The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[georgephillip]

It's one thing to limit interest rates and its another to regulate the banks into being a tool that is forced to lend to whoever the government believes need money...

Let the banks give credit to those who are worthy of it.......

It's the poor mans fault hes poor and it's his fault he had a no credit and the government should have no say in whether he gets credit or not....

Of course the democrats come in and force the banks to make high risk loans and those ideas came back to bite them in the ass and all they can do is blame republicans...

It was never the republicans idea to force banks to make high risk loans - why the fuck would they do that???

Why the fuck would I knowingly lend you money if I knew you could never pay it back??

Democrats are big ass bullies and they had no right forcing banks to lend like the bullies they are.

Democrats circumvented the will of the banks...

Democrats AND Republicans circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit.

They knowingly loaned money to people they knew would never be able to repay the loan because Republicans AND Democrats were ready, willing and able to cover all loses with taxpayer monies.

Here's one place it started in 2004:

"Representatives of five of Wall Street's dominant investment banks gathered around a blonde wood conference table on a February night almost three years ago. Their talks over take-out Chinese food led to the perfect formula for a U.S. housing collapse...

The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust.

"The tools also magnified losses so much that a small number of defaulting subprime borrowers could devastate securities held by banks and pension funds globally, freeze corporate lending, and bring the world's credit markets to a standstill."

Subprime Securities Market Began as `Group of 5' Over Chinese - Bloomberg

Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market. They are busy planning future heists as we speak.

How did the government, "circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit"

Be specific.

"The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust"

Please explain how? That is if you know anything about these securities.
If you're just cutting and pasting with no understanding, just let me know and I'll stop mentioning it.

"Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market"

Who profited most? How exactly?

Here's one way "government circumvented the will of 99% of all US taxpayers..."

"Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001)."

Why do you repeatedly ask questions you obviously know the answer to?
Be specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats AND Republicans circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit.

They knowingly loaned money to people they knew would never be able to repay the loan because Republicans AND Democrats were ready, willing and able to cover all loses with taxpayer monies.

Here's one place it started in 2004:

"Representatives of five of Wall Street's dominant investment banks gathered around a blonde wood conference table on a February night almost three years ago. Their talks over take-out Chinese food led to the perfect formula for a U.S. housing collapse...

The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust.

"The tools also magnified losses so much that a small number of defaulting subprime borrowers could devastate securities held by banks and pension funds globally, freeze corporate lending, and bring the world's credit markets to a standstill."

Subprime Securities Market Began as `Group of 5' Over Chinese - Bloomberg

Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market. They are busy planning future heists as we speak.

How did the government, "circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit"

Be specific.

"The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust"

Please explain how? That is if you know anything about these securities.
If you're just cutting and pasting with no understanding, just let me know and I'll stop mentioning it.

"Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market"

Who profited most? How exactly?

Here's one way "government circumvented the will of 99% of all US taxpayers..."

"Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001)."

Why do you repeatedly ask questions you obviously know the answer to?
Be specific.

Gramm

99% of taxpayers were against Gramm–Leach–Bliley? When?
I'll bet more people are against Obamacare than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
When is Obama going to push to reverse Obamacare?

 

[georgephillip]

How did the government, "circumvented the will of 99% of all taxpayers by enabling Wall Street speculators bet against the US housing market and satisfy demand from institutional investors for high yield loans to people with poor credit"

Be specific.

"The tools these traders, lawyers and others fabricated allowed firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgage defaults but they also magnified losses when boom turned to bust"

Please explain how? That is if you know anything about these securities.
If you're just cutting and pasting with no understanding, just let me know and I'll stop mentioning it.

"Republicans and Democrats serve those who profit the most from crimes like the collapse of the US housing market"

Who profited most? How exactly?

Here's one way "government circumvented the will of 99% of all US taxpayers..."

"Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001)."

Why do you repeatedly ask questions you obviously know the answer to?
Be specific.

Gramm

99% of taxpayers were against Gramm–Leach–Bliley? When?
I'll bet more people are against Obamacare than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
When is Obama going to push to reverse Obamacare?

The overwhelming majority of Americans are against the consequences of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Obama care and the Medicare Modernization Act serve the same corporate interests.
Obama will reverse Obama care when Bush proposes single payer.

 

[007]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Another fucking MORON from kullyfornia. No wonder the state is financially in the toilet. They don't seem to understand SHIT about money. Just ask their new IDIOT governor, their old IDIOT governor, that just signed a new bill into law giving ILLEGAL ALIENS tuition money to go to college. I guess he just wasn't satisfied with how BROKE the state was already. He wants it to be MORE in the hole. Fucking MORONS from California.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's one way "government circumvented the will of 99% of all US taxpayers..."

"Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001)."

Why do you repeatedly ask questions you obviously know the answer to?
Be specific.

Gramm

99% of taxpayers were against Gramm–Leach–Bliley? When?
I'll bet more people are against Obamacare than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
When is Obama going to push to reverse Obamacare?

The overwhelming majority of Americans are against the consequences of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Obama care and the Medicare Modernization Act serve the same corporate interests.
Obama will reverse Obama care when Bush proposes single payer.

