Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines

[240 is Back]

I guess you want to blame Bush for this? 

Bush didn't cause katrina nor the piss poor local and state evac and reaction.

Did he do a good job assessing the situation and delivering federal aid?  Um, no.  "Heckuva job, brownie" when CNN and wlamart could deliver water but the natinoal guard couldn't.

I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day.  But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?

[The Luke]

I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day.  But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?

"George Bush doesn't care about black people".

When only Kanye West has the balls to say it out loud, America is in trouble.


The Luke

[240 is Back]

I think it was more about areas of the country that pay more taxes getting a ton of help right away.  Poorer areas, they didn't seem to rush to.

I dont think race had much to do with it.  Black millionaires had bottled water and bags of ice delivered the next day in Sanibel, FL.  White poor people in the french quarter were still thirsty a week later.

[headhuntersix]

To paraphrase Jonny Cohrane...the color of race is green.

[Kazan]

I think it was more about areas of the country that pay more taxes getting a ton of help right away.  Poorer areas, they didn't seem to rush to.

I dont think race had much to do with it.  Black millionaires had bottled water and bags of ice delivered the next day in Sanibel, FL.  White poor people in the french quarter were still thirsty a week later.

Ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

And Kanye West is an ignorant asshole that doesn't know how the laws of the country work, that gives him the freedom to say stupid shit.

[240 is Back]

Ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Yeah, I'm well aware of that.  I'm talking about helping people.  in SW FL, there were national guard trucks from city to city, everywhere.  Rifles, camo and hummers.

Guarding port charlotte and punta gorda from anyone entering.  in ft myers handing out water and ice and directing traffic.

they were very helpful, and we were glad to have them here.  I thought they'd be there quick for katrina as well.  They weren't.  Both were under Bush, I believe.

[Soul Crusher]

"George Bush doesn't care about black people".

When only Kanye West has the balls to say it out loud, America is in trouble.


The Luke

Thats funny considering GWB appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him. 

[Soul Crusher]

Bush didn't cause katrina nor the piss poor local and state evac and reaction.

Did he do a good job assessing the situation and delivering federal aid?  Um, no.  "Heckuva job, brownie" when CNN and wlamart could deliver water but the natinoal guard couldn't.

I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day.  But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?

thats what I said, i didnot blame bush for the most of it, but for the fema trailers and the $$$ they spent afterwards on bums who used it for hookers and liquor. 

[Kazan]

Thats funny considering GWB appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him. 

You know they weren't nearly black enough

[Soul Crusher]

Luke you give 1/2 truths in all your posts.  you blame GWB for everything but refuse to understand or acknowledge that the congress makes the laws not the president.  

With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble?  To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.  

With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.  

With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.

With regard to Katrina - your claims are ludicrous.  sure Bush screwed up the aftermath with the FEMA trailers and spending cards, etc, but the evacuation is mostly the fault of the black mayor nagin.  Does he hate blacks too?  

You want to blame bush for everything, fine, but at least be honest about the role the congress played in enabling his actions.    

[The Luke]

Luke you give 1/2 truths in all your posts.  you blame GWB for everything but refuse to understand or acknowledge that the congress makes the laws not the president.  

With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble?  To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.  

With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.  

With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.

With regard to Katrina - your claims are ludicrous.  sure Bush screwed up the aftermath with the FEMA trailers and spending cards, etc, but the evacuation is mostly the fault of the black mayor nagin.  Does he hate blacks too?  

You want to blame bush for everything, fine, but at least be honest about the role the congress played in enabling his actions.    

...I'll give you a chance to delete/edit this post, it's a self-owning par excellence.

Read it again.



The Luke
PS ...if you do delete it, I'll delete my quoting of it. Not out to embarrass anyone.

[Soul Crusher]

...I'll give you a chance to delete/edit this post, it's a self-owning par excellence.

Read it again.



