Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 06, 2009, 09:06:05 AM
-
Prairie-Fire Anger. Why Are People in Revolt? [Victor Davis Hanson]
pajamasmedia.com ^ | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:30:17 AM by Tolik
Suddenly, a Revolution
Why public disagreement with the Obama administration rapidly became fury.
The approval ratings on nearly every one of the President’s key policy initiatives—cap-and-trade, health care overhaul, government take over of industry and finance, deficit spending, stimulus—are already less than half of polled voters. Obama’s own popularity has fallen dramatically and hovers near fifty percent. A number of well-publicized town meetings have erupted in shouting, as administration and congressional representatives try, often in condescending fashion, to explain the Obama agenda. The Republicans—written off just a few weeks ago as an obsolete party headed for oblivion—are now often polling higher in generic surveys than are Democrats.
Why the sudden uproar?
Bait-and-Switch
There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats—apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president—voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out of control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort.
Instead, within days Obama set out plans that would triple the annual deficit, and intends to borrow at a record pace that will double the aggregate debt in just eight years.
He not only took over much of the auto- and financial industries, but also did so in a way that privileged unions, politically-correct creditors, and those insider cronies who favor administration initiatives. On matters racial, his administration is shrill and retrograde, not forward-looking. It insists on emphasizing the tired old identify politics that favor a particular sort of racial elite that claims advantage by citing past collective victimization or piggy-backs for advantage on the plight of the minority underclass.
In other words, the Obama swing voter thought he was getting a 21st-century version of pragmatic, triangulating Bill Clinton—and instead got something to the left of 1970s Jimmy Carter.
Those Who Receive and Those Who Dole Out
There is, of course, a growing fear of government—but a new sort of anxiety that transcends the traditional skepticism of statism. Few Americans younger than 60 can recall the magnitude of the current government take-over of the economy that may reach 40-45% of GDP. Evocation of “socialism” is still considered inflammatory by the Left, but it is now simply an empirical term, not a slur, given that America’s tax codes and entitlement spending may look like the social landscape in France or Scandinavia in short order.
Apprehensive voters dread turning their hard-won and paid-for private health care plans into something like the emergency room on Saturday night, where the care reflects the chaos. The new anti-Obamians do not want industry run like the Department of Motor Vehicles, where most time and money are invested mostly in those who do not follow the rules like registering their cars or getting a driver’s license. And it is not just the waste, inefficiency, and lack of accountability inherent in government-run enterprises that bother the growing cadre of angry voters.
There is, again, a mounting anxiety that the current federal expansion is politically-driven in rather radical ways—an effort to create a permanent new constituency of millions who either receive expanded federal largess or are gleefully employed in doling it out. The zealotry of expansive bureaucracy and dependency instills fears, rational or not, of a radicalized huge federal work force, a sort of national version of Acorn to the nth degree that in pack-like fashion is mobilized to target potential naysayers.
Bastille Day—All the Days
Voters are beginning to sense a certain edge to the Obama revolution, a meanness in its class-driven rhetoric aimed at the more successful. Even the middling classes do not necessary like this constant bashing of their bosses and lawyers, doctors, dentists, contractors, brokers, and real estate agents. The constant harangue about taxing only those who make over $250,000 (or is it now $200,000?, or $150,000) accentuates the notion that those who run successful businesses, who create profitable medical practices, and who are accomplished professionals are somehow culpable—greedy, conniving, or worse.
If well over 40% of the population pays no federal income tax, and the demonized 1% pay more federal income tax than does the bottom 95%, and still we are to hear whining about Bush-era greed, what is next? What does the Left ultimately want—confiscation of 90% of all income? Tax exemptions for 99% of the electorate? Continual Barney Frank show-trial congressional hearings to grandstand the bullying of the now satanic CEOs and investors?
In just six months has arisen a Storming the Bastille anger of “pay-back.” Class envy and anger are unleashed through careless presidential rhetoric about Las Vegas junkets, Wall Street vampires, Super Bowl trips, and all the other slurs and slanders that have nothing to do with the building contractor who makes $250,000 a year by working weekends and twelve hour days—only to plow back his profits immediately into his business.
Existential questions are now being raised—isn’t compensation fickle (why should the brain surgeon make more than the auto worker?) and in need of federal readjustment on April 15? Is your income really your own, but not more to be envisioned as something on loan from society at large, to be morally recalled as needed?
