

i think owebama and his gang beleive that govt can make things better.  that govt is the answer in so many different areas

history has told us time after thime that is this IS NOT TRUE

free markets create wealth, not govt.

tell me how how the above 3 statements are incorrect , in your opionion?

i am not racist at all.   we all freakin equal.   all just doing the best we can.

[/quote]

I agree with you on the free markets, and to a point about govt not working. I take exception with your opinion of Obama. Obama is well intentioned. To tell the truth he's been dealt a tough hand. In admins past the prez has been able to come to consensus with the opposing party for the good of the nation. Not so these days! The repubs stand as a rock in the road regardless of the human cost. They've, in my opinion, absolutely polarized the country. Everything is pitched from the extremes, there is no middle ground. Of course this makes progress all but impossible and it lets the repubs stand and frame our current condition as failure, Obama as a failure. This is why i said you and others were stupid to buy into the TP's messege. That message is part of bought and paid for strategy to put repubs back in office. The RNC ,through the TP, is cashing in on voters misdirected anger and misleading them further. Question that? Do you or anyone else here honestly beleive, economically,  we'd be in a different place  today if repubs were in control? If you do, as the saying goes I've got a bridge to sell you. That we wouldn't be in a different place proves the vitrol coming from the TP and RNC is bullshit. Yet, you are all-in.

AS for govt not working? Did you get your mail today? is you trash collected? If you call the police, do they answer the phone? Did your elderly aunt get her SS check today? Does medicaid pay for her healthcare? Would our military not answer the call to arms?

Government works. The entitlement programs aren't bankrupt because they are bad programs or are poorly adminstered. They are broke because every senator and congressman elected in the past 40 years has used them as a personal pork piggy bank. Equal blame. Yet the repubs point their bacon stained fingers at the dems while demanding fiscal responsibility. Make no mistake, the dems share equal blame, but do you not see the duplicity in this?  

As well, that your ATM card works today, you can thank the governement. The bailouts, you remember them, the TP's rallying cry? As disgusting as it was to give all that dough to the stupid people who helped create the problem, the program was a success, it saved our butts.

The post office is poorly run. Both parties share blame. Still, my mail comes everyday. Butttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, mostly, government does work.

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that?

[quote=N.D.]

No you are wrong. It is not an either/or choice. But that is what you are making it seem to be. You know what you have said and unless you go back and edit your posts so will everyone else here.

I asked you several questions none of which were about the current health care program. The only thing I can guess is you live in make-believe land filled with cotton candy and warm furry bunnies, so in a way I guess I have my answers.

I will ask you another question. The average income for a person in the US is 50k per year. Do you donate all your income over this amount to charity? Do you deserve more income than the average person? Do you put your money were your mouth is or do you buy more of these...

[quote=BondGuy]Toyz?

We got some:

Country Coach Allure 40 - we're not campers. We use Homer to further other pursuits.

Boston Whaler Dauntless 18 "Pole Dancer"- Sold, sale closes next week. Fun but we're done.

Hobie 16 - Bought new in 1986 and raced extensively. The last of the sail boat fleet.

Honda Reflex Scooter- a fun daily commuter bike.

R56 Mini Cooper S - Also on the block to sell. Hey, those front tires were fine when I bought it! A fun year, i'm bored, time to move on.

Current  Designs Solstice GT HV kevlar sea kayak - OK, the the kayak rides on top of the Grand Cherokee which is flat towed behind Homer. Nova Scotia to Key West, we've covered a lot of ground and a lot of water once we got there.

Current Designs Scirocco poly sea kayak - see above

Dagger Baja sea kayak - same

Bell Merlin 2 Carb/kev canoe- it's 15 ft long and weighs 30lbs. easy to lift.

Dagger Reflection 15 Royalex - It's 15 ft long and weighs 50lbs. Not so easy to lift.

Mad River Explorer royalex- 16 ft, 70 lbs, of rock bashing long haul trucker canoe.

Lemond Zurich road bike - Spine design CF/steel, easy riding century machine.

Trek 520 touring bike - The Chevy Suburban of touring bikes. I use mine for LD riding and fitness.

Trek 950 hardtail mountain bike - It's 20 years old and starting to show some wear. Still I' ve put about 100 hours on this bike ytd. (I measure off road use by time) it's my rain/snow bike as well.
 
Martin Accoustic Guitar - it's a lefty D15, and it's for sale.
 
DLG RC Gliders - fun but what a learning curve.
 
I'm getting into surf fishing so I'm gearing up for that. And another pursuit in which Homer increases the possibilities with treking between Hatteras and Montauk. Pull into Camp Hatteras, Fish, bike, kite, kayak, and do some RC ridge riding on the dunes. Or, sit and relax on the beach. Nah, sitin is time wastin.[/quote]
What about that boat you were going to buy this past summer? Did you change your mind and donate all that sinful money to your local VA hospital?
You may be fighting a just cause but I sure am finding it hard to believe. Good luck with you and your side since according to you, we must pick a side.

[/quote]

Wow, your short and curlies are really twisted in a knot!  I'll listen, tell me what i said about the repubs, christians etc that is not true. Set me straight!

[quote=lovindaindy]

Democrats are not the party of the people.  How do you figure that?

Democrats are the party of a beneficial society.  Republicans are the party of personal responsibility.  We need both.

They are not mutually exlusive.

I take exception to your take on the wars being wasteful.  As a veteran of those wars, I can tell you that more good was done than evil and that the protections of the citizens of this country actually occurred because we had those wars.

Unless you have seen with your own eyes, you are only guessing and using what the media tells you (it's not as wonderful as FoxNews makes it out to be, but neither is it as horrible and UNNECESSARY as MSNBC makes it out to be). 

[/quote]

Lowest common denominator - repubs = money  and dems = people.

Right now we are polarized.

As for the war, no question the media wisted things to their POV. That's not the issue. The issue is, why were we there? Lot of blood spilled and money spent. For what?