The Luke
PS ...if you do delete it, I'll delete my quoting of it. Not out to embarrass anyone.

Go ahead.  You blamed bush for everything in your post.  I am telling you that these matters are more complicated than simply blaming one individual.  You ignored the congress' role in much of what you blame Bush for and you me to delete my post? 

Give me a break bro. 

As far as Bush hating blacks, thats more nonsense.  Did he hate blacks in appointing more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him?     

[Soul Crusher]

LUKE - YOU BLAMED GWB FOR THE HOUSING MESS - WHILE IGNORING THIS:
________________________ ________________________ ___________-

Morning Bell: Fannie and Freddie at Core of Housing Crisis
 Posted June 10th, 2008 at 9.11am in Enterprise and Free Markets.


Jim Johnson, the man recently chosen by Sen. Barack Obama to search for a VP candidate, is under fire for receiving millions of dollars in below-market loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. chief executive Angelo Mozilo. Private entities like Countrywide are free to give generous loan agreements to whomever they want, so there is nothing technically illegal about what Johnson did. Just like there is nothing technically illegal about the $21 million that the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae paid Johnson for his work as CEO of Fannie in 1998. However, the Wall Street Journal also reports that Johnson personally worked closely with Mozilo to streamline the underwriting process making transactions between Countrywide and Fannie more efficient. That is what should concern the American taxpayer.

Countrywide is the largest loan servicer in the nation. It has been accused by bankruptcy judges of using dubious tactics to issue mortgages to unqualified borrowers, and has been at the center of the nation’s still-unfolding mortgage crisis. In the last three quarters, Countrywide has lost $2.5 billion, and has $6 billion in nonperforming assets. Did Countrywide get into all this financial trouble by itself? No. The federal government was key in enabling Countrywide’s blatantly irresponsible behavior. Fannie Mae is the biggest buyer of Countrywide loans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not actually lend money to borrowers. Instead, they make their money by purchasing loans, bundling them together and then selling them as mortgaged back securities. Due to their quasi-government status, Freddie and Fannie are exempt from state and local taxes and can borrow money at lower rates than their competitors. With these advantages, Freddie and Fannie have cornered the market on mortgage securitization. Most years, Freddie and Fannie help finance 40% of all U.S. mortgages. In the first quarter of 2008, they handled 80% of the market. If Fannie and Freddie were private entities, they would be a considered a monopoly by Department of Justice anti-trust guidelines.

Fannie and Freddie are neck deep in the subprime industry as well. In 1995 Fannie and Freddie convinced the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to let them get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included risky loans to low-income borrowers. In 2003 Fannie and Freddie bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004 they bought $175 billion — 44% of the subprime market. Now Fannie and Freddie are in the same financial hole as Countrywide. They suffered $9 billion in mortgage-related losses last year and are sitting on another $19 billion in additional losses they have not yet fully acknowledged.

Conservatives have been pushing for fundamental reform of Freddie and Fannie for years. Long before the subprime crisis became apparent, conservatives warned that “their commanding presence exposes U.S. financial markets to excessive risk and instability.” Now Congress is actually considering some common-sense reform, but the good measures are being held hostage as part of a larger housing package that includes a permanent slush fund for corrupt partisan groups like ACORN and a massive bailout of irresponsible lenders like Countrywide. Congress should focus on what is important and necessary: reforming Freddie and Fannie to ensure that future housing problems do not develop into crises that could threaten the stability of the overall financial system or require massive taxpayer-funded bailouts.

________________________ ______________________-


If anyone needs to edit theirs posts, its you. 

[The Luke]

Okay dude... you actually asked for it this time.


Consider if you will the stupidity of your previous post.

Maybe you might appreciate it better if we reversed the order of arguments:

With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.  

With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.

...you actually provided not one, but two examples of Bush pushing unpopular legislation through the Congress and Senate only one line AFTER you made the following assertion:

With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble?  To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.    