Yet how strange that the highly-compensated, privileged DC technocrat deprecates the manifestation of success of the small businessman while bailing out the Wall Street buccaneers who have so lavishly donated in the past to the Obama cause. In the world of Obama, make $300,000 in household income and you deserve to be in the crosshairs; make $30,000,000 and you are a sensitive fat cat donor, who rises above class and personal interests, and so becomes deserving of a bail-out, insider exemption, honorific federal post or ambassadorship, or dinner at the White House. The grandee talks of Harvard-educated children and Martha’s Vineyard, and so in his noblisse oblige is one of ‘us’, the grasping plumbing contractor goes to NASCAR and deserves what he gets.
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal. They sense the more they pay, the more they will pay more to come. In Obama world, the fact that you will pay 40% federal tax, a health care surcharge, higher state taxes, and FICA on most of your income, is proof that you should have paid those tax rates all along, and will pay even more in the future.
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
There is a cascading anger at a new sort of left-wing elitism and hypocrisy as well, one that feeds the rhetoric of class warfare. The rules of the game simply do not apply to this bunch of wannabe Platonic Guardians. Stopping Bush’s private Social Security accounts was patriotic; using the same tactics to stop Obama care is nearly disloyal; a gross Joker-like image of Obama surfaces on the Internet and is deemed horribly unfair; that Vanity Fair published something identical about Bush was hilariously legitimate criticism. Radio talk show is now deemed radically insurrectionist; Moveon.org’s and Michael Moore’s open hostility to the U.S. military and American society at time of war (remember “General Betray-Us” ads, and Moore’s lament that bin Laden hit a blue-state city?) did not earn them ostracism from the Democratic leadership.
A well educated technocracy—we see such figures in the emblematic Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, or Barack Obama himself —have most of their lives served in government, largely regulating, overseeing, organizing, auditing, and sermonizing far more productive and capable others. One of the worst flaws of this species of utopian technocrat is the notion that he wishes to curtail in others the very things he wishes to enjoy without constraint himself.
Thus we sense that a Geithner does not wish to pay the taxes he hikes on others. A Holder wants to destroy through subpoena and litigation the Bush lawyers, but pleaded once for mercy for his own shenanigans involving the crooked Clinton pardons. And Obama lectures about the inequality of wealth and the burdens of racism while his wife’s salary climbed as his political influence grew. Meanwhile his own rarified tastes translated into a shady transaction with Tony Rezco to help to score a stately home and expansive yard—while attending a Trinity Church that radiated racial venom from a charlatan preacher who ended up in a mansion on a golf course.
In other words, a great number of people are scared of these new versions of Al Gores and John Edwardses who live one way, and quite shamelessly preach another. I don’t think anyone in this green administration is going to be chauffeured to work in a Civic. Few will put their kids in the DC school system as they oppose vouchers. None would be happy in an environmentally-correct 1200 square foot home, with an ideal carbon-footprint, as they preach cap-and-trade taxes on energy for apartment dwellers.
Al Gore, for example, preached the evils of DC insiderism and the need for a new independent TV network. But when his company foolishly sent two of its employees into modern-day Mordor, he uses his status to convince the spouse of the Secretary of State and former President to grant concessions (by the mere fact of his presence with such a monster) to North Korea, free his workers, and set the precedent that hostage-taking does indeed earn high profile exposure. Some egalitarians.
Epilogue
I confess that when I first read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, first learned in depth about Trinity Church and its tirades about “black middle classness”, first studied the modus operandi of Obama’s state legislative campaigns and the mysterious implosions of both his primary and general election senatorial foes—all this belatedly in late 2006 and early 2007—I had little hope that he would prove to be anything other than the fossilized angry liberal that he is sadly proving to be.
But I erred in one key regard: I assumed his prepped oratory, youth and “cool”, transracial profile, media sycophants, and “Bush did it” excuses would ensure that his ratings stayed well above 60% at least through the midterm elections.
In other words, I underestimated the righteous anger of those who are daily deprecated by a utopian class—one that has neither the ability nor the fortitude to achieve what it now wishes to undo in others.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______
VDH nailed it 100%.
-
repubs need to STFU.
Bush took a surplus into a deficit, let 911 happen, lied about WMD, and shoved patriot act down our throats. You couldn't bend over fast enough to defend that.
Suddenly obama is pulling bullshit and you're singing about revolution. STFU, really.
-
repubs need to STFU.
Bush took a surplus into a deficit, let 911 happen, lied about WMD, and shoved patriot act down our throats. You couldn't bend over fast enough to defend that.
Suddenly obama is pulling bullshit and you're singing about revolution. STFU, really.