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Democrats are not the party of the people.  How do you figure that?

Democrats are the party of a beneficial society.  Republicans are the party of personal responsibility.  We need both.

They are not mutually exlusive.

I take exception to your take on the wars being wasteful.  As a veteran of those wars, I can tell you that more good was done than evil and that the protections of the citizens of this country actually occurred because we had those wars.

Unless you have seen with your own eyes, you are only guessing and using what the media tells you (it's not as wonderful as FoxNews makes it out to be, but neither is it as horrible and UNNECESSARY as MSNBC makes it out to be). 

[/quote]

Lowest common denominator - repubs = money  and dems = people.

Right now we are polarized.

As for the war, no question the media wisted things to their POV. That's not the issue. The issue is, why were we there? Lot of blood spilled and money spent. For what?

[/quote]

For safety of our citizens.  If terrorists are attacking troops (who are trained to fight), they tend to be less focused on our citizenry.  Make no mistake, when our troops are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we WILL be attacked again. 

[quote=BondGuy]

 To tell the truth he's been dealt a tough hand. In admins past the prez has been able to come to consensus with the opposing party for the good of the nation. Not so these days! The repubs stand as a rock in the road regardless of the human cost. They've, in my opinion, absolutely polarized the country.

[/quote]

You need to put the meth pipe down.  

Owebama et al has taken EVERYTHING they possible could without reguard for the other side beginning with Judd Gregg (R) bailing from a cabinet position when he reliezed what kind of mission these gusy were on.

I have NEVER seen an admin. so incredible closed to outside views or opinion

The hieght of his MF arrogance was basically cheating on healthcare using reconcilliation which was NEVER intended for a bill of thise scope AND to trump that the GD american people did not want it (fact)

remember  "we won"

how about fukcing the bondholders and teh constitution with GM commie motors?

how about cheating the system with that bihct idiot elizabeth warren?  forget fair   forget years of convention.......i want it so I will gd do it.

how about after mass loss coming out like a spoiled 12 year old kid and preading out volker and geithner and talking about ramming through the Volker rule.    Even Tim geitner was uncomforably with this arrogant small minded move.

this dude is as shallow as they come.

You dems can use your jedi mind trick spin to make it look like teh right has been the ones putting the road blocks up but its total bullshti.

this guy is the great divider

and you know what is really, really cool?    Im very proud of the american people because they see right through this guy.   he got away with his slick bullsti a number of time but, eventually people have figured out that this dude is full of crap

and thats why nov 2nd is going to be monumental

take your medcine bond.

its over

owebama is a lame duck at best.

bush tax cuts staying, pal.   new sherriffs in town.

bubba was smart in 1994.   he listened to the people and accepted his need to change

this arrogant punk has dug his feet in and it is going to cost him BIG time.

record turnout

house blowout and senate majority

thanks for playing

drive safely

owebama couldnt pass gas

his fall is trully incredible

from 73% to 43%

the greatest degree of "disapprove" ever

owebama getting his a^% ripped out in these town meetings?

PRICELESS

i wont even comment on your feelings that govt works.

how stupid

(ps  ok one commet   HELLOOOOOO.  the post office is chap 11.  negative net worth-zero   yes it works copericui because it have UNLIMITED taxing power to piss away OUR money.   helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllo)

how the fukc can u have such great insights into out business and be so totally freakin retarted on this stuff.

[quote=BondGuy]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

[/quote]

Not the rich guy that allocated half his capital via estate planning to the Mayo Clinic so the IRS and Big Govie cannot allocate it for him. It went STRAIGHT to the charity of choice because EVERYONE KNOWS the private sector will help her 1000x more than any government health care plan.

Come on dude, you make this too easy. What is your REAL problem?

REP = Individualism           DEMS = Collectivism

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

[/quote]

this does not happen in the USA.   duh duh duh duh 

it does happen in your perfect world (ie canada, sweden,france etc)

duh.    those systems SUCKS.    she would wait in line while she dies

 man   you cant be this freakin stupid

the PM of canada went to cleveland clinic for a bypass.  duh

you got money anywhere on this planet?

you come to USA for healthcare

duh duh duh

[quote=lovindaindy]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Democrats are not the party of the people.  How do you figure that?

Democrats are the party of a beneficial society.  Republicans are the party of personal responsibility.  We need both.

They are not mutually exlusive.

I take exception to your take on the wars being wasteful.  As a veteran of those wars, I can tell you that more good was done than evil and that the protections of the citizens of this country actually occurred because we had those wars.

Unless you have seen with your own eyes, you are only guessing and using what the media tells you (it's not as wonderful as FoxNews makes it out to be, but neither is it as horrible and UNNECESSARY as MSNBC makes it out to be). 

[/quote]

Lowest common denominator - repubs = money  and dems = people.

Right now we are polarized.

As for the war, no question the media wisted things to their POV. That's not the issue. The issue is, why were we there? Lot of blood spilled and money spent. For what?

[/quote]

For safety of our citizens.  If terrorists are attacking troops (who are trained to fight), they tend to be less focused on our citizenry.  Make no mistake, when our troops are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we WILL be attacked again. 

[/quote]

Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?

I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground.

If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome.

All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor.

Sorry we disagree.

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?

I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground.

If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome.

All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor.

Sorry we disagree.

[/quote]

bond

you're correct.

i was wrong

Iraq was insane.   war is insane.    

wolkowitz, pearl et al are dead wrong.

western europe has it right here.   war ends badly. 

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

this does not happen in the USA.   duh duh duh duh 

it does happen in your perfect world (ie canada, sweden,france etc)

duh.    those systems SUCKS.    she would wait in line while she dies

 man   you cant be this freakin stupid

the PM of canada went to cleveland clinic for a bypass.  duh

you got money anywhere on this planet?

you come to USA for healthcare

duh duh duh

[quote]

jen, your ignorance really is astounding! Only to be surpassed by your selfishness. You don't care who pays for treatment for the poor as long as it's not you. You are deluding yourself. No surprise for the average tea bagger!