So which is it?

Bush pushed through unpopular budgets; unpopular legislation; two wars; torture; evisceration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... but he just couldn't address the unprecedented housing bubble because Congress wouldn't let him?

That's plain apologetic reasoning, the very thing I have been accusing you of. You are actually providing examples of your faulty ideologically blinkered arguments to counter the claim that your argument is faulty and ideologically blinkered...? WTF?


Dude you simply don't understand.


Aside from this nitpicking, you have completely missed the entire point of my argument throughout this thread.

I'm asserting that you (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when you exaggerate every single failing of Obama's while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.

Let me repeat that:
You (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when openly attack Obama while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.


Sorry for the repetition, but I can only question your reading comprehension when you futilely attempt to counter my assertion by:
-accusing me of blaming everything on Bush (I haven't, and that isn't my point)
-making excuses for Bush's failings (which actually makes my point for me)


How can we have a reasoned discussion when your only counter arguments are to attack a point I am NOT making, and angrily PROVING the point I am making.


This is fast sounding like one of your many "Missile Defense Shield" threads... threads I have deliberately avoided posting in because as a trained physicist, taking on THAT much delusional misunderstood pseudo-science at once would probably make my head explode.


The Luke

[240 is Back]

thats what I said, i didnot blame bush for the most of it, but for the fema trailers and the $$$ they spent afterwards on bums who used it for hookers and liquor. 

The prez has a responsibility to realize when state and local support isn't there, and to act, to save american lives, when there's a natural disaster.

Aside from the incompetence and failure to act, much of the local infrastructure was decimated to a point where NOLA cops were too bust guarding their own homes or abandoning their posts to loot Walmarts to keep any law and order. 

His response time was very poor.  his praising FEMA director for this response was terrible move.  He turned away ships of supplies from foreign govts who offered to deliver it - then didn't deliver any of his own!

I have a feeling, if given that same mess, Obama will have a better response, if only to one-up Bush.  So far, he's shown good and bad moves, but no fear to make major changes.  bush didn't rock the boat that much.  Obama's taking on big oil and paying to keep print media alive.  Big moves.

[Soul Crusher]

Okay dude... you actually asked for it this time.


Consider if you will the stupidity of your previous post.

Maybe you might appreciate it better if we reversed the order of arguments:
...you actually provided not one, but two examples of Bush pushing unpopular legislation through the Congress and Senate only one line AFTER you made the following assertion:
So which is it?

Bush pushed through unpopular budgets; unpopular legislation; two wars; torture; evisceration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... but he just couldn't address the unprecedented housing bubble because Congress wouldn't let him?

That's plain apologetic reasoning, the very thing I have been accusing you of. You are actually providing examples of your faulty ideologically blinkered arguments to counter the claim that your argument is faulty and ideologically blinkered...? WTF?


Dude you simply don't understand.


Aside from this nitpicking, you have completely missed the entire point of my argument throughout this thread.

I'm asserting that you (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when you exaggerate every single failing of Obama's while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.

Let me repeat that:
You (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when openly attack Obama while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.


Sorry for the repetition, but I can only question your reading comprehension when you futilely attempt to counter my assertion by:
-accusing me of blaming everything on Bush (I haven't, and that isn't my point)
-making excuses for Bush's failings (which actually makes my point for me)


How can we have a reasoned discussion when your only counter arguments are to attack a point I am NOT making, and angrily PROVING the point I am making.


This is fast sounding like one of your many "Missile Defense Shield" threads... threads I have deliberately avoided posting in because as a trained physicist, taking on THAT much delusional misunderstood pseudo-science at once would probably make my head explode.


The Luke

George Bush got bi-partisan support for the things he did and those things were unpopular only after things went bad.  So re-read your history book fool.  

As far as budgets go, the dems wanted him to spend more!  In fact, the dems only were happy with Bush when he expandaded govt, and yes, Bush was a fiscal spendthrift.  

