Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Free market capitalism brought us the absolute catastrophe at the end of Bush's two terms.......
Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Changing and making reforms are not the same as privatizing it and making people contribute to a private profit making industry instead of an entity controlled by elected officials.I like the math that dictates that if you are bringing in less money than you are spending you need to increase your income and or decrease you expenditures. The US government is able to do that with with SS in the flash of legislation and signature of the President. Increased age of retirement, reduced benefits to the wealthy who don't need them and increasing the cut off limits for contributing ......Been hearing that scare tactic sky is falling prediction for about 80 years........Its design guarantees its eventual failure.
Not a "tactic," simple math. I'm sorry you don't like math.
You want to destroy SS!!!!! Shriek! Cry!
I like the math that dictates that if you are bringing in less money than you are spending you need to increase your income and or decrease you expenditures. The US government is able to do that with with SS in the flash of legislation and signature of the President. Increased age of retirement, reduced benefits to the wealthy who don't need them and increasing the cut off limits for contributing are all ways of keeping SS solvent and working.Been hearing that scare tactic sky is falling prediction for about 80 years........It is designed to never fail in it's primary purpose.....
Its design guarantees its eventual failure.
Not a "tactic," simple math. I'm sorry you don't like math.
The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Free market capitalism brought us the absolute catastrophe at the end of Bush's two terms.......
Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
The Reagan era made corruption, law breaking and thievery acceptable and even admired.The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Free market capitalism brought us the absolute catastrophe at the end of Bush's two terms.......
Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
I was a Software Developer on Wall Street from the very early 80s until the very late 90s.
The Feds allowing Financial Institutions to break the law was very much alive under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.
The code that enforced law was flipped on and off at will by Managing Directors.
Campaign contributions have major sway.
The Reagan era made corruption, law breaking and thievery acceptable and even admired.The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Free market capitalism brought us the absolute catastrophe at the end of Bush's two terms.......
Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
I was a Software Developer on Wall Street from the very early 80s until the very late 90s.
The Feds allowing Financial Institutions to break the law was very much alive under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.
The code that enforced law was flipped on and off at will by Managing Directors.
Campaign contributions have major sway.
If I was to get Hyper, I could make your hair stand on end with the corruption that is Wall Street.The Reagan era made corruption, law breaking and thievery acceptable and even admired.The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
I was a Software Developer on Wall Street from the very early 80s until the very late 90s.
The Feds allowing Financial Institutions to break the law was very much alive under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.
The code that enforced law was flipped on and off at will by Managing Directors.
Campaign contributions have major sway.
Hyper-partisan nonsense, as usual.
Agreed.The government meddling was to NOT interfere with Lending Institutions breaking the rules.Free market capitalism brought us the absolute catastrophe at the end of Bush's two terms.......
Wrong. Government meddling brought that.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
I was a Software Developer on Wall Street from the very early 80s until the very late 90s.
The Feds allowing Financial Institutions to break the law was very much alive under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.
The code that enforced law was flipped on and off at will by Managing Directors.
Campaign contributions have major sway.
Agreed.
Both parties are equally complicit. Sadly, the partisans on both sides don't see this reality. This allows the two parties and the bankers to continue the charade.
Imagine the power of the all those a-hole managing directors at Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, etc...they must be laughing all the way to their bank. Both parties are completely owned.
Government meddling forced lending institutions to make bad loans. These bad loans were, predictably, sold and resold to avoid the inevitable and profit before the shit hit the fan. It all started with government meddling, chiefly by a FRANKly irresponsible congress-person.
FDR took office during the worst depression in world history. He was elected 4 times, and had WW2 all but won on his death. At the end of his presidency, America was the largest, most prosperous, indeed, the only, super power in the world.
These three sentences alone make him one of history's most successful presidents.
O.K.
By the same token....
Ronald Reagan took office as the economy was tanking.
He hardly campaigned in 1984 and almost totally swept his opponent.
If he could have run in 1988....No problem.
The U.S. had one of it's longest expansions following his presidency.
I guess he rates too.
Or did you want to rethink that ?
Not particularly.
So, I'll take that to mean you think Reagan belonged up there with FDR.
That would be an erroneous assumption on your part.
The radical left hates Nixon for some complicated reason related to a second rate burglary but FDR put American citizens behind barbed wire based on the color of their skins and the slant of their eyes. You could almost understand the executive order if every Japanese American citizen was placed in custody for the duration of the war but it only happened in California and the Japanese American citizens were forced to sell their real estate to democrat real estate speculators before they were incarcerated. Amazingly nobody protested when the Japanese on Hawaii which was the hotbed of espionage were free to roam. God help us if a president ever kicks the Constitution in the trash like FDR did.