How delusional are you or would this be stupidity? Just look at this answer: "This does not happen in the USA duh  duh duh duh!"  you go on to say "if you've got money anywhere on the planet you come to the USA for healthcare. duh duh duh."

Your point that the USA has the best health care system and treatment in the world is well expressed by you telling me how freakin stupid i must be not to realize it.

Mensa candidate Jen, here's a news flash for you: The USA does not have the world's best healthcare or healthcare system. No doubt, if you live near a major medical center you are going to get first class treatment. But, turns out most of don't. And turns out that the treatment given isn't the best. Who knew?

According to the World Health Organzation's latest rankings the USA ranks, are you ready, 37th in the world in healthcare. OUCH!!!! 37th, how the eff is that possible? In another study the highly respected Commonwealth Fund ranked the USA last out of the five major nations in the delivery of healthcare. WE ranked behind Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, and Germany in delivery of and access to quality health care. Interestingly, the report cites the disparity in access to quality healthcare between rich and poor in the USA as one reason for the poor showing. it also points to the waiting time to see specialist, and the disparty in quality medical treatment determined by location.

Jen, look up the term "Drank the Kool-Aid" and then look in a mirror. You are apparently easily an led individual. That doesn't bode well for the IQ.

As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!

By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!

I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault.

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?

I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground.

If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome.

All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor.

Sorry we disagree.

[/quote]

bond

you're correct.

i was wrong

Iraq was insane.   war is insane.    

wolkowitz, pearl et al are dead wrong.

western europe has it right here.   war ends badly. 

[/quote]

Did you mean Paul Wolfowitz? If you did, our failure to achieve the goals of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in Iraq proves in fact he was wrong.

[quote=BondGuy]

[Did you mean Paul Wolfowitz? If you did, our failure to achieve the goals of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in Iraq proves in fact he was wrong.

[/quote]

paul w  neo con

 yes

(the peeps who wrote document for bush 1 saying iraq HAD to be taken out)

dude  im agreeing with you

im eating crow

sucking up

admitting being wrong

you're still trying to fight

first, I am not saying our system is not without major flaws.  

it has many

the answer is not the MF govt

the answer is creating a system with the proper INCENTIVES.

free market incentives

The WHO

thats funny

same amount of credibility as the UN or the Noble Prize freak shows.

The USA healthcare system ahs one huge flaw

its very expensive.

besides that, there is NO ONE on the planet even close to the quality of care of the US system

bio-tech, new drugs,docs, educations, technology etc etc etc

no one close 

the world health organization

thats funny

DIDNT THAT FAT ASS MIKE MOORE SAY CUBA WAS BETTER?

ok   go get your GD bypass in havana

thats funny

please answer this question:

its a simple question

lasik eye care works.     why?

plastics work    why?

costs go down every year

quality of product and care goes up every year

its delivered perfectly

free markets are work

people can shop the product

they can compare and contrast

they have incentives to get it cheaper 

FREE MF MARKETS  BOND, MY BROTHER

competition

its a wonderful MF thing and it works

THIS IS THE ANSWER

not govt bullshti

GET FREE MARKET INCENTIVES INTO HEALTHCARE

DUH    DUH   DUH    DUH   DUH

can u shop and mri?

how much does crap cost when u go to teh hospital?

its a clusterfuke

u think govt will fix this?

please   bond  ANSWER THIS QUESTION

WHY DOES LASIKS AND PLASTICS WORK?    

bond

healthcare is very complex.

there are some things we agree on:

no preventative care and then using the ER when youre really sick is dumb

everyone should have good healthcare in america

we need the correct incentives

incentives on cost

incentives fro preventive care

smoke?  pay more

fat ass  pay more

high BP  pay more

the "death panel" are great!

its insane keeping people alive and speading all that money near the end when they are toast

owebams answer is have govt fix this

right  that will work well

[quote=BondGuy]

As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!

By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!

I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault.

[/quote]

Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.

As for your question... 

[quote=BondGuy]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

[/quote]

I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resources

http://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspx

http://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatment

Cancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/

Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.

Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.

American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.

Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?

National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?

Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.

It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  

From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose.

The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not.

The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice.

Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant. 

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time. 

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement. 

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[quote=lovindaindy]

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

I completely agree and thank you for your service sir.

Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

The rich choose to cut out the administration fees and make tax deductible charitable contributions to the organization of their choice. Sometimes it is done during the persons life and sometimes it is done thru estate planning. Either way, you bet your sweet ass it is given to those that need it...

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]

As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!

By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!

I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault.

[/quote]

Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.

As for your question... 

[quote=BondGuy]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

[/quote]

I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resources

http://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspx

http://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatment

Cancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/

Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.

Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.

American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.

Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?

National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?

Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.

It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  

From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose.

The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not.

The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice.

Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.

[/quote]

wow

N.D.   what an awesome post.

excellent

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]

As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!

By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!

I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault.

[/quote]

Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.

As for your question... 

[quote=BondGuy]

My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? 

[/quote]

I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resources

http://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspx

http://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatment

Cancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/

Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.

Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.

American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.

Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?

National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?

Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.

It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  

From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose.

The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not.

The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice.

Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.

[/quote]

ND, you've out done yourself here! That's quite the list! If only my friend's sister had known you her outcome would have been so much better! You are the man!

Obviously, there are a couple problem's here, well, more than a couple. You continue to show just how disconnected from reality you really are.

Let me explain:

I note that your list does  not include any oncologist, surgery centers or treatment centers. The list does include a lot of organizations that can point the way to the highway, but not one that will give a ride to the destination. So it goes in cancer treatment. And, just so we cover the base, the woman in my example went to Livestrong, Susan G. Komen and the ACS and got lot's of "we're rooting for you" type support, but no treatment or treatment options. She also went to a couple of local organzations and got nowhere. So as not to mislead anyone, Komen did come through in the end with some help, after my oncologist pushed a lot of buttons. But, on her own, this woman got nada !!!! And, as i said the designated treatment center stonewalled her. On her own, this woman would probably already be dead. if you had any actual experience with helping people in this situation you would know that for as well meaning as some of these organizations are, they aren't overly effective in getting uninsured people treated. 