Again, you make these silly arguments that bush single handidly did all of this all while ignoring the role of the congress and others.  Fine, if that makes you feel better, fine.  

BTW - re=read your original post.  You did blame him single handidly for everything.  

Bush was a failure of a president, i agree with you and dont know why you attribute things to me i never said, but your ignoring the role of the congress in the things you complain about it just either dishonesty or ignorance on your part.  

[Soul Crusher]

The original patriot act passed 98-1 in the senate and by a large margin in the house. 

So you were wrong on that Luke. 

[The Luke]

Bush was a failure of a president, i agree with you and dont know why you attribute things to me i never said, but your ignoring the role of the congress in the things you complain about it just either dishonesty or ignorance on your part.  

...finally.

That's my point right there.

It took you two pages of consistent challenging to get you to admit that, but even then you still have to clarify it by apportioning blame to the Congress (and Senate).

That's my point... you have to be bulled with fact after fact just to stop your incessant apologising for George Dubya Bush. Yet you need no prompting whatsoever to misconstrue every single action of Obama's as the end of western civilization.

Obama wants to talk to schoolchildren... a dozen hysterical 333386 threads.

Bush assumes dictatorial powers... excuse after excuse after excuse.


Consistency.

Lack of consistency is the Achilles' Heel of the right wing.


You (arguably) have a viewpoint, but formalise it as yet another hypocritical inconsistent quasi-religious dogma... simply put, you lack the courage of your brainwashed convictions.


The Luke  

[Soul Crusher]

...finally.

That's my point right there.

It took you two pages of consistent challenging to get you to admit that, but even then you still have to clarify it by apportioning blame to the Congress (and Senate).

That's my point... you have to be bulled with fact after fact just to stop your incessant apologising for George Dubya Bush. Yet you need no prompting whatsoever to misconstrue every single action of Obama's as the end of western civilization.

Obama wants to talk to schoolchildren... a dozen hysterical 333386 threads.

Bush assumes dictatorial powers... excuse after excuse after excuse.


Consistency.

Lack of consistency is the Achilles' Heel of the right wing.


You (arguably) have a viewpoint, but formalise it as yet another hypocritical inconsistent quasi-religious dogma... simply put, you lack the courage of your brainwashed convictions.


The Luke  

I dont know who you are mistaking me with but i have bashed Bush over many many issues.  maybe you are confusing me with someone else.  I have not defended Bush, I have said that he alone is not to blame for the many things YOU  YOURSELF POSTED.     If you take my correcting your mistakes of fact as defending bush thats your perogative. 


I used your list, not mine and you try to turn it into something else when I showed you how over half your list was utter nonsense.   

[The Luke]

I dont know who you are mistaking me with but i have bashed Bush over many many issues.  maybe you are confusing me with someone else. 

...Maybe I'm confusing you with the guy who started this thread and then spent several pages idiotically arguing that the Geneva Convention; War Crimes Conventions; International Declaration of Human Rights; American Civil Law; American Military Law; and International War Crimes Tribunal don't apply to people whom George Dubya Bush declares to be "terrorists".

Thats hardly "bashing" Bush... that's unquestioningly accepting an ignorant Jeebus-Freak country club drunk as your own personal totalitarian dictator.


Judging by the vitriol you spout regarding Obama, any morally-consistent patriot such as yourself, must have been absoltely apoplectic about the Bush administration.

How could I (and the rest of GetBig) have missed that?

I don't remember thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush threads filling the Politics Board in proper objective proportion to the dozens of hysterical anti-Obama theads you pollute the board with now.


Get my point?... you are ideologically blinkered; partisan and irrationally myopic to the point of chroic self-delusion.


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...Maybe I'm confusing you with the guy who started this thread and then spent several pages idiotically arguing that the Geneva Convention; War Crimes Conventions; International Declaration of Human Rights; American Civil Law; American Military Law; and International War Crimes Tribunal don't apply to people whom George Dubya Bush declares to be "terrorists".