FDR took office during the worst depression in world history. He was elected 4 times, and had WW2 all but won on his death. At the end of his presidency, America was the largest, most prosperous, indeed, the only, super power in the world.
These three sentences alone make him one of history's most successful presidents.
O.K.
By the same token....
Ronald Reagan took office as the economy was tanking.
He hardly campaigned in 1984 and almost totally swept his opponent.
If he could have run in 1988....No problem.
The U.S. had one of it's longest expansions following his presidency.
I guess he rates too.
Or did you want to rethink that ?
Not particularly.
So, I'll take that to mean you think Reagan belonged up there with FDR.
That would be an erroneous assumption on your part.
Of course.
Reagan was a far better and more successful President.
FDR empowered the Soviet Communist empire, facilitating over 100 million dead and enslaved.
Reagan defeated same, and did so without firing a shot.
FDR extended the great recession into the Great Depression, while Reagan was responsible for a 25 year economic expansion.
Reagan believed in the Constitution, while Roosevelt shredded it.
No contest.
O.K.
By the same token....
Ronald Reagan took office as the economy was tanking.
He hardly campaigned in 1984 and almost totally swept his opponent.
If he could have run in 1988....No problem.
The U.S. had one of it's longest expansions following his presidency.
I guess he rates too.
Or did you want to rethink that ?
Not particularly.
So, I'll take that to mean you think Reagan belonged up there with FDR.
That would be an erroneous assumption on your part.
Of course.
Reagan was a far better and more successful President.
FDR empowered the Soviet Communist empire, facilitating over 100 million dead and enslaved.
Reagan defeated same, and did so without firing a shot.
FDR extended the great recession into the Great Depression, while Reagan was responsible for a 25 year economic expansion.
Reagan believed in the Constitution, while Roosevelt shredded it.
No contest.
Reagan an was a horrible president who left us with a generation of rightwingnut idiots who think government is the problem. Thanks lee Atwater.
Not particularly.
So, I'll take that to mean you think Reagan belonged up there with FDR.
That would be an erroneous assumption on your part.
Of course.
Reagan was a far better and more successful President.
FDR empowered the Soviet Communist empire, facilitating over 100 million dead and enslaved.
Reagan defeated same, and did so without firing a shot.
FDR extended the great recession into the Great Depression, while Reagan was responsible for a 25 year economic expansion.
Reagan believed in the Constitution, while Roosevelt shredded it.
No contest.
Reagan an was a horrible president who left us with a generation of rightwingnut idiots who think government is the problem. Thanks lee Atwater.
Rather than your usual 'is not, is noooottttttt' post, a thinking individual would have responded by pointing out any errors in the fact-filled post to which you attempted to respond.
You didn't because, as is the case with Liberals...you can't.
The pattern is constant....
Conservatives defend their stated position with data, facts,and truth.
Liberals attack via blind devotion to their ideological masters.
Don't ever change.
I believe rules should be set in place to limit political campaigns then strictly enforced.
So, I'll take that to mean you think Reagan belonged up there with FDR.
That would be an erroneous assumption on your part.
Of course.
Reagan was a far better and more successful President.
FDR empowered the Soviet Communist empire, facilitating over 100 million dead and enslaved.
Reagan defeated same, and did so without firing a shot.
FDR extended the great recession into the Great Depression, while Reagan was responsible for a 25 year economic expansion.
Reagan believed in the Constitution, while Roosevelt shredded it.
No contest.
Reagan an was a horrible president who left us with a generation of rightwingnut idiots who think government is the problem. Thanks lee Atwater.
Rather than your usual 'is not, is noooottttttt' post, a thinking individual would have responded by pointing out any errors in the fact-filled post to which you attempted to respond.
You didn't because, as is the case with Liberals...you can't.
The pattern is constant....
Conservatives defend their stated position with data, facts,and truth.
Liberals attack via blind devotion to their ideological masters.
Don't ever change.
I am a thinking person. That is wh I rarely engage with the cut and paste queen.
I do not have to prove your OPINION is wrong. It is simply baseless.and I said why that opinion is baseless.
Now perhaps if you were a thinking person, *you* would understand that. You know, instead of lashing out because I have the temerity to call you on your nonsense. Maybe you should work on that. You'll be less bitter in the long run.
I do not have to prove your OPINION is wrong......