I note your list was constructed with the use of a computer with web access. How much did that computer cost you? What's the monthly charge from Comcast, or Verizon? Do you think a poor person could afford that fee? I know, how ridiculous, right? In the past others on this very forum told me it was ridiculous to  say that a person has no web access. Hmm, kinda arrogant attitude don'tchathink?

Even if these organizations did treat cancer patients, how would a poor person find them? Luck?

I note that all of these organzitions fulfill your requirement for helping those who you refuse to help. Again, you are off the hook.

Do you support any of these organizations in a meaningful way?

Let's talk about your church. Fund raisers eh? Wow, that's nice. I mean that sincerely. But, again I have a problem with this.

There is an ethical dilemma with churches filled with right wing republicans helping poor people. That is; help them on Sunday, vote against them on Tuesday.  ND, you've demonstrated on this thread that you are against every social program ever invented to help the poor. So, you deny thousand of poor help, and in fact, vote for things that hurt the poor, but then help a few of the families you've hurt? And, somehow this evens the score? All good with ND's christians? The ethics problem is, if highest ethical standard is doing the right thing 100% of the time how do you justify voting against these people? help'em on Sunday, Hurt'em on Tuesday.

As for charitable contributions i can only speak for myself. I give charitble contributions to organzations and people I believe in. That I get to deduct it from my taxes doesn't enter into the equation. If you understood what charity is, you would know it's not about saving tax dollars. it's about giving, not saving!  it's about the cause!!!!  For example, my grandson has Autism. It's heartbreaking!!! So, that gets a lot of dough right now. We work with a few good organizations, Elliott Sadler, and some others. You really need to get a clue.

There is one other person i can speak for with regard to charitable contributions, you. You don't give from the heart, you give from the pocketbook. You give to save paying taxes. At least that's what you've posted here. That's sad! my sinerest hope for you is that life doesn't test you to a degree that you find out just how sad.

Sorry the boat bothers you so much. We kinda like it.

[quote=N.D.]

Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

The rich choose to cut out the administration fees and make tax deductible charitable contributions to the organization of their choice. Sometimes it is done during the persons life and sometimes it is done thru estate planning. Either way, you bet your sweet ass it is given to those that need it...

[/quote]

ND, again with a post showing a serious disconnect with reality. The problem - you beleive this is truth.

Apparently you are not aware that prior to the 2008 financial debacle that 45% of the homeless were Mentally ill? And, today that number still stands between 25 and 35%? Your republican businessman give the mentally ill a job?

it gets worse for you - Guess who put the mentally ill on the streets? if you guessed dems you guessed wrong. Repubs all the way. Ronnie threw them out of the hospitals and onto the streets. Repubs have kept them there since.

Repubs own the businesses. Is it more likely that a repub would have fired or laid off that homeless person or offer him a job? Obvious answer there as well.

Have you ever seen a republican conservative give money to a street person? Dude, i work in a big city, as nettlesome would say, put down the meth pipe!

Your joke really is a joke, though not in the way you mean. You need to get another joke where you lose the homeless person. At least then you wouldn't be doing a dig on yourself. Again, the sad point is, your party put the mentally ill on the street and now you make jokes about it. Your self centered you is showing it's slip.

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant. 

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time. 

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement. 

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[quote=BondGuy]

ND, again with a post showing a serious disconnect with reality. The problem - you beleive this is truth.

[/quote]

Bond:

After you last 3 posts

you're disconnect with reality is monumental

what a total bunch of convoluted bullshti

you sound foolish

you are officially ND's little bicth

game,set, match

ps: where is all your guilt coming from.    I think we need to explore that.

are you catholic? 

[quote=BondGuy]

ND, you've out done yourself here! That's quite the list! If only my friend's sister had known you her outcome would have been so much better! You are the man!

[/quote]

Thank you and I do not mind the facetious tone of your response. I had this list fresh in my mind (along with many others) because we are on the tail end of going through the same thing (all be it a different kind of cancer) with my father-n-law. Long story short, he is "financially" poor but is a good man that unfortunately made many bad decisions in life. My wife has been with him two states away for two weeks now. The doctors hope for two months.

Like I said before, It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  

I do not know anything about you friend's sister or her situation. But I will say that there are many programs, community groups, libraries, families and friends that can help. I am guessing but find it hard to believe that people are that cold and very shrug where you are at. Here in the south, we are passionate about helping people in our communities directly and not behind or through an inefficient government body. But I must add that someone has to ask for help before anyone will know they need it.

[quote=BondGuy]

As for charitable contributions i can only speak for myself. I give charitble contributions to organzations and people I believe in. That I get to deduct it from my taxes doesn't enter into the equation. If you understood what charity is, you would know it's not about saving tax dollars. it's about giving, not saving!  it's about the cause!!!!  For example, my grandson has Autism. It's heartbreaking!!! So, that gets a lot of dough right now. We work with a few good organizations, Elliott Sadler, and some others. You really need to get a clue.

There is one other person i can speak for with regard to charitable contributions, you. You don't give from the heart, you give from the pocketbook. You give to save paying taxes. At least that's what you've posted here. That's sad! my sinerest hope for you is that life doesn't test you to a degree that you find out just how sad.

Sorry the boat bothers you so much. We kinda like it.  

[/quote]

You can't have it both ways. Either the government does "charitable" work or not. According to you, the rich are against the poor because the rich do not support government "charitable" programs. But the rich give to the poor in so many different ways besides via tax code. Why do you act like it is a "bad thing" for the rich to give their money to charitable organizations directly? Do you actually hold yourself above others because you allocate your "excess" income to those that need it via IRS and multiple governmental bodies?