The problem is that he said he was the opposite of what he is doing and people are pissed off at how bad he lied.
Bush did not have a surplus. Bush had accounting gimmicks, and a recession and then 9/11 to deal with.
I dont defend his spending, but you simply cann t defend what Obama is doing. Blaming Bush will not last forever.
-
Don't talk about accounting gimmicks or a recession in regards to Bush. That recession was predicted back in the 90s because of how the global economy inflated the business sector at an unparalleled rate. No big.
The accounting problems were because of all of the deregulation that occurred.
Here's my real point though...
No one is revolting shit...
I'm so tired of hearing that kind of nonsense.
When Bush was President (and don't say I'm blaming him for shit, I'm not even going there) no one revolted, no matter how many fuckups he had... No one is going to revolt because of what Obama is doing either.
You know why?
Because Americans are LAZY.
If someone was going to revolt, it would have been about Iraq or maybe about the how the economy fell apart because of shitty practices going on everywhere.
Yet, they didn't and they won't... So this is just another bullshit article about civil unrest that will not happen.
-
Good points 240. This is exactly like the repubs now claiming the Obama admin is taking away the constitution. News flash! Bush already ruined your rights with the Patriot Act but hey that was for national security and all so i guess it's okay right? Wrong!
I wouldn't listen to this Palin fan boy 240. 333 spreads bullsh*t all the time. Remember how many people were suppose to be at the tea parties? HA! paled in comparison with the people who showed up to support Obama on the campaign trail, at his inauguration etc etc. Just more lies trying to spread dis sent that isn't there because a majority support Obama.
Oh wait! That majority are all illegals and/or don't pay taxes right? hahaha more lies from the repub spin factory of Palin fan boys.
-
Don't talk about accounting gimmicks or a recession in regards to Bush. That recession was predicted back in the 90s because of how the global economy inflated the business sector at an unparalleled rate. No big.
The accounting problems were because of all of the deregulation that occurred.
Here's my real point though...
No one is revolting shit...
I'm so tired of hearing that kind of nonsense.
When Bush was President (and don't say I'm blaming him for shit, I'm not even going there) no one revolted, no matter how many fuckups he had... No one is going to revolt because of what Obama is doing either.
You know why?
Because Americans are LAZY.
If someone was going to revolt, it would have been about Iraq or maybe about the how the economy fell apart because of shitty practices going on everywhere.
Yet, they didn't and they won't... So this is just another bullshit article about civil unrest that will not happen.
TU - where you are missing the point is that we are in the problem because of reckless spending like Bush did. The housing mess was not Bush's fault BTW. The CRA, The Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddi, with the help of Wall street created that.
Obnama was elected to fix the problems Bush created and carried forward for 8 years with regard to reckless spending, but on policy after policy, is exactly the same, but far worse.
-
Good points 240. This is exactly like the repubs now claiming the Obama admin is taking away the constitution. News flash! Bush already ruined your rights with the Patriot Act but hey that was for national security and all so i guess it's okay right? Wrong!
I wouldn't listen to this Palin fan boy 240. 333 spreads bullsh*t all the time. Remember how many people were suppose to be at the tea parties? HA! paled in comparison with the people who showed up to support Obama on the campaign trail, at his inauguration etc etc. Just more lies trying to spread dis sent that isn't there because a majority support Obama.
Oh wait! That majority are all illegals and/or don't pay taxes right? hahaha more lies from the repub spin factory of Palin fan boys.
The vast majority of illegal dont pay taxes you fool, they are a net drain on the society.
-
TU - where you are missing the point is that we are in the problem because of reckless spending like Bush did. The housing mess was not Bush's fault BTW. The CRA, The Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddi, with the help of Wall street created that.
Obnama was elected to fix the problems Bush created and carried forward for 8 years with regard to reckless spending, but on policy after policy, is exactly the same, but far worse.
Oh yeah 'far worse' after what? 3 months on the job? No one was going to solve this problem in their first year or even two. Reasonable people know this, however, you would like to spread bullsh*t and lies wherever possible wouldn't you?
-
TU - where you are missing the point is that we are in the problem because of reckless spending like Bush did. The housing mess was not Bush's fault BTW. The CRA, The Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddi, with the help of Wall street created that.
Obnama was elected to fix the problems Bush created and carried forward for 8 years with regard to reckless spending, but on policy after policy, is exactly the same, but far worse.
Did I even mention the housing bubble? No.
I agree with Neuro that this country will be nothing but bubbles... Welcome to the new world.
