21 Aug '11 07:14>
Originally posted by TheBloopOh that's hilarious!
.
The first 500K month was October 2008. The number then jumped to more than 700K in November 2008... once it became clear who was going to be the next President.
Originally posted by WajomaYou're the 5-star general of B.S.
The debate about SS has nothing to do with "serving the interests of corporations and wealthy". Try not to be so emotive and ranticidal, you'll make more sense. The debate about SS is concerned with freedom, i.e. people being free to set their own values and priorities. SS is just another tax, the gummint sayd give us 'X' now (or else, waving the stick) an ...[text shortened]... hat way people can opt out and try directing their resources to their own priorities.
Originally posted by badmoonThat's correct, but to do so he couldn't just separate out the tax rate cuts for those over $250k a year. So he had to admit the truth, that the Bush tax cuts were as much for the low and middle class as for the wealthy, and that tax rates were more, not less progressive as a result.
I believe that he could let them all expire.
Originally posted by Soothfast"You're like the rear admiral of B.S."
You're like the rear admiral of B.S.
Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future. The only thing threatening it are the actions of those who despise it on principle, because it doesn't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. They'll do everything . Nope: grandma gets shoved off the cliff by the Rethuglicans every....single....time.
Originally posted by normbenignBush was blasted for failing to enforce what's left of banking regulations and thus failed to prevent a recession which was based upon a pullback of investment when it was learned that banks had defrauded investors with years of glowing reports based upon assets which were crap. Deregulation and lack of enforcement, and companies like S&P giving banks with crumbling foundations AAA ratings are what caused the depression, and that was all done years before Obama became President.
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
Originally posted by normbenignBut what's especially hilarious is that idiots like Rush Limbaugh were calling it the "Obama Recession" weeks before he was even in power. I just love the conservative notion of where the buck stops!
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
Originally posted by normbenignI've read excerpts from "Reckless Endangerment" and fail to see how someone who wants virtually no regulation of private business can have the nerve to cite it. While the authors vastly overstate the influence of Fannie Mae on the subprime market (their share of the market sharply decreased in the years before the financial meltdown), their basic message is that the private market was poorly regulated not that regulation is "bad". Their thesis seems to be if the regulators were more aggressive, the financial meltdown probably never would have occurred.
"You're like the rear admiral of B.S."
Tauroscatological ad hominem.
"Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future."
That depends on what "worked" means. Clearly, it has worked politically to create a dependent class. If an insurance company had designed e free market, when none existed. The full story is in "Reckless Endangerment".
Originally posted by WajomaThe debate about Social Security is "concerned with freedom"? perhaps if one sees the world through the lens of Wajoma's surreal ideology that might well be the case, but I doubt any person inhabiting the real world would agree with this statement.
The debate about SS has nothing to do with "serving the interests of corporations and wealthy". Try not to be so emotive and ranticidal, you'll make more sense. The debate about SS is concerned with freedom, i.e. people being free to set their own values and priorities. SS is just another tax, the gummint sayd give us 'X' now (or else, waving the stick) an hat way people can opt out and try directing their resources to their own priorities.
Originally posted by normbenignWhat you said is so idiotic I'm embarrassed for you.
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
Originally posted by generalissimoIn Wajomastan the elderly and infirm are supposed to work until they die, because that way they realize maximum personal freedom and opportunity.
The debate about Social Security is "concerned with freedom"? perhaps if one sees the world through the lens of Wajoma's surreal ideology that might well be the case, but I doubt any person inhabiting the real world would agree with this statement.
Social Security by definition regards the alleviation of economic discrepancies, and the provision of ...[text shortened]... with, I see. What an ingenious solution to the many problems facing social security.