Its not a rich/poor thing like you try to make it out to be. It is a control thing. The rich want to control what they have and what they give. The fewer hands it can go through the more affect they feel will be provided from their dollars. You understand leverage right? The excess expenses of "middle management"? The government is inefficient in every way imaginable.

p.s. the boat doesn't bother me as much as I am sure it bothers the homeless people you speak of that could be fed, clothed and sheltered with the money you spent on the boat. I don't fault you for rewarding yourself for many years of hard work and building a successful business. I do think it is hypocritical for you to make statements about what other people choose to do with THEIR money.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant. 

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time. 

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement. 

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac

3)  An ally

4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.

9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history.

You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off.

You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish?

So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over?

[quote=BondGuy]

Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history.

You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off.

You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish?

So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over?

[/quote] 

You continue to make accusations without citing any sources... Reagan may not have wanted to increase the size of government but he did sign the McKinney-Vento Act.

I hate to use wikipedia as a source but it is the easiest for this reply and can led you, and anyone else that may be curious about your accusations, a place to start looking.

[quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinney-Vento_Act]

It was the first significant federal legislative response to homelessness, and was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987. This legislation is considered landmark legislation for the homeless.

[/quote]

You are obviously in way over your head boy. You have been exposed for what you are. Best advice for you is to just forget this thread is here and go back to helping newbs pitch bonds.

p.s. Nettles does not have to agree with the entire platform to align personal beliefs with a platform.

I gotta hand it to you two, ND and nettlesome. I'll getting a good laugh here. In my opening post on this thread i stated 'Stupidity on parade!" Wow, was that understatement ! ND, at first i took you as nettle's intelligent alter ego. But, not so much now. Both of you are unaware of not only what is happening now but have absolutely no idea of the history of the republican party.  Your blind support is emblematic of of why we are so polarized today. the facts don't matter. To top it off, you are fully engaged on finacial issues and just as disengaged on social welfare issues. Help yourself, all over it! help your poor brother - no effin way! Like i said - self centered bastards!

You've got to go back 23 years to find an example where a republican did something good for the poor. That should tell you something right there. And, if you really knew the truth you wouldn't have brought his up.

Because you are obviously unware let me tell how it was 30 years ago. Reagan slashed every soical program he could get his hands on. The mentally ill, denfenseless, were an easy target. So were the poor. The budget for low cost housing went from 32 billion under Carter to under 7 billion under reagan. You can't cut a housing budget by 80% without hurting people.

This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which reagan, realizing he couldn't  win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to.

Patti Davis in a article written for Parade Magazine: I was afraid i'd be recognised while jogging ( on the streets of DC) and confronted about the homeless. What would i say if asked why i didn't argue wtih my father about this national tragedy? How do you argue with someone who states the people who are sleeping on the streets of america 'Are homeless by choice?"

Patti was referring to Reagans's response to the question  posed shortly before Christmas "How do feel about the homeless sleeping in the park across the street from the White House?" His response 'it is their choice to be sleeping out there"

ND, I believe reagan sums up your view of the poor quite well. You've shown quite clearly that you don't understand the root cause of the issues. it is you who is in way over his head. That you are supported by the resident Mensa Member here on RR  doesn't help your cause.

You've also made it clear that you don't donate to charity unless there is something in it for you. For you, charity is a financial issue. And, somehow you still see yourself as a good Christian?

I don't get that, and i never will. "What's in it for me?' Not in any Bible i've ever read, yet you, and nettle live by these words.

Lastly, on your cheap shot about the boat, giving the money to the poor, is that Communism or socialism? Because it's one or the other, and since it's your beleif system maybe you could explain it to me? ( and don't let the Tea baggers find out you feel this way. That'll really get'em riled up!)

OBama May Be In Deep Trouble

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.

Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,'when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.

A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.

And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.

The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.

The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.

Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona.

That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.

The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again...

[quote=BondGuy]

....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to....

[/quote] So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress  but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.

note:

1.  The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.

2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.

[quote=N.D.]

It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again...

[quote=BondGuy]

....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since.

Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to....

[/quote] So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress  but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.

note:

1.  The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.

2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.

[/quote]

ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact.  yet, you are unaware.

Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move.

Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.

Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.

5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well.

Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help  rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense.

Then the outrage started.

 Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter.

And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!

Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP?  It makes no sense.

[quote=BondGuy]

ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact.  yet, you are unaware.

Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move.

Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.

Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.

5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well.

Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help  rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense.

Then the outrage started.

 Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter.

And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!

Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP?  It makes no sense.

[/quote]

Honestly I do not even want to shoot holes in your posts anymore. I try again and again to back my statements up with facts and/or sources so my statements can be verified and debated. You continually state your opinions, lame assumptions and ridiculous accusations. If you would like to provide rebuttals to my posts, try citing sources and/or references to your statements. Otherwise just shut the fukc up and let this thread die...

The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:

BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent.  In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch.  It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress.  So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress.  It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.

So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted. 

BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts.  I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum.  And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories.  Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity. 

Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above.  You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not.

[quote=loneMADman]

The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:

BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent.  In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch.  It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress.  So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress.  It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.

So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted. 

[/quote]

Nowhere in your rambling does it point to a source or reference to "refute" my fact. You guys really are so drunk on the lib spin that you believe that since you read it somewhere on a blog it must be true??? I know the "powers" a prez is given. duh What I did not see in either of your posts is a reputable (or any for that fact) source that shows:

1. Republicans stick it to the poor.

2. Reagan threw mentally ill people in the streets thus creating a homelessness epidemic.

The homeless problem actually started before Reagan took office and escalated during his term but it was not because he "threw" the mentally ill and disabled into the streets. To blame one man for these things or even a single political party, is absolutely absurd. Especially during a true bipartisan congress as we had in the 80s.

The mentally ill and disabled issues began in the late 60s as the first of the baby boomers began to enter society as young adults. The deinstitutanalzation movement also escalated the number of homeless people by not allowing people to be institutionalized against their will which is a good thing IMO.