However, the point is about civil unrest... That's what your post is about.
And it ain't gonna happen.
-
Good points 240. This is exactly like the repubs now claiming the Obama admin is taking away the constitution. News flash! Bush already ruined your rights with the Patriot Act but hey that was for national security and all so i guess it's okay right? Wrong!
I wouldn't listen to this Palin fan boy 240. 333 spreads bullsh*t all the time. Remember how many people were suppose to be at the tea parties? HA! paled in comparison with the people who showed up to support Obama on the campaign trail, at his inauguration etc etc. Just more lies trying to spread dis sent that isn't there because a majority support Obama.
Oh wait! That majority are all illegals and/or don't pay taxes right? hahaha more lies from the repub spin factory of Palin fan boys.
Many of the provisions in the Patriot Act were already active at the time of its passing in Congress. Also, many of the provisions in the Patriot Act were things that were already being considered during the Clinton Admin, but there wasn't enough "support" to pass them.
I love the utterly ignorant characterization that Bush did all of these things by himself.
-
Did I even mention the housing bubble? No.
I agree with Neuro that this country will be nothing but bubbles... Welcome to the new world.
However, the point is about civil unrest... That's what your post is about.
And it ain't gonna happen.
Its not going to be pitchforks and torches, but other ways.
Read the part in the article about what people are doing with their taxes.
Alot of the liberal dolts around here who have never run a business, or probably even worked for that matter, dont realize that many people, including myself will simply not pay these outrageous taxes anymore.
I will structure my finances accordingly and they can all GFT all day long for all I care. I know dozens of people who are going to do this and my accountant freinds tell me daily how every single small business client they have is doing the same thing.
The taxpayer is going to go on strike.
-
Its not going to be pitchforks and torches, but other ways.
Read the part in the article about what people are doing with their taxes.
Alot of the liberal dolts around here who have never run a business, or probably even worked for that matter, dont realize that many people, including myself will simply not pay these outrageous taxes anymore.
I will structure my finances accordingly and they can all GFT all day long for all I care. I know dozens of people who are going to do this and my accountant freinds tell me daily how every single small business client they have is doing the same thing.
The taxpayer is going to go on strike.
So you were ok paying them before Obama became President and now you're not?
I see... Well, you can always go to Prison for tax fraud or evasion if you want.
-
Oh yeah 'far worse' after what? 3 months on the job? No one was going to solve this problem in their first year or even two. Reasonable people know this, however, you would like to spread bullsh*t and lies wherever possible wouldn't you?
Yeah, lets spend more money and see if we get a different result from the last fool we had. Pure brilliance.
-
So you were ok paying them before Obama became President and now you're not?
I see... Well, you can always go to Prison for tax fraud or evasion if you want.
Not at all, there are plenty of legal ways to get my AGI down.
-
So you were ok paying them before Obama became President and now you're not?
I see... Well, you can always go to Prison for tax fraud or evasion if you want.
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal. They sense the more they pay, the more they will pay more to come. In Obama world, the fact that you will pay 40% federal tax, a health care surcharge, higher state taxes, and FICA on most of your income, is proof that you should have paid those tax rates all along, and will pay even more in the future.
I know this is true from personal experience from my clients. They will not hire, will not expand, and will not take any risks with the spector of higher taxes looming.
-
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal. They sense the more they pay, the more they will pay more to come. In Obama world, the fact that you will pay 40% federal tax, a health care surcharge, higher state taxes, and FICA on most of your income, is proof that you should have paid those tax rates all along, and will pay even more in the future.
I know this is true from personal experience from my clients. They will not hire, will not expand, and will not take any risks with the spector of higher taxes looming.
That is their choice... Again.
If you consider that civil unrest... or "Revolt", then capitalism must be a revolt enabler.
-
That is their choice... Again.
If you consider that civil unrest... or "Revolt", then capitalism must be a revolt enabler.
I am telling you that people are "revolting" in their own ways. Starving the govt is one of them, which is going on.
You guys can attack me all you like, fine whatever, but you guys are not party to dozens of conversations I have with businwess owners and their fears of what is going on lately.
Additionally, the health bill is scaring businesses from hiring anyone as well, and if they do, will do so only on a 1099 basis or through a temp agency or payroll service.
There are so many liberal dolts on this board who have no clue how business works I dont even know why I bother anymore. Just this morning in my business group, the entire meeting was focused on legal ways to lower you AGI as much as possible.
You can deny it all you like, but I know the truth of what is going on. You cant attack business and expect them to go along for too long.