The overwhelming majority of Americans never heard of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Most don't know what a derivative is or how it works.
Obama won't reverse Obama care, the new president will do it in 2013.
The economy will boom!

 

[Intense]

Conservatives can answer it. The federal government doesn't generate income.

Federal government writes tax codes and redistributes income gains from one percentage of workers to another.

In 1980 seven percent of total US annual income went to the richest 1%.
Today the figure is 20%.

The best explanation I see is the richest 1% have bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats to write tax policies that shift the burden of taxation off unearned income and onto wages and salaries.

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

So in essence you are admitting to Government corruption at the highest levels. The sheer complexity of the Tax Code bears witness to that. This is a good first step for you GP. Consider next the dangers of the all powerful government that you yourself subscribe to. What area of government control is not subject to corruption or abuse of authority? By empowering government to be stronger in it's authority over us and less accountable, how exactly does that serve the needs of the people it claims to serve? Handing out other peoples candy may be more the issue than complaining about the amounts one can extort. Just a thought. What if you were wrong from the start, and built on and compounded the problem by every misstep you took? Think one step past the Scapegoat phase. Here's a nice consideration for your next Convention theme.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRf1Ad_Txsg]‪Sammy Davis Jnr The Candy Man‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Sammy Davis Jnr The Candy Man

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Another fucking MORON from kullyfornia. No wonder the state is financially in the toilet. They don't seem to understand SHIT about money. Just ask their new IDIOT governor, their old IDIOT governor, that just signed a new bill into law giving ILLEGAL ALIENS tuition money to go to college. I guess he just wasn't satisfied with how BROKE the state was already. He wants it to be MORE in the hole. Fucking MORONS from California.

I notice you're too fucking stupid to answer the question.
Do you attribute your stupidity to inbreeding?
Maybe you should stop fucking your dog...
Retard.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

If Social Security takes in $100 billion less in taxes than they have to pay out, where do you think they'll get the money?

Spell it out for Paul Ryan and me.

 

[kaz]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

This is exactly why I love capping the debt and I'm dubious on the balanced budget amendment. Social Security's "assets" are government loaning money to itself, spending it and then calling it an asset. Then they don't count the money they collected as deficit spending. It's a lie and a scam.

That accounting shenanigans can get by a balanced budget amendment. They will simply create other programs and not count them. You can't get past the debt cap because you may not count it, but you still gotta borrow it. These lies are why the national debt went up every year under Clinton while he ran so called surpluses.

So in this case, to pay back social security, the government has to sell debt. Bam, they can't unless the cap is raised. You're right to be cynical of us who don't trust government, we don't trust government and we definitely aren't trying to figure out ways to get around the truth so you can send welfare checks to senior citizens and lie that they saved for it and it's not welfare. It is. It's other people's money, they saved zero.

 

[georgephillip]

Conservatives can answer it. The federal government doesn't generate income.

Federal government writes tax codes and redistributes income gains from one percentage of workers to another.

In 1980 seven percent of total US annual income went to the richest 1%.
Today the figure is 20%.

The best explanation I see is the richest 1% have bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats to write tax policies that shift the burden of taxation off unearned income and onto wages and salaries.

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

So in essence you are admitting to Government corruption at the highest levels. The sheer complexity of the Tax Code bears witness to that. This is a good first step for you GP. Consider next the dangers of the all powerful government that you yourself subscribe to. What area of government control is not subject to corruption or abuse of authority? By empowering government to be stronger in it's authority over us and less accountable, how exactly does that serve the needs of the people it claims to serve? Handing out other peoples candy may be more the issue than complaining about the amounts one can extort. Just a thought. What if you were wrong from the start, and built on and compounded the problem by every misstep you took? Think one step past the Scapegoat phase. Here's a nice consideration for your next Convention theme.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRf1Ad_Txsg]‪Sammy Davis Jnr The Candy Man‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Sammy Davis Jnr The Candy Man

Sammy is still dead.

Who do you blame for the following?:

"He (Sammy) died in debt to the Internal Revenue Service, and his estate was the subject of legal battles."

Sammy or the government?
Both?

For the last 500 years the only thing all politicians feared more than being caught doing business with organized crime is losing control of the revenue streams generated by organized criminal activity.

That level of governmental corruption exists by redistributing candy from those who make it to parasites like Sammy and Goldman Sachs.

If you don't want government to control the monopoly of violence, what's your choice?
The Tea Party?(Americans for Prosperity??)

Sammy Davis, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ShackledNation]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

The "trust fund" is full of nonmarketable US government bonds. When money is put into a government bond, it finances government spending. Government invests payroll tax revenue into its own bonds, revenue which is then spent on other government expenditures. In this scenario, the federal government is both the issuer and the recipient of the bond, which in itself is completely insane. When cashing in the bonds, the government literally has to raise the revenue to pay back itself. It does this by taxing or borrowing the money, the latter more common.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as obvious as the sun at high noon. Your failure and the failure of others to see this obvious reality is, quite frankly, disturbing.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

If Social Security takes in $100 billion less in taxes than they have to pay out, where do you think they'll get the money?