You can blame many people for the unfortunate results of several pieces of legislation but for BG to attempt to use his opinion as facts to single out the individual or individuals that are directly responsible for this concern is ABSURD.

[quote=loneMADman]

BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts.  I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum.  And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories.  Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity. 

Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above.  You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not.

[/quote] I would be glad to start over with an accusation from BondGuy and a fact or source or reference to support his facts. Unless he would like to change his facts and say it is his opinion the Gipper launched the poor, mentally ill and disabled out on the streets because he is opposed to these demographics.

If you feel that I have "introduced numerous faux facts" please point them out so I can cite my source of reference or restate the post as my opinion.

ND, either you don't know the powers a president is granted or you are incapable of admitting you were wrong about even one specific fact.  Why would I take the time to point out others when you are obviously irredeemable?

By the way, BondGuy and I are not the same person and I didn't write what he did.  You could be a little more discerning in your wild attacks, but making fine distinctions clearly isn't your thing.

God bless you Ronnie.  Forgive them.

Ronnie cut marginal tax rates from 70% in 1979.  And started a monster economic run that HELPED EVERYONE (duh).  Please repeat this 100 time Bond et al.  IT HELPS EVERYONE.

THE ANSWER IS A MAN WITH A mf JOB not govt bullshti that NEVER works.

free markets create wealth.    greed creates wealth.   that lifts EVERYONE.

cut taxes, cut regulation.   supply side, voodoo, trickle down economics WORKS 

period

everytime  (including 2002)

Ronnie HELPED the poor more then any president in my lifetime by a mile.

 A MAN WITH A JOB IS THE ANSWER.

NOT A MAN WITH YOUR BULLSHTI HANDOUT GIVEAWAY WEALTH DISTRIBUTION COMRADE PUTIN CRAP

The supply siders highlighted the positive evidence from two earlier major tax cuts—the Coolidge-Mellon cuts of the 1920s and the Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s. Between 1921 and 1926, three major tax cuts reduced the top marginal rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. The Kennedy tax cut reduced rates across the board, and the top marginal rate was sliced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Both of these tax cuts were followed by strong growth and increasing prosperity. In contrast, the huge Hoover tax increase of 1932—the top rate was increased from 25 percent to 63 percent in one year—helped keep the economy depressed. As the economy grew slowly in the 1970s and the unemployment rate rose, supply-side economists argued that these conditions were the result of high tax rates due to high inflation.

The supply-side economic policy of cutting high marginal tax rates, therefore, should be viewed as a long-run strategy to enhance growth rather than a short-run tool to end recession. Changing market incentives to increase the amount of labor supplied or to move resources out of tax-motivated investments and into higher-yield activities takes time. The full positive effects of lower marginal tax rates are not observed until labor and capital markets have time to adjust fully to the new incentive structure.

Because marginal tax rates affect real output, they also affect government revenue. An increase in marginal tax rates shrinks the tax base, both by discouraging work effort and by encouraging tax avoidance and even tax evasion. This shrinkage necessarily means that an increase in tax rates leads to a less than proportional increase in tax revenues. Indeed, economist Arthur Laffer (of “Laffer curve” fame) popularized the notion that higher tax rates may actually cause the tax base to shrink so much that tax revenues will decline, and that a cut in tax rates may increase the tax base so much that tax revenues increase.

How likely is this inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues? It is more likely in the long run when people have had a long time to adjust. It is also more likely when marginal tax rates are high, but less likely when rates are low. Imagine a taxpayer in a 75 percent tax bracket who earns $300,000 a year. Assume for simplicity that the 75 percent tax rate applies to all his income. Then the government collects $225,000 in tax revenue from this person. Now the government cuts tax rates by one-third, from 75 percent to 50 percent. After the tax cut, this taxpayer gets to keep $50, rather than $25, of every $100, a 100 percent increase in the incentive to earn. If this doubling of the incentive to earn causes him to earn 50 percent more, or $450,000, then the government will get the same revenue as before. If it causes him to earn more than $450,000, the government gets more revenue.

Now consider a taxpayer paying a tax rate of 15 percent on all his income. The same 33 percent rate reduction cuts his rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. Here, take-home pay per $100 of additional earnings will rise from $85 to $90, only a 5.9 percent increase in the incentive to earn. Because cutting the 15 percent rate to 10 percent exerts only a small effect on the incentive to earn, the rate reduction has little impact on the amount earned. Therefore, in contrast with the revenue effects in high tax brackets, tax revenue will decline by almost the same percentage as tax rates in the lowest tax brackets. The bottom line is that cutting all rates by a third will lead to small revenue losses (or even revenue gains) in high tax brackets and large revenue losses in the lowest brackets. As a result, the share of the income tax paid by high-income taxpayers will rise.

Supply-side economics has exerted a major impact on tax policy throughout the world. During the last two decades of the twentieth century, there was a dramatic move away from high marginal tax rates. In 1980, the top marginal rate on personal income was 60 percent or more in forty-nine countries. By 1990, only twenty countries had such a high top tax rate, and by 2000, only three countries—Cameroon, Belgium, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—had a top rate of 60 percent or more. In 1980, only six countries levied a personal income tax with a top marginal rate of less than 40 percent. By 2000, fifty-six countries had a top marginal income tax rate of less than 40 percent.1

The former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving toward supply-side tax policies. Following the collapse of communism, most of these countries had a combination of personal income and payroll taxes that generated high marginal tax rates. As a result, the incentive to work was weak and tax evasion was massive. Russia was a typical case. In 2000, Russia’s top personal income tax rate was 30 percent and a 40.5 percent payroll tax was applied at all earnings levels. If Russians with even modest earnings complied with the law, the tax collector took well over half of their incremental income. Beginning in January 2001, the newly elected Putin administration shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced the payroll tax rate. The results were striking. Tax compliance increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following the adoption of the flat-rate tax. Further, the real growth rate of the Russian economy averaged 7 percent during 2001–2003, up from less than 2 percent during the three years prior to the tax cut.