-
TU - where you are missing the point is that we are in the problem because of reckless spending like Bush did. The housing mess was not Bush's fault BTW. The CRA, The Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddi, with the help of Wall street created that.
Obnama was elected to fix the problems Bush created and carried forward for 8 years with regard to reckless spending, but on policy after policy, is exactly the same, but far worse.
The housing mess was Bush's fault.
"Only 6% of all higher priced loans were covered by the CRA"
Federal Reserve: “Community Reinvestment Act – Not the Cause of the Housing Crisis”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) welcomed the unequivocal conclusion of Federal Reserve officials that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was not responsible for the on-going housing crisis.
“CRA has helped ensure that families and small businesses in lower income and minority communities are not starved of vital loans and investments,” Ellison said. “There are those who continue to make ideologically-driven claims that CRA is the cause of our current woes. The Fed’s research demonstrates without a doubt that those allegations simply don’t hold any water,” Ellison stated.
http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?id=4178:federal-reserve-community-reinvestment-act-not-the-cause-of-the-housing-crisis&option=com_content&catid=10:news&Itemid=6
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
...
Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
The poor were not the cause for the housing meltdown. The CRA is not to blame either.
Bush (and his appointees & colleagues) is largely to blame. Deregulation and unenforced state oversight laws (via federal preemption ordered by Bush) paved the way for the debacle.
-
Ok genius, how was the housing mess Bush's fault?
Serious, because maybe you know something even the congressional comittee who investigated this does not.
-
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal. They sense the more they pay, the more they will pay more to come. In Obama world, the fact that you will pay 40% federal tax, a health care surcharge, higher state taxes, and FICA on most of your income, is proof that you should have paid those tax rates all along, and will pay even more in the future.
I know this is true from personal experience from my clients. They will not hire, will not expand, and will not take any risks with the spector of higher taxes looming.
Good. If they don't have the balls to compete in the market b/c of externalities like taxes, then they are out. Let more sturdy people compete for marketshare.
-
Ok genius, how was the housing mess Bush's fault?
Serious, because maybe you know something even the congressional comittee who investigated this does not.
You don't have bow down before me with terminology like "genius". I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.
Deregulation and unenforced state oversight laws (via federal preemption ordered by Bush) paved the way for the debacle.
Lack of transparency/oversight by Bush and his people made the housing subprime crisis possible.
-
The housing mess was Bush's fault.
"Only 6% of all higher priced loans were covered by the CRA"
Federal Reserve: “Community Reinvestment Act – Not the Cause of the Housing Crisis”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) welcomed the unequivocal conclusion of Federal Reserve officials that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was not responsible for the on-going housing crisis.
“CRA has helped ensure that families and small businesses in lower income and minority communities are not starved of vital loans and investments,” Ellison said. “There are those who continue to make ideologically-driven claims that CRA is the cause of our current woes. The Fed’s research demonstrates without a doubt that those allegations simply don’t hold any water,” Ellison stated.
http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?id=4178:federal-reserve-community-reinvestment-act-not-the-cause-of-the-housing-crisis&option=com_content&catid=10:news&Itemid=6
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
...
Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
The poor were not the cause for the housing meltdown. The CRA is not to blame either.
Bush (and his appointees & colleagues) is largely to blame. Deregulation and unenforced state oversight laws (via federal preemption ordered by Bush) paved the way for the debacle.
Here we go again, You need to do a little research and find the trail of stupidity that lead the US to this fucking mess, From Nixon on up there has been some ACT passed or replealed that has brought us to where we are now. Glass/Steagall was repealed under Clinton not Bush and that is a big contributer. So if you want to blame someone, blame them all republican/democrat.
-
Good. If they don't have the balls to compete in the market b/c of externalities like taxes, then they are out. Let more sturdy people compete for marketshare.
::)
-
The congressional committee that invbestigated this mess said that the CRA was the main culprit in this, yet these boobs want to blame Bush.
Bush is not blameless, but to put everything on him is just stupid. no different than if we blamed the dot.com mess on Clinton.
-
Here we go again, You need to do a little research and find the trail of stupidity that lead the US to this fucking mess, From Nixon on up there has been some ACT passed or replealed that has brought us to where we are now. Glass/Steagall was repealed under Clinton not Bush and that is a big contributer. So if you want to blame someone, blame them all republican/democrat.