Spell it out for Paul Ryan and me.

Nice dodge. You were the one who said the SS trust fund was flush with assets. Explain how the government turns the ASSETS, you said Bush deposited into the Trust funds, into the cash to pay the $100 billion.

 

[Chris]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

The "trust fund" is full of nonmarketable US government bonds. When money is put into a government bond, it finances government spending. Government invests payroll tax revenue into its own bonds, revenue which is then spent on other government expenditures. In this scenario, the federal government is both the issuer and the recipient of the bond, which in itself is completely insane. When cashing in the bonds, the government literally has to raise the revenue to pay back itself. It does this by taxing or borrowing the money, the latter more common.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as obvious as the sun at high noon. Your failure and the failure of others to see this obvious reality is, quite frankly, disturbing.

What is kooky is your desire to get rid of a great program which has helped old people for SEVENTY YEARS!

 

[ShackledNation]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

The "trust fund" is full of nonmarketable US government bonds. When money is put into a government bond, it finances government spending. Government invests payroll tax revenue into its own bonds, revenue which is then spent on other government expenditures. In this scenario, the federal government is both the issuer and the recipient of the bond, which in itself is completely insane. When cashing in the bonds, the government literally has to raise the revenue to pay back itself. It does this by taxing or borrowing the money, the latter more common.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as obvious as the sun at high noon. Your failure and the failure of others to see this obvious reality is, quite frankly, disturbing.

What is kooky is your desire to get rid of a great program which has helped old people for SEVENTY YEARS!

Apparently you missed the point that old people would have been better off without social security.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

If Social Security takes in $100 billion less in taxes than they have to pay out, where do you think they'll get the money?

Spell it out for Paul Ryan and me.

Nice dodge. You were the one who said the SS trust fund was flush with assets. Explain how the government turns the ASSETS, you said Bush deposited into the Trust funds, into the cash to pay the $100 billion.

You insisted on counting debt owed to the trust fund. If you do that, you also have to count the assets.
If you understood accounting, or simple addition, you'd know what I mean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Toddster, please explain to your fellow CON$ervative CF in the below thread how the SS trust fund is flush with assets.
He seems to thing the government has to borrow money to pay SS benefits.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...llace-what-hes-really-saying.html#post3968621

The "trust fund" is full of nonmarketable US government bonds. When money is put into a government bond, it finances government spending. Government invests payroll tax revenue into its own bonds, revenue which is then spent on other government expenditures. In this scenario, the federal government is both the issuer and the recipient of the bond, which in itself is completely insane. When cashing in the bonds, the government literally has to raise the revenue to pay back itself. It does this by taxing or borrowing the money, the latter more common.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as obvious as the sun at high noon. Your failure and the failure of others to see this obvious reality is, quite frankly, disturbing.

What is kooky is your desire to get rid of a great program which has helped old people for SEVENTY YEARS!

It is actuarially unsound.

 

[ShackledNation]

If Social Security takes in $100 billion less in taxes than they have to pay out, where do you think they'll get the money?

Spell it out for Paul Ryan and me.

Nice dodge. You were the one who said the SS trust fund was flush with assets. Explain how the government turns the ASSETS, you said Bush deposited into the Trust funds, into the cash to pay the $100 billion.

You insisted on counting debt owed to the trust fund. If you do that, you also have to count the assets.
If you understood accounting, or simple addition, you'd know what I mean.

The government buys its own bonds, spends the money used to buy those bonds, and calls the bonds an asset. It then turns the assets into cash by raising taxes or borrowing. Its a Ponzi scheme, and the assets offered by a Ponzi scheme are no assets at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice dodge. You were the one who said the SS trust fund was flush with assets. Explain how the government turns the ASSETS, you said Bush deposited into the Trust funds, into the cash to pay the $100 billion.

You insisted on counting debt owed to the trust fund. If you do that, you also have to count the assets.
If you understood accounting, or simple addition, you'd know what I mean.

The government buys its own bonds, spends the money used to buy those bonds, and calls the bonds an asset. It then turns the assets into cash by raising taxes or borrowing. Its a Ponzi scheme, and the assets offered by a Ponzi scheme are no assets at all.

The government should just spend the money without resorting to the bond dodge.
As you noticed, the existence of the "Trust Fund" doesn't help pay the benefits during regular times or during a debt ceiling shutdown.

 

[ShackledNation]

You insisted on counting debt owed to the trust fund. If you do that, you also have to count the assets.
If you understood accounting, or simple addition, you'd know what I mean.

The government buys its own bonds, spends the money used to buy those bonds, and calls the bonds an asset. It then turns the assets into cash by raising taxes or borrowing. Its a Ponzi scheme, and the assets offered by a Ponzi scheme are no assets at all.

The government should just spend the money without resorting to the bond dodge.
As you noticed, the existence of the "Trust Fund" doesn't help pay the benefits during regular times or during a debt ceiling shutdown.

In reality, it really is just spending the money. When you buy a bond, you finance government spending. When the government buys its own bond, it is simply financing its own spending. And it does that through taxing and borrowing. It is literally no different than just taxing and borrowing the money without a "trust fund." In reality, there is no trust fund.