Ukraine soon followed Russia’s lead and capped its top personal income tax rate at 13 percent. Beginning in 2004, the Slovak Republic imposed a flat-rate personal income tax of 19 percent. Latvia and Estonia also have flat-rate personal income taxes.

Supply-side economics provided the political and theoretical foundations for what became a remarkable change in the tax structure of the United States and other countries throughout the world. The view that changes in tax rates exert an impact on total output and that marginal rates in excess of 40 percent exert a destructive influence on the incentive of people to work and use resources wisely is now widely accepted by both economists and policymakers. This change in thinking is the major legacy of supply-side economics.

Nettlesome - question: Is the TP, of which you are a card carrying member, not screaming stop the spending?

I get emails everyday from TP supporters asking how their grandchildren are gonna pay for all this out of control spending. The bailouts are the poster child for this irresponsible loading on of debt.

I ask, because you've supplied the group, the three of us still reading this thread, with Reagan's economic policy.

Did you know that Ronnie's tax cuts, combined with his own out of control spending tripled the national debt. And, I'll bet you didn't know that under Reagan the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to it's largest debtor nation.

Yeah, that's what happens when you borrow money to pay the bills.

And, here we go again, the TP in the face of a mountainous national debt, rung up by two wars, wants taxs cuts again!

Did you know that Bush referred to Ronnies' economic plan as "Voodoo economics?

Yeah, we, the wealthy, prospered under Ronnie. But we were writing checks we couldn't cash.

ND, in going back and forth with you here I'm reminded of Strother Martin's famous line from 'Cool Hand Luke.' I know you're thinking:

"What we have here is failure to communitcate."

But that's not the line I believe best applies.

That  would be the Captain's next line:

"Some men you just can't reach."

Dman, thx for the reasoning. I too have tired of the pissing contest. I'll answer lovin on a couple points and then call it pissed out.

'

[quote=lovindaindy]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant. 

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time. 

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement. 

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac

3)  An ally

4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.

9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

[/quote]

Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood.

Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime.

Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle.

Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled.

Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money!

Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!

You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=lovindaindy]

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.

When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant. 

Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.

This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.

Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time. 

Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement. 

So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.

[/quote]

So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.

Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different.

The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it.

That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?

[/quote]

We gained several things:

1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.

2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac

3)  An ally

4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.

5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)

6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides

7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people.

8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.

9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".

I could go on.

Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.

Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.

As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.

But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

[/quote]

Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood.

Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime.

Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle.

Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled.

Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money!

Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!

You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?

[/quote]

Actually, I don't have a problem with taxes.  As long as they are fair.  Sometimes taxes need to be raised.  Just like I don't think government spending is all that bad.  Government spending has a multiplicative effect on output.  However, only certain government spending has that effect.  For instance.  Military spending has the largest impact PER DOLLAR, than any other program as far as stimulating the economy.

Also, how can you say what a bill WILL cost, when ten years haven't passed?  The forecasts on that bill are flawed, and were done by people bought and paid for by the Democratic party.

Healthcare is not a public good.  Not EVERYONE benefits from this healthcare.  A military IS a public good.  EVERYBODY benefits from having a military.  Therefore, taxes should not go to pay for something that is NOT a public good. 

So, BG, what IS a good reason to spill American blood?  Would you consider training for war a good reason?  I only ask because the profession of arms is incredibly dangerous.  In peacetime and wartime.  If a soldier dies in training, was it wasteful to spend money on his training?  If a pilot crashes a plane while training, should we disband the Air Force, since flying planes is too dangerous.

As I said, the statistics speak for themselves.  During the previous ten years under Clinton, the EXACT percentage of soldiers died in TRAINING as have died in the last ten years of war.  What does that tell you?

The Iraqi Army, police and National Guard have come a LONG way from when I was there.  Several of my buddies who just got back last year said the only thing separating us now from them in fighting ability, is technology, and practice.  They have the skills.

Attacking Iraq was so far from misguided it is not even funny.  From PERSONAL experience I can tell you about the people we captured.  How they changed plans from attacking DoD schools in Germany, to attacking American soldiers because we were "the face of the crusaders". Countless stories like this.  The Egyptian brothers (lol, the Feddyi brothers!) who originally had planned to bomb a school in Ohio.  This, translated from one of their journals, complete with a drawing of cutting off a child's head.  Yet, the Americans were here, why not kill them here?

You tell me BG.  Is your life, given in blood, to save the life of a 5 year-old American girl in Germany, worth it?  Is it worth it, to save

Mine is.  I would do it every time. 

These are the stories you don't hear.  You don't hear them from Fox.  You don't hear from MSNBC.  You don't hear them from CNN, or CBS. 

I feel sorry for you if you don't think children are worth it.  But I will live the rest of my life knowing what I fought for, and what my brother died for.  And I know the truth.  Not the lies of the left, nor the exaggerations of the right.

[quote=BondGuy]

Nettlesome - question: Is the TP, of which you are a card carrying member, not screaming stop the spending?

I get emails everyday from TP supporters asking how their grandchildren are gonna pay for all this out of control spending. The bailouts are the poster child for this irresponsible loading on of debt.

I ask, because you've supplied the group, the three of us still reading this thread, with Reagan's economic policy.

Did you know that Ronnie's tax cuts, combined with his own out of control spending tripled the national debt. And, I'll bet you didn't know that under Reagan the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to it's largest debtor nation.

Yeah, that's what happens when you borrow money to pay the bills.

And, here we go again, the TP in the face of a mountainous national debt, rung up by two wars, wants taxs cuts again!

Did you know that Bush referred to Ronnies' economic plan as "Voodoo economics?

Yeah, we, the wealthy, prospered under Ronnie. But we were writing checks we couldn't cash.

[/quote]

All bullshti.    

 Tip O'neill, not Ronnie.    liberal jedi spin crap

Yes  bush 1 said that.  who cares.

read my lips:

free markets create wealth

govt spending crowds out wealth creation

govt spending should be at an absolute minimum

just like J. Madison et al intended it.