I do blame them in some respect. But let's face it, the deregulation crowd got what they wanted from Bush: preempt all mortgage oversight laws with unenforced federal oversight laws, remove regulatory oversight of credit default swaps and adopt a laissez faire attitude towards the housing market. The US businesses knowingly packaged worthless REITs worldwide which spread our problem like cancer to other nations.
That is what took it from a run-of-the-mill problem to a worldwide financial disaster.
-
The congressional committee that invbestigated this mess said that the CRA was the main culprit in this, yet these boobs want to blame Bush.
Bush is not blameless, but to put everything on him is just stupid. no different than if we blamed the dot.com mess on Clinton.
Federal Reserve: “Community Reinvestment Act – Not the Cause of the Housing Crisis”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) welcomed the unequivocal conclusion of Federal Reserve officials that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was not responsible for the on-going housing crisis.
“CRA has helped ensure that families and small businesses in lower income and minority communities are not starved of vital loans and investments,” Ellison said. “There are those who continue to make ideologically-driven claims that CRA is the cause of our current woes. The Fed’s research demonstrates without a doubt that those allegations simply don’t hold any water,” Ellison stated.
http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?id=4178:federal-reserve-community-reinvestment-act-not-the-cause-of-the-housing-crisis&option=com_content&catid=10:news&Itemid=6
-
repubs need to STFU.
Bush took a surplus into a deficit, let 911 happen, lied about WMD, and shoved patriot act down our throats. You couldn't bend over fast enough to defend that.
Suddenly obama is pulling bullshit and you're singing about revolution. STFU, really.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
Congress investigated this matter and disagrees with you.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
Congress investigated this matter and disagrees with you.
You pony up a staff report authored by a right wing hack congressman as proof of a full blown congressional investigation?
No,no.
Look at the official, conclusive and thorough report submitted by the Fed.
All the garbage in that shitpiece you posted has been disproven time and again.
-
Additionally, the health bill is scaring businesses from hiring anyone as well, and if they do, will do so only on a 1099 basis or through a temp agency or payroll service.
Bullshit... The health plan is better for corporate America... I'll tell you why.
The average cost of healthcare to a corporation that provides it is 17%.
The government says they will take it over for a flat 8%.
Which one would most corporations go with? Hmmm?
This is GOOD for corporate america... Isn't that where the jobs are?
-
Bullshit... The health plan is better for corporate America... I'll tell you why.
The average cost of healthcare to a corporation that provides it is 17%.
The government says they will take it over for a flat 8%.
Which one would most corporations go with? Hmmm?
This is GOOD for corporate america... Isn't that where the jobs are?
Thank you for making my point all along on how this bill will wend private insurance and force everyone onto the govt plan whether employees like it or not.
This is how the health bill ends private insurance in the long run and results in a govt takeover.
-
Thank you for making my point all along on how this bill will wend private insurance and force everyone onto the govt plan whether employees like it or not.
This is how the health bill ends private insurance in the long run and results in a govt takeover.
How does that prove your point about businesses not hiring people?
I agree that there are things about the healthcare plan I do not like... But business not liking it is not it.
The fact I probably won't have a choice bothers me... The fact that Insurance companies will likely be gone is another... That's job loss.
However, maybe it will cause some Insurance carriers to lower THEIR costs so they stay in business.
Competition is never bad right?
-
How does that prove your point about businesses not hiring people?
I agree that there are things about the healthcare plan I do not like... But business not liking it is not it.
The fact I probably won't have a choice bothers me... The fact that Insurance companies will likely be gone is another... That's job loss.
However, maybe it will cause some Insurance carriers to lower THEIR costs so they stay in business.
Competition is never bad right?
My business clients right now are not hiring because of uncertainty. Uncertainty with new regs and uncertainty with taxes, especially in NYC. So what they are doing is hiring only through temp agencies and payroll services and not offering anything as far as benes go.
Insurance companies need a wide pool of people paying and few claims so that hopefully the claims are less than the premiums collected. The less peopel the carriers can include in the pool of insureds means that it will be impossible to stay in business, especially if they have to cover all sorts of conditions that they already dont have to.
At least you are smart enough to see the point I have been making for weeks as to how millions will get dumped on the govt system wehether they like it or not.
It seesm to me that the wealthy will be able to afford private insurance, but most people, whether they like it or not, wont even have the choice.
-
How does that prove your point about businesses not hiring people?
I agree that there are things about the healthcare plan I do not like... But business not liking it is not it.
The fact I probably won't have a choice bothers me... The fact that Insurance companies will likely be gone is another... That's job loss.
However, maybe it will cause some Insurance carriers to lower THEIR costs so they stay in business.