Thats hardly "bashing" Bush... that's unquestioningly accepting an ignorant Jeebus-Freak country club drunk as your own personal totalitarian dictator.


Judging by the vitriol you spout regarding Obama, any morally-consistent patriot such as yourself, must have been absoltely apoplectic about the Bush administration.

How could I (and the rest of GetBig) have missed that?

I don't remember thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush threads filling the Politics Board in proper objective proportion to the dozens of hysterical anti-Obama theads you pollute the board with now.


Get my point?... you are ideologically blinkered; partisan and irrationally myopic to the point of chroic self-delusion.


The Luke

Maybe you missed it because I was not signed up at getbig back then jackass. 

[The Luke]

Maybe you missed it because I was not signed up at getbig back then jackass. 

...you only joined GetBig AFTER Obama's innauguration?



The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...you only joined GetBig AFTER Obama's innauguration?



The Luke

No, I dont remember the date but I had grave misgivings over Bush since 2004.  I have listed my issues with Bush many many times.

He was a disaster financially, especially with TARP at the end.  I disagreed with his spending and recklessness on immigration, CFR, harriet meirs, the iraq wars' prosecution, the pandering to his texas buddies, the Katrina money afterwards with the trailers etc.  There are many many areas i had huge problems with.   

[The Luke]

No, I dont remember the date but I had grave misgivings over Bush since 2004.  I have listed my issues with Bush many many times.

...well you didn't protest anywhere near as much about Bush as you have been regarding Obama.

Surely, if you had any consistency to your viewpoint then your three (is it three?) hysterical misinformed rants about Obama scrapping the supposed "Missile Defence Shield" must have been propotionately balanced by hundreds of threads denouncing every egregious step in the legalisation of torture by the Bush administration?

Right?

Those hundreds of threads exist right? Or at least there are many dozens of such threads, right?

It's not as if you are simple-minded misinformed idealogue, right?

Every sane person reading your posts is coming to the wrong conclusion, right?


Forgive me if I politely conclude that you are full of shit when you have been defending institutionalised toture in this very thread.

Why must you defend Bush? Is it because he is a Evangelical Christian, or because he is dumb-as-a-rock?


I don't know if you are a fellow Evangelical Christian, but I do know...



The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...well you didn't protest anywhere near as much about Bush as you have been regarding Obama.

Surely, if you had any consistency to your viewpoint then your three (is it three?) hysterical misinformed rants about Obama scrapping the supposed "Missile Defence Shield" must have been propotionately balanced by hundreds of threads denouncing every egregious step in the legalisation of torture by the Bush administration?

Right?

Those hundreds of threads exist right? Or at least there are many dozens of such threads, right?

It's not as if you are simple-minded misinformed idealogue, right?

Every sane person reading your posts is coming to the wrong conclusion, right?


Forgive me if I politely conclude that you are full of shit when you have been defending institutionalised toture in this very thread.

Why must you defend Bush? Is it because he is a Evangelical Christian, or because he is dumb-as-a-rock?


I don't know if you are a fellow Evangelical Christian, but I do know...

The Luke

Unreal.  You posted a litany of items you blamed GWB for that myself and others proved was false and maybe contained grains of truth.  We pointed out your numerous factual mistakes line by line.  Yet, somehow you consider others pointing out YOUR FALSE ASSERTIONS as defending GWB?  Nice try.  Better luck next time.   

Your problem The Luke is that you think you are supremely informed on these issues when in fact the opposite is true.  When anyone points out your errors and false assertions you get upset and go off into trying to play amateur psychiatrist in order to cover your mistakes. 

As far as not "protesting Bush" as much, like i said, I was not here back then, but was thrown off of FR in 2005 for said "protests" and have written many letters to my reps protesting actions by the admn. 

So eat shit potato boy.