I cant be any clearer.  

this is what i believe.   I also believe that EVERYONE will end up better off economically.

I have told you many of examples of how govt FAILS.

why dont you tell me the great successes of govt?      hell, how about one?

one govt program that ENDED.   we did it!   success.   under budget

war on drugs?

hud

fema

war on poverty

loan modifications

irs

welfare

public housing

any thing

"Government spending has a multiplicative effect on output."

Did you really say this?   You have got to be kidding me?    

why don't you prove this to me?

Jennifer, it's economics 101.

When government expenditures change, so does real GDP, which changes consumption expenditures.  Let's go back to the military example.    Military contractors are benefiting from increased business when spending because of increased military expenditures.  Workers in these industries spend more, in turn, multiplying the impact of increased government military spending.

The multiplier's size depends on the marginal propensity to consume.

MPC =  Additional consumption/Additional income

[quote=lovindaindy]

Jennifer, it's economics 101.

When government expenditures change, so does real GDP, which changes consumption expenditures.  Let's go back to the military example.    Military contractors are benefiting from increased business when spending because of increased military expenditures.  Workers in these industries spend more, in turn, multiplying the impact of increased government military spending.

The multiplier's size depends on the marginal propensity to consume.

MPC =  Additional consumption/Additional income

[/quote]

understand

RELATIVE to private sector?

thati is my (and supply side) case.

that lame govt spending crowds out dynamic, wealth creating private spending.

FDX, UPS vs the gd post office

AAPL vs HUD

VMW vs FEMA

CSX,BNI vs amtrack

Are you talking about crowding out of private investment?

Supply-side in that case is usually referring to deficits.  Crowding out occurs because the real interest rate is affected by the deficit.  In which case, investors choose to invest in govies and not corporates.  For sure the private sector is ultimately the producer of goods and services, while the government is designed to consume.

I do agree that governments competing with business are crap. 

I think the biggest issues is where is the line between public and private goods.  A lot of disagreements here on that.  For sure, BG would say (and most non-conservatives - I know you don't want anybody to pigeon-hole you, like you are doing to others) that healthcare is a public good, and should thus be funded by taxpayers.

What Tea Partiers are saying, is that the government being in the banking business is not a public good.  Both Republicans and Democrats would disagree.

In this instance, I agree with Tea Partiers, but also agree that the bailouts were necessary.

So, if they were billed as a risky investment (which is really all it was), then I'm ok with it.

I have said from the beginning that ultimately the government will make money off of TARP (which will not be returned to taxpayers, but will be funneled into more government programs that do not benefit the public as a whole).

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

why dont you tell me the great successes of govt?      hell, how about one?

[/quote]

One success?

You are free to spew your misguided hate.

That actually wasn't a government success.  That was a revolutionary success.  That revolution that was the result of an oppressive government.  Similar to what we've experienced the last forty years or so.

Judge people's judgement; don't judge their intention. That's all I have to say. There's an interesting debate going on here in between all the insistent name calling, abuse of the english language, and **** swinging.

Bondguy, you're better than this. Let them get the attention they desperately seek elsewhere.

Dad, do I have to come home now? I was having so much fun!

Ana, point well taken !

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Judge people's judgement; don't judge their intention. That's all I have to say. There's an interesting debate going on here in between all the insistent name calling, abuse of the english language, and **** swinging.

Bondguy, you're better than this. Let them get the attention they desperately seek elsewhere.

[/quote]

blwo me fukc face.  liberals sukc

intention this

bonds peeps.   well oiled machine FBI breaks up alleged plot to defraud Medicare of $100m

Operation carried out by Armenian-American gangsters was largest ever to steal from Medicare, say authorities

Armenian-American gangsters created a fictitious medical world, complete with fake doctors and fake patients, which they extended across the US in a scheme to defraud the Medicare system of more than $100m (£62.9m), federal prosecutors said yesterday.

The FBI and other authorities claimed to have broken up the largest organised criminal operation to steal from Medicare since the system of healthcare support for elderly and disabled Americans was founded in 1965.

Charges were brought against 73 people, mainly from New York and Los Angeles but also from New Mexico, Georgia and Ohio.

The scam, which succeeded in stealing $35m from Medicare, having billed the system more than $100m, was the brainchild of the alleged ringleader of the gang, Armen Kazarian. Legal documents produced by the grand jury that issued the charges said Kazarian also travelled under aliases of Pzo and Qerop. He described himself as a "Vor", meaning "thief-in-law", an Armenian equivalent of a criminal godfather.

Kazarian is alleged to have been a "substantial influence in the criminal underworld" while he was living in Azerbaijan under the Soviet Union. After the fall of communism, he emigrated to the US, bringing his criminal contacts and practices with him.

He is accused of having established a criminal web known as the Mirzoyan-Terdjanian Organisation while keeping its ties open to Armenia.

The two alleged leaders of the gang, alongside Kazarian, were based in New York and Los Angeles.

The gang ran a range of illegal activities, prosecutors say, including contraband, immigration fraud, identity theft, bank fraud and money laundering. But the most elaborate part of the operation was the vast swindling of Medicare.

The gang constructed a parallel universe that was entirely make-believe but which mirrored the structure of the real Medicare system. To begin with they stole the identities – including the dates of birth, social security numbers and medical licence details – of dozens of doctors.

They then set up 118 phantom health clinics in 25 states across the country, and applied for permission to treat patients under the terms of Medicare, a scheme to support over 65-year-olds and certain categories of disabled people.

Once accepted on to the programme, the fraudsters began billing for treatments such as ear, nose and throat procedures, skin allergies and bladder tests on behalf of 2,900 patients whose identities they had also stolen. The more than $35m that was already paid out by Medicare before the arrests were made went to bank accounts set up under false identities.

The money would be withdrawn in cash and couriered to contacts in Armenia for disposal.