Competition is never bad right?
Monopolized competition is always best! ;)
-
Monopolized competition is always best! ;)
That is what will happen when only the govt insures health care. There will be no comp., only whatever the govt offers.
-
It seesm to me that the wealthy will be able to afford private insurance, but most people, whether they like it or not, wont even have the choice.
Unless they are in a company that happens to have the magic number under 8% or are a Google or a Yahoo or a Microsoft or whatever... Then yes... You're most likely correct.
-
My business clients right now are not hiring because of uncertainty. Uncertainty with new regs and uncertainty with taxes, especially in NYC. So what they are doing is hiring only through temp agencies and payroll services and not offering anything as far as benes go.
Insurance companies need a wide pool of people paying and few claims so that hopefully the claims are less than the premiums collected. The less peopel the carriers can include in the pool of insureds means that it will be impossible to stay in business, especially if they have to cover all sorts of conditions that they already dont have to.
At least you are smart enough to see the point I have been making for weeks as to how millions will get dumped on the govt system wehether they like it or not.
It seesm to me that the wealthy will be able to afford private insurance, but most people, whether they like it or not, wont even have the choice.
Private insurance co's would rather see you DIE than pay your claim. FUUCK THEM!!
-
Private insurance co's would rather see you DIE than pay your claim. FUUCK THEM!!
And so will the govt when you get sick and it is broke because it underestimated how many people will get dumped on the system.
-
That is what will happen when only the govt insures health care. There will be no comp., only whatever the govt offers.
This happening right now... Insurance companies in cahoots.
-
Unless they are in a company that happens to have the magic number under 8% or are a Google or a Yahoo or a Microsoft or whatever... Then yes... You're most likely correct.
The only thing I can maybe see is if you have the presitgous positions at top law firms, banks, etc, you can negotiate for good insurance.
However, most employees will simply get dumped on the public plan because their companies will have to compete with other companies who do the same.
I keep going back to my example of two plumbing companies in the same neighborhood. As soon as one does it and is able to lower his prices and be more competitive than the other, the other company will follow and put its employees also on the public plan.
Lower costs of course is a good thing, however, I dont see how this does that. Maybe the business has lower costs, but the costs are going to get shifted to the taxpayers in the form of higher taxes.
-
That is what will happen when only the govt insures health care. There will be no comp., only whatever the govt offers.
My buddy works for the VA. He loves his Government healthcare. HH6 loves his healthcare too.
Government healthcare is not the boggyman!
-
This happening right now... Insurance companies in cahoots.
Oh I agree! There is really no competition right now. I use myself for example. When I went into business I wanted a low premimum high deductible plan, but that was not offered in NYS because of Ins. Regs. and the companies probably dont like it.
I was forced to pay for expensive insurance that covers all sorts of things that would never apply to me.
-
The only thing I can maybe see is if you have the presitgous positions at top law firms, banks, etc, you can negotiate for good insurance.
However, most employees will simply get dumped on the public plan because their companies will have to compete with other companies who do the same.
I keep going back to my example of two plumbing companies in the same neighborhood. As soon as one does it and is able to lower his prices and be more competitive than the other, the other company will follow and put its employees also on the public plan.
Lower costs of course is a good thing, however, I dont see how this does that. Maybe the business has lower costs, but the costs are going to get shifted to the taxpayers in the form of higher taxes.
Maybe, but here's the next question... Let's say right now you have a premium... You pay some and the company pays some.
If you do the public healthcare, do you still have a premium? If not... Isn't that a good thing... I can keep a little extra money from the check, maybe my taxes go up a bit, but does it not equal out in the long run? I don't know... Just tossing stuff out there for thought.
-
Maybe, but here's the next question... Let's say right now you have a premium... You pay some and the company pays some.
If you do the public healthcare, do you still have a premium? If not... Isn't that a good thing... I can keep a little extra money from the check, maybe my taxes go up a bit, but does it not equal out in the long run? I don't know... Just tossing stuff out there for thought.
I really dont see how the govt is going to cover all sorts of things, like pre-existing condfitions, etc etc, and do it at a lower cost than a private company can.
It just does not make any sense to me how we can cover 45 million new people, include all sorts of pre-existing conditions, lower income people, illegals, etc, and not have massive cost overruns and chaos when those people by definition will cost more than they pay in.
It seems to me that there will have to be a new payroll tax or somwething to do this.
-
Good points 240. This is exactly like the repubs now claiming the Obama admin is taking away the constitution. News flash! Bush already ruined your rights with the Patriot Act but hey that was for national security and all so i guess it's okay right? Wrong!
I wouldn't listen to this Palin fan boy 240. 333 spreads bullsh*t all the time. Remember how many people were suppose to be at the tea parties? HA! paled in comparison with the people who showed up to support Obama on the campaign trail, at his inauguration etc etc. Just more lies trying to spread dis sent that isn't there because a majority support Obama.
Oh wait! That majority are all illegals and/or don't pay taxes right? hahaha more lies from the repub spin factory of Palin fan boys.
So tell me if the Patriot was so bad, Why does Obama use it.
He could get rid of it. Instead he made it worse and far more reaching.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html
The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.
In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."
-
Most of the fucktards that post here don't have a clue about what the Patriot Act does and never will because they are too lazy to do any research.
I have posted at least a dozen times in the past year what exactly the Patriot Act does and no one pays attention.
I'll give the concise version for our mentally challenged members-- All the Patriot Act does is allow information sharing between government agencies to be more efficent AND allow the government to use methods of investigation in fighting terrorism that it has used for literally 30 years+ in combating Drug Dealers and Spys. THATS IT!
Roving wiretaps, no knock warrants, phone tapping, the works= Have all been allowed for years and years and years by the Federal Government long before Bush ever became president.
Hope this helps.
-
I really dont see how the govt is going to cover all sorts of things, like pre-existing condfitions, etc etc, and do it at a lower cost than a private company can.
It just does not make any sense to me how we can cover 45 million new people, include all sorts of pre-existing conditions, lower income people, illegals, etc, and not have massive cost overruns and chaos when those people by definition will cost more than they pay in.
It seems to me that there will have to be a new payroll tax or somwething to do this.
Gov. insurance does not have to cover the cost of insurance executive salaries and stock options (http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm)- hundreds of millions right there, sponsoring golf tournaments, or excess slick advertising campaigns with million dollar spokes people.
Once the gov. plan eliminates a great portion of these middle man sponges, the true cost of coverage should come into play.
I'd rather have a gov. bureaucrat than a private bureaucrat deciding the validity of my coverage. The gov. bureaucrat doesn't have his income tied to denying my insurance claim or the pressure to increase company share value by denying as many claims as possible.
That's a big reason I don't like privatized health insurance. It just doesn't work well b/c of the profit motive.
-
Gov. insurance does not have to cover the cost of insurance executive salaries and stock options (http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm)- hundreds of millions right there, sponsoring golf tournaments, or excess slick advertising campaigns with million dollar spokes people.
Once the gov. plan eliminates a great portion of these middle man sponges, the true cost of coverage should come into play.
I'd rather have a gov. bureaucrat than a private bureaucrat deciding the validity of my coverage. The gov. bureaucrat doesn't have his income tied to denying my insurance claim or the pressure to increase company share value by denying as many claims as possible.
That's a big reason I don't like privatized health insurance. It just doesn't work well b/c of the profit motive.
I dont like the idea of third party pay insurance either, BUT, the govt will have ration care in the long run.
-
I dont like the idea of third party pay insurance either, BUT, the govt will have ration care in the long run.
Private insurance rations health care right now.
There's an appeals process...but good luck with that.
-
So tell me if the Patriot was so bad, Why does Obama use it.
He could get rid of it. Instead he made it worse and far more reaching.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html
The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.
In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."
To me, the problem with the FISA spying was not the spying itself for the most part, it was that Bush violated the terms of FISA to implement a secret extra-governmental spying program. That's unconstitutional and illegal.
Obama's done no such thing.
-
Private insurance rations health care right now.
There's an appeals process...but good luck with that.
Here is what I cant get past Decker.
Although one carrier may suck and put you through the ringer, you have the opition of paying more and going somewhere else.
When the govt takes over, thats it, you have no options and no alternatives.
-
Here is what I cant get past Decker.
Although one carrier may suck and put you through the ringer, you have the opition of paying more and going somewhere else.
Most americans have to stick with the insurance provider utilized by their employer. It's cost prohibitive to shop around for health care. Hell, just look at the costs of COBRA.
When the govt takes over, thats it, you have no options and no alternatives.
Why would you say that? Obama is not pushing a single payer plan.
-
Most americans have to stick with the insurance provider utilized by their employer. It's cost prohibitive to shop around for health care. Hell, just look at the costs of COBRA.
Why would you say that? Obama is not pushing a single payer plan.
Yes he is. His plan is geared towards putting the private companies out of